Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I entered the debate - I was enjoying the debate- and the site stopped working. Even now it is telling me I have debates due - despite the fact that it did not let me in and now time has run out.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What happens if you believe in a God that didn't do a book.A NONE BOOK WRITING GOD if you will?Are Your saying that , " Beliving in a none book writing god " is the same as being a atheists ?
What an insightful thought you have produced. And oh so true. A believer of whatever without some form of objective truth that is transparent and can be analysed leaves us only with subjectivity, relativism, fluidity. This of course is the position of an atheist. And his moral universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Hi rosend, thanks again for your thoughts.
As I indicated above - I am not trying to diminish any of the other kings. But given that Jesus was a specific figure with a specific title - I think that he like the two identified by yourself are unique and as such are distinguished not jut by biblical reference but by title.
The other kings, may or may not have been known as sons of God. I really don't know. and perhaps in non-canonical literature this might be revealed - but in the biblical literature - it clearly is not seen there.
Stephen wanted to make a point. I have only asked him to prove it from the bible. He has been unable to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I am asking you for myself and the many members of this forum, in was there any complications in your Gender Reassignment Surgery as specifically shown as FACT in my post #17 within this thread? Yes, the long time membership remembers your sickening and ungodly sexual deviant post as an alleged "Indian," but letting that be on the wayside for now, can you tell us why you slapped Jesus in the face once again by having this Satanic gender reassignment from man to woman?“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)How can YOU honor Jesus with your body by changing sexual genders? Jesus obviously wanted you to be a MAN at birth (Proverbs 16:33), and then you obviously told Jesus “F*#K OFF because you changed your sexual gender from a man to a Bible 2nd class woman. Huh?I am giving you a small chance to explain yourself in this ungodly action of yours, okay? Remember, Jesus is watching you! (Hebrews 4:13).YOU MAY BEGIN, THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE TO SAVE YOURSELF FROM FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT:
Hello Brother, glad to see you back again. Certainly have missed the color around here without you. You always bring a better part of humanity with you.
In regards to your very personal and somewhat non-politically correct invasive and insulting attack on me, I refer to my previous response to this.
If you recall, which I have no doubt you do, that I said my profile was as accurate as yours and ought to be considered as such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I wouldn't call evolution an essential dogma of atheists. It is however very compatable to atheism, as their belief is fundamentally a nihilistic one. That there is no absolute truth, only relative truths.
What is your position on evolution? Would you call yourself a 6 day creationist - 24 hour periods - or something else?
The religion of the future will be anti-Christ, and fundamentally anti-human. The dignity of being made in the image of God will be done away with(evolution fascilitates the dehumanization), the love of many will wax cold, and men will be equal to cattle only valuable insofar as what can be exploited out of them by the supermen who reign over them as gods.
I think that the religion of the future will be two-fold. Some or most will be anti-Christ and one will be pro-Christ.
That is where it all leads.
Anti-Christ doctrine arises from Satan and death - and will return to it in the future.
The western "scientific" materialist worldview couldn't be more alien to being human. I go so far as to call it anti-human. It is like knowing a tree by chopping it down and counting its rings.
Possibly.
Compare this to knowing a tree by planting it, watching it grow, sitting under it's shade, having your first kiss under it, burying your dog next to it, etc.
Yes, experience is important and valid. I think preaching the gospel is like having the kiss whilst lecturing is describing the kiss. Two different thing.
I am a human, not a collection of particles and energy. In the end, where does this worldview lead, this atheistic one? We are just masses of organic tissue, whose abortion from life is no moral issue.But to go back to my first point, there are forms of atheism that do not even try to make the pretense of being rational. True atheists, that is, real deal nihilists, do not believe a thing they say. They simply delight in tearing everything down. Most people who think they are atheists today have been deceived by the real deal ones. Most self professed atheists today actually believe there is absolute truth, they have simply been confused about what it is they profess.
Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
You say that not every king is called a son of God "in any sense more than any person or subject of the nation of Israel is a son of god" but why isn't that enough of a sense? If the claim is that every king is a son of God, then as all children of Israel are sons of God, all kings who are of the nation are. As to why David and Solomon are specified to a level beyond that of everyone else, I would suggest that there are two elements here: the first is that these two, as the only 2 over a unified nation for the whole of their reigns, achieve a kingly status heading up a dynasty that will return in the messianic era, and also that these two are considered to be prophets whereas other kings were not and so God makes special note of this in his communicating with them. This does not lower the other kings (in that they were of the nation) or Moses, or any other prophet not called a "son of God" explicitly, or remove the title "sons of Gods" from any other member of the nation.
That is a good question.
But you see this topic of Stevie Wonder arose because I said that the NT position for Jesus was that he was son of Man and Son of God. If Jesus is simply saying he was a child of Israel then it would add nothing to his words and would not have brought the ire of the pharisees on his neck, where they accused him of blasphemy. If he was merely calling himself a son of David, which is also what Stevie is suggesting then - the Pharisees would have understood it as such and addressed such - rather there is no evidence from the NT that the pharisees ever considered Jesus anything more than a person from Nazareth.
I don't have an issue with all Israelites being called children of God, generally. But when Jesus was speaking about himself or when the authors were referring to him, they were using it in the specific sense such as Psalm 2 - not in the general sense.
Stephen wants us to think that when Jesus used that term or when the authors used that term they were using it in the general sense. Clearly that is a misreading of the texts. There is no evidence to support it. I indicated that I had never heard a biblical argument that all kings of Israel were specifically called the sons of God. I still have not seen it biblically proved. While I am happy to concede that all Israelites were called children or sons of God in a general sense, and that this included all the kings, and also David, Solomon and Jesus, this is not the same as saying that ALL kings of David's line were called specifically the Sons of God. Not in the Bible at least. And all I have asked is for Stephen to produce the evidence of any of the other kings, and I would be happy to consider there is more to it. Yet, while the evidence is lacking for this specificity within the text - then it is not proved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I have been trying to.
If an atheist is a person who says "I have seen no evidence that God exists, this evidence they are not seeing or trying to see is not in a vacuum.
If an atheist honestly is looking for evidence rather than just dismissing unreasonably ALL evidence, then they would reasonably ask the question "what evidence is there for the existence of God?"
The number one reason people people believe in God is our own existence. For an atheist not to even consider this number one reason in their "looking for evidence", would not only be remiss - it would be reckless. For anyone to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God's existence and ignore completely the origin of humanity is absurd.
It reveals as I said recklessness, irrationality, and blind faith. The atheist has to reckon with origin of man if he is to honestly say he has explored the evidence and concluded there is no God. If the atheist does this however, he has to admit that evolution and origin theory are both doctrines of Atheism. If he ignores it, he demonstrates he believes by blind and reckless faith, since it would be an absurdity to say you have seen no evidence for God and yet also concede you have not explored the evidence properly. It would be better and more consistent to be agnostic than to jump into calling yourself an atheist.
And just for completeness sake, I think the idea of being an atheist is much more logical and reasonable than being an agnostic in most cases. I take the view that agnostic as defined is - someone who says "It is not possible to know whether God exists or not - therefore I refuse to be a theist and I refuse to be an atheist". It is a self-contradictory statement. How can anyone know it is not possible to know whether God exists or not - UNLESS they know at least one thing about God. They have to know that we cannot know anything about God in order to make such a statement - which obviously is a contradiction. How can someone know anything about God and yet know one thing about God? Hence - God must exist. At least Atheism is not such a self contradictory statement per se.
Yet, as we have seen above - atheism is a worldview. And it has its unique set of doctrines - one which includes evolution. So if an atheist does not believe in evolution they are in fact revealing that they are an atheist by blind faith and dogma not because of lack of evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why? I think announcing that the Messiah was on his way and preparing the way for him is the greatest thing anyone at any time could do - anyone who is not the messiah anyway.
But I also think this related to the OT dispensation. Not to the New.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stevie, you have not proved the point.The evidence is all clear above and repeated below. You cannot handle the stone cold fact that once again you have been show to be as bible ignorant as the Brother so rightly and often accuses you to be.And it is Stephen, you childish little prig.God said of Jesus: This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17God said of Solomon : King Solomon: He shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him. I Chronicles 22:9-10God said of David: You are My son; today I have begotten you."Psalms 2:7And you have the brass balls to call me biblically ignorant!!!!!! Stop trying to wriggle from the biblical FACTS!!!!!! you coward!!!!!!The truth is that YOU didn't know and this is the true fact that you are trying to escape from. How embarrassing for you.
I will repeat it since you are cannot see the trees for the wood, Stevie. I figure you call me names, like Dear, that you are ok with me calling you such terms of endearment.
Rosend clarified what you said - but she also clearly has not taken it to the same end as you. In fact quite correctly she identified the same issues I did.
So let me make it clear for you again. Not every king of Israel from David is a Son of God, not in any sense more than any person or subject of the nation of Israel is a son of god. We have one, perhaps two kings of Israel who were called Sons of God. But no more - until Jesus. You have extrapolated, speculated, but not proved from the bible. You are the one who is trying to wriggle out of this one. Not me. As I said above, prove me wrong, show me one other king from Israel who is named or called a son of God. You can't. There is no biblical evidence for it.
And just to make sure you understand the error you are making. Is there any specific reason why only David and Solomon get a mention or are called this name? Any reason that none of the other kings had a right too - until Jesus came along? And the answer is yes. God made a covenant with David. He did not make a covenant with any other king of Israel. And Solomon is the original kingly Son of David. Solomon who was the OT paradigm of foreshadowing the real messiah. There is every reason to understand why these two men ALONE in the OT kings of Israel were called the Son of God. And yet no other king was called the son of God for good reason, save and except perhaps through the very generalisation that the children of Israel were all sons of God. Jesus of course was the next and only one thereafter called the son of God - because he was the true messiah - the one who would die on the cross for the sins of the world.
If you consider what you have written to be biblical proof then ergo it explains your ignorance of biblical understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Is it?
A strawman is when I produce an argument that you don't believe but suggest you do - and then destroy it.
Which argument are you suggesting I destroyed that you do not believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Lol. she is the farthest thing from a bandwagon jumper i've ever met. She thought the religious ideas were nonsense, even after she had probed their proponents with honest questions. So it was quite an honest endeavor I assure you.
LOL! Please don't think I am having a go. Nor am I accusing her of being dishonest per se. My position is that atheism is a worldview. And often atheists tend to say like you did above that the idea of no god is not related to origin of humanity. I think that has to be a nonsense. It is inconsistent with the view that people say on one hand that they come to atheism with a rational position but freely admit they have not asked all of the appropriate questions.
If an atheist is genuine in their non-belief it must be the case that they have explored the things that most people would use to prove God exists. One of those basic proofs is how the world and humanity came about. For an atheist to conclude there is no God and never have explored that question is honestly misleading.
The problem I see it is this: Atheists do not want to admit they are a worldview - they prefer for some reason to think that are a non-belief and that there is no unity at all with each other. I think they are fooling themselves. I think they are self-deceived. Yet - on the other hand they want people to think that they have come to their position of atheism as a considered view. Yet, if they have no worldview and no other implicit doctrines they are actually revealing that THEY HAVE NOT thought at all about God or evidence for or against his existence.
It is quite revealing. For someone to say they have not thought about evolution but to be an atheist is to say I have not asked all of the appropriate questions. For someone to say that they have not seen any evidence for God and yet never explored origin theory is to say you have not asked all of the questions. It is quite literally admitting that you are an atheist without even knowing what evidence for God would look like. It is silly.
The other problem is that they want their cake and they want to eat it as well. Thanks by the way - you have just confirmed for me that God is real. And that Atheism is a worldview. Thanks for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
She just wasn't raised in religion. She didn't have the word atheist until recently, but the religions she encountered, such as those of her peers was just nonsensical to her.The origin of humanity is separate from the question of if there's a god lol
So people keep telling me.
Yes, it is inconsistent isn't? And it is also not intellectually honest either, is it? It is absurd on one hand to say - "there is no evidence to convince me there is a god" and yet in the same breath suggest "well I have not actually asked all the questions yet". If she had no religion - and had no concept of the word atheist - why jump on the bandwagon before she has at least asked some of the sensible basic questions? TO do so - is an example of someone who has not actually thought through her position but someone who has just jumped in by "blind faith".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I did nor forfeit - the site did not work. That debate site does not work. You know and I know it and everyone else knows it. LOL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you saying we don't have to believe in evolution - just accept because if we don't we will rejected. Wow! are you a high priest for the atheistic worldview?
This is what I would call extreme blind faith that you require. LOL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
->@TradesecretMy wife was an atheist wayyy before she knew what evolution was.
We are all inconsistent at times. But please ask your wife - what led her to become an atheist? If she takes the view that there simply was no evidence - how did she come to this conclusion on a reasonable basis without considering how humanity came about? Probably, I suggest that she either listened to someone debunk religion and then decided that this fit with her experience. Yet if that is the case - this would be inconsistent with her position of atheist.
After all, an atheist is someone who does not believe or had not observed that there is any evidence for the existence of God. But for this to be a reasonable and consistent and honest non-belief - this person must have asked the question about where humanity came from and how humanity arrived at where they are today. If they have not done so - then they are conceding that the position they came to in regard to atheism is not an honest one. It is dishonest to say you have found no evidence for God's existence and then admit you have not even considered the origin and how of humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't think the answer is dependent upon biblical interpretation but rather upon how evolution is defined.Its not a matter of how evolution is defined, but how well it is understood and accepted.
Accepted and understood as in dogma and doctrine? Believe this or be rejected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The process of evolution is the change in allele frequency from generation to generation.The theory of evolution (as separate from the process of evolution) is the best explanation put forth by the scientific community to explain the diversity of species we observe in our world.If either of these ideas invalidates your religion I may have some bad news for you.
You made the statement it was a matter of interpretation of the bible. I think that is nonsense. True, many people interpret the bible differently. It does not change the fact that most people interpret it one way. In our world of fluidity, people will seek to do anything - their own particular way. It does not change the way something was supposed to be done. For example, evolution. There are many ways of defining what it is but just because people want to define it in their own way does not change what its true definition is.
This is why I say when asking the question about compatibility with the bible - is not about interpretation but definition.
Now I certainly concede that there are many well meaning and excellent Christians who hold different views on these subjects and indeed some of these hold quite different methodologies of interpretation. But I have never met anyone who holds that they are incompatible on the basis of interpretation.
In fact - most Christians I know hold to a form of what is called framework hypothesis. This means that they take the first 6 days of Genesis as described as a pattern and form of the world's creation. Not as a literalistic picture of it. These people have no issues with millions of years. Others see the days of creation as 1000s of years - a theistic evolution point of view. Others simply see the Genesis picture as a myth. Now please note that despite the fact that these three interpretations are in theistic belief the most dominant, the fact that they are all quite diverse from each other does not make it incompatible with evolution.
And let us go further to the kind of interpretation methodology used by some for Genesis. And while it is sometimes labeled literal, that is rather a crude way of describing the language which is used. In Hebrew language, like other languages, it has a range of genres, including poetry and prophecy, and history, and narrative and myth. And for each of these styles of genre there are particular language clues that indicate what the author is presenting. The interesting thing about the first three chapters of Genesis is that it uses a very specific type of genre clue that is used throughout the Bible. And the clue here is distinct from poetry and it is distinct from myth and it is distinct from prophecy. These pointers are that it is historical narrative. Now most academics recognize this even when they disagree with it. And it is one of the first things that academics have to deal with if they reject this position because the markings and pointers are so visible to the person reading in Hebrew. But it is an interesting matter all the same.
But even now is the historical narrative incompatible with evolution? Well I say - it depends upon how evolution is defined. After all if evolution is simply referring to process - to the fact that species change and adapt over time- then this fits perfectly with the creation position which also teaches the same thing. The Bible's explanation provides a perfectly rationale for the diversity on the planet. God made creatures with the ability to change and adapt.
So if this is the picture then they are both compatible. But evolutionists don't simply stop there, do they? No, then they speculate backwards. They need to explain their position - that it requires millions of years for adaption and change. And furthermore that not only do species change but from kind to kind. Although it is obvious they never use the kind. And kind to them is simply a word created by creationists to try and confuse the issue.
Hence it is the definition of evolution but not in the way defined by you above but in the way that it is unpacked that produces the incompatability with some in the bible.
The one thing that all Christian theists have in common no matter whether they are sold on evolution or not is that God is the creator of life.
Created:
-->
@Juice
I have pity for you. I have great pity for you.
I don't need you pity.
You start off by listing a bunch of random qualities that are supposed to prove atheist as some sort of degenerate. Which is embarrassing because atheist are statistically smarter. Oops.
Sorry, old chap, my list of qualities are not supposed to prove anything except the fact that most of the atheists I know are like that. I love the studies that people such as yourself produce and reproduce. But they are biased studies - and easily shown to be so. Academics rarely if ever actually go the lower economic socio groups to select their specimens for atheists. They don't. They go to the local uni's. They never go to the local tradies to select their Christian counterparts - and I use Christian intentionally because from my point of view - if Christians were selected as a subgroup as opposed to all religious - and if atheists were selected from how people lived their lives - then the studies would demonstrate quite a different picture. Unfortunately, if such a study was produced - it would be rejected as being biased. Hence - whenever studies are done - unless it fits the picture of how the academics wants to frame the answer - it is dismissed. Fake studies are becoming more the norm today.
Religion does not blind the masses per se. Nor does it require blind obedience.I have to say, I physically laughed when I read that. I laughed. Religion is ALL about blind obedience. Religion is ALL about blind faith. It is quite literally a battle of who can ignore the most facts in the name of pure belief.
Again - I am glad you can laugh. But the fact is - churches are voluntary organisations. We love logic and we like to teach people how to use logic and reasoning. The fact of religions verses Christianity needs to be mentioned as well. We don't have to ignore facts. We embrace them.
most of the atheists I know simply drink it up without thinking.You really are a comedian. Either that or you are actually looking at a mirror. This is YOU. YOU are the one who blindly believes in an old musty book. YOU are the one you has blind faith. You say that I drink up facts without thinking? You are terribly wrong. I am not like you. I actually look at facts. I actually question things. I actually think. I actually value science and reasoning.
Why? I don't blindly believe in a musty old book. I took several years to learn the ancient languages so that I could read it myself. I learned all about the ancient cultures so that I could understand as best I could how they lived back in those times so that I could best understand what the authors are saying. I trained with people from all different religions and non-religions in order to make sure that I could best understand these cultures and languages. I am not convinced that you look at facts and question them. I too value logic and science and reasoning.
Well there we go again. More fake reporting. Christians do not obtain their happiness from a book.Perhaps you misunderstood me. Here is what I know. Christians, whether conscious or not, are happy that they will live in eternal bliss, so long they bend their backs. They are happy that their good deeds are noticed. They are happy that they have a purpose. They are happy that they are not a little organism on a spinning ball in the middle of nowhere. They are happy that there is a superior being who cares and loves them.
Christians as a rule don't believe that their eternal bliss is dependent upon them being good - so bending their back is a straw man argument. Are we happy we have a purpose? Of course. So what. Is it what makes us happy? No. Are we happy we are not little organisms on a spinning ball? Absolutely. But again - this is not what makes us happy. Our identity is not found in our happiness. Our joy is not found in being happy. Do we like that God cares for us? Of course - why would we not be ok with that?
And I understand. Who doesn't want to be loved? Who doesn't want purpose? Who doesn't want to be recognised? But I personally do want to be happy because of a fictional character. I personally do not want to make up someone to love me. Because that is sad. Imagine needing to make up an imaginary person, and then feel satisfied that you are loved by your own false creation. Sounds a bit like doublethink from 1984.
But you don't understand. And that is the issue. these things are not what makes us happy. I don't want to be happy just to please you. I dont want to be happy just to believe whatever you tell me is true - or to believe whatever i read in a book (science text book). I don't make anyone up to love me. I don't know anyone who does that. Gee I don't even believe that people from other religions - who believe in false gods - make their gods up to believe them. What a silly thing to say.
I too am happy that I have freedom of thought.How exactly are you more free than an atheist? I could very easily make the case that atheist are freer than religious people.
Because unlike you - I can actually think without the restraints of living in a box. I can think outside the box and not be restricted by what my non-faith tells me I can believe in. I can tap into the mind of the Almighty God of the Universe - which you simply just shut your mind from. I am free from sin - which you are not. In fact - you deny even the concept of sin - which is even more telling. You walk around like you are free - and yet you know you are trapped.
If you wish to respond, please give me a short summary on why you believe God is real, despite millions of years worth of evolutionary science, and leading biologists, geologists, historians, politicians and evolutionists say otherwise.
I don't wish to engage in that line of thinking. I don't find it very helpful and typically leads to ill feeling on both sides.
I have attached a video where Sam Harris deconstruct Christianity in 10 minutes. Please take the time to watch it.
Thanks for the video of Sam Harris. I found his comments quite sad really. He engages in straw man arguments - he set up a picture of God - which the bible does not even portray and then set about decimating that one. Not really helpful unless you are preaching to the choir. He utilizes an moral argument that relies upon natural law - or absolute law - and yet fails to provide any reason why it is valid. He does not address the issue of evil - despite trying to say that God is evil. He uses ad hominen and scorn laced arguements - not particular helpful ones. In fact I cannot recall him even using one valid argument. Not one even had been scratching my head.
God is impotent or God does not care. LOL! Seriously. I always find it interesting that on one hand atheists love to accuse God of doing nothing to address the evil in the world - so little girls get raped etc - and then when God judges an entire nation for being evil like raping little girls - then he is cruel and unjust. The fact is God is not superman. He does not fly into a world to save people like that. And no Christian thinks that he does. It is a strawman argument. Similarly to say that God does not care conveniently forgets that for God the biggest problem of the world is sin. Yes, that thing that atheists deny exists. And God just happened to deal with that problem himself.
That was another bit of misinformation Harris portrayed. The bible does not support or condone human sacrifice. It does not. The Hebrew people of all the people at that time and around that time are historically recorded as condemning human sacrifice. They had statutes against it. And when they did practice it because they had mixed with the pagan nations who did practice it - God judged them. It has a sacrificial system. It was bulls and sheep and birds. Not human.
Jesus was not a human sacrifice in the sense of human sacrifices as we understand them. From a human point of view he was executed not to God - but for religious offences of blasphemy. No one offered Jesus up to the God to appease God in his righteousness. There was no priest at his death.
Yet from a biblical point of view - as the Messiah - and as Fully Man and Fully God - it is a picture of God coming down to earth to do what humanity could not do themselves. Does God sacrifice to God? now Christians do not say that God died on the cross. Yet how many sacrifices - human sacrifices in all of the stories you hear about - have the sacrifice rising from the dead? None. Well now we Aslan I suppose - and the little girl from Frozen and others who have used the Jesus story.
And then Sammy boy decided to use God is msyterious. Wow! I have no issue with God being mysterious. If the God of the Bible is accurate then God being mysterious is accurate as well. But this does not mean we have to hide our heads in the sand.
I say the problem of evil for instance is a significant issue for atheists. I think the existence of evil actually proves the existence of God. I think it is one of the best proofs for God's existence.
I think the bigger problem however for atheists is the issue of good. Why are people good? And also why do people die?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have never denied that David was called God's son.I and others here have shown that GOD called Kings his son besides Jesus.But what you asserted was that when the Gospels call Jesus the Son of God they were simply referring to him being the Son of David because all kingly sons of David were called the Son of God.Exactly/ so what the FK are you arguing about? I have shown you the evidence you asked for. Others have shown you evidence that supports what I claimed.And now YOU have done exactly the same. WTF's the matter with you!? God called others his sons, especially KINGS. That is all I have claimed. And you called me a liar and asked for evidence :"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21 TradesecretGod said of Jesus: This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17God said of Solomon : King Solomon: He shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him. I Chronicles 22:9-10God said of David: You are My son; today I have begotten you."Psalms 2:7And you have the brass balls to call me biblically ignorant!!!!!! Stop trying to wriggle from the biblical FACTS!!!!!! you coward!!!!!!The truth is that YOU didn't know and this is the true fact that you are trying to escape from. How embarrassing for you.Now you can go back to your flock and tell them about all the other very much human kings that god also called his son besides Jesus. I should mention it to your elders too.
Stevie, you have not proved the point. You could not prove from the bible that Jesus is called the Son of God because he was from the kingly line of David. As I said - God calling David a son does not prove that all of the David's sons are sons of God. You just make it up. Still true to form. There is nowhere in the Bible that says all kings in the line of David are called sons of God. NONE! and you can't produce what is not there.
You are biblically ignorant - although I have never said that before. But it is true. David is a son. Agreed. Solomon is David's son. Agreed. But now find any other king in the line of Israel called a son - of God. And you won't find one. Why not? because that is not what the OT says.
You have NOT SHOWN that the BIBLE calls ALL the line of David sons of God. LOL! This is why you are the laughing stock. You are the joke.
Matthew actually quotes from Genesis. But don't get that in the way from your story. LOL!
Calling DAvid a son is not suggesting that all his sons are the Sons of God. That is a shoehorn old man. And it is extrapolation. No wonder you took such a long time to respond to my requests - you had nothing. And I guess that you were hoping that if you start of with such nonsense as you did that I would simply go "oh Stephen you magnficant person."
And don't go changing the goal posts now. I claimed Jesus was called the Son of Man and the Son of God. From both divinity and from humanity. You mocked this - saying Jesus as the son of David - indeed as all kings of Israel from David's line were called sons of God. And I at the time, said I had never heard that. I never said I did not know David was called a son. I never said that Solomon's son was not either. I never said anything along those lines. But you mocked me anyway. You snooty nosed ignoramus. LLOL! @ the lack of biblical evidence to support your lies.
Whatever kings wants to call themselves is a matter for them. The Egyptians and the Romans and the Babylonians - and the greeks all thought that they were gods. and sons of Gods. Biblical and Hebrew thought was not the same. The other cultures claimed they were in fact born of the gods. And made their subjects believe it. The Hebrews - and David never claimed such a right. I am not convinced they believed in the divine right of kings either. David certainly never just took his title - he waited. And he generally never lorded it over his people - yes there were occasions when he did - his adultery and murder comes to mind quite quickly. The Hebrews understood that there relationship with God was not biological but covenantal.
Jesus however was different. And this is where I started my comments initially. It is Jesus we were talking about when you threw out your misinformation about the kings of Israel. You were wrong then and now it seems you are wrong here. Was Saul called a son of God? Which of the other kings of Israel or Judah were ever called a son of God? None - because God intentionally and specifically used David as a type of messiah foreshadowing the true Messiah. Hence - your own sources saying - it was David but most likely referring to the future messiah.
LOL @ you. Thanks for the laugh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am not going to reply to your patronizing nonsense. You ask questions. I answer. You use it against me. You are a pissant. Seriously!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
University is university and a college is a college.And qualifications in an assumption will always be what they are, irrespective of the sincerity of those involved.As, no matter how refined an assumption may become, it nonetheless always remains an assumption until it is unequivocally proven to be correct.
SO I guess that means you concede you are wrong. I accept your apology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Do you believe that the bible is compatible with the theory of Evolution?Why or why not?
I don't think the answer is dependent upon biblical interpretation but rather upon how evolution is defined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Don't let Stephen see your answer or he will think you are avoiding the question or worse - "running away".
Created:
-->
@Juice
Perhaps this is because atheists are more practical and are not blinded by the false hope of a next life in eternal bliss. Being depressed because you are sane and in touch with reality is better than being happy while misled, deluded and clouded from the truth. As to how I am a happy atheist, despite knowing that I am just a small particle in an infinite space with no meaning, I am happy with truth, even though it may not be favourable.
You must be an unusual atheist. Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead. Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian.
Most of them don't think very much - although they have an high view of themselves. A lot go to uni and study the Arts. They tend to steer away from Engineering and science or economics. In the legal field, they tend to end up working for Legal Aid. Most are depressed. I have to say it very rare to meet a happy atheist. In fact I cannot think of any at all. I know lots who party - but partying is not the same as being happy. And although I value truth - the question of truth is not always black and white. When the atheist says something like they are happy with truth even though it may not be favourable - it is as its essence a cry of despair. In fact I am not even persuaded it has any truth in the remark. And interestingly and ironically is premised on a view that truth is an ABSOLUTE - which atheists by virtue of their loyalty to non-absolutes makes it a redundant point anyway.
It is like the book 1984 by George Orwell. Would you rather be a happy mindless drone who is blinded from truth, or Winston (protagonist), who understands himself and the errors of his society? Though Winston bears the burden of truth, he is enlightened by it.
1984 was and remains a classic novel. Yet its comparison to religion is nonsensical. Its point was against fascism or socialism and in that context it is vibrant. Religion does not blind the masses per se. Nor does it require blind obedience. And just because some like to say it does not make it so. Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it truth - it only makes it propaganda of which the book 1984 - was at pains to demonstrate is the problem. Atheism today, along with Dawkins repeats ad nauseum such propaganda and most of the atheists I know simply drink it up without thinking.
I am happy that my happiness does not come from a book written out by peasants centuries ago. I am happy because my happiness does not rely on eternal bliss. I am happy that I do not fear eternal burning. I am happy that I am not morally commanded by a superior being. I am happy that I have the freedom of thought.
Well there we go again. More fake reporting. Christians do not obtain their happiness from a book. Even making that statement simply shows evidence of reading someone else's work and not attempting to understand what you are rejecting. In fact what you reject is not Christianity - but the sad and pathetic imagery that Dawkins or whoever you read has put out there - they might label it Christianity or religion - but they don't even have the integrity to find out what Christians and religions actually believe. I don't believe in God for the rewards or the punishments. Another point of fake news from yourself. My happiness does not rely upon eternal bliss. I too am happy that I have freedom of thought.
But that produces a dilemma doesn't? You have to reject that I am telling the truth. You see, it is impossible for you to have free thought and for me to have free thought. At least from your point of view.
I am happy that I am an atheist.
I am happy I am not an Atheist. But let me be clear - that is not what makes me happy.
Created:
-->
@Juice
The God Delusion is preaching to the converted. And only people already of the view that Religion is false will applaud it.
My assessment of it was that was not written properly. Gave significant red herrings - and ad hominin attacks and missed the point. One example was his "God of the gaps" analogy.
And for the record I don't look down on atheists or poor people either. I do dislike elitism and arrogance. And Atheism is one of the most arrogant positions I have come across - it is not dissimilar to the Leftwing progressive position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You know as well as I do that although Darwin articulated the doctrine of Evolution,EVOLUTION =/= DOCTRINE
The word doctrine means "teaching". Yes the modern dictionary probably adds "faith to it" but the word doctrine is simply another word for didactic - which means teaching. By itself a very neutral term. Yet - I would suggest that the word "faith" applies perfectly to the term evolution. I for instance have never seen any evidence whatsoever for evolution. Not one piece of evidence. People refer to the missing link because it is not there. Others dismiss the term the missing link entirely.
A Mutation of a species is not evidence of evolution. It is evidence only of a mutation. Mutation and evolution are not synonyms.
Change is not evidence of evolution. To say evolution is not a doctrine is simply nonsensical.
I am sure you won't deny it is the fact or are you prepared to say that evolution is a modern doctrine that has arisen because of a new type of prophet?SCIENTIST =/= PROPHET
Today the normal mantra in society is - "believe the science". And if someone distrusts the science they are mocked and treated with ridicule. This is no different to how people should respond to prophets. When people don't trust the science - the ultimate authority in society - people don't listen to them. Ridicule or don't believe the science at your peril.
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.Citation please.
No Atheist is going to say they believe in doctrines and dogmas. We don't expect people are going to admit their own inconsistencies. People in denial cannot admit their errors.
An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary.OLD BOOK =/= COMPELLING EVIDENCE
I was not talking about the Bible. I was talking about what is called General Revelation. The world around us.
Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION. There is no contrary doctrine.There are any number of atheists who believe in the plausibility of an intelligent-designer hypothesis, or simply have no opinion on the matter (not everyone's allergic to the words "I don't know" or "epistemological limits").
Aliens??? The problem with reverting to aliens is that aliens MUST have started somewhere. How can anyone not have an opinion on evolution? If someone has termed themselves an atheist - unless they have simply jumped to a conclusion irrationally - cannot say there is no evidence for the existence of God, unless they have asked the question about evolution and the origin of life. IF someone is an atheist and they have never considered that question or formed an opinion, then they have not reasonably come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for the existence of God. They have come to their conclusion on blind faith - either their own or their school teachers or their parents.
So, not only is there a non-belief in a deity -Do you have a non-belief in BRAHMAN? Well then, you also have a non-belief in a deity.
I have said on other occasions that Christians in the early church were considered Atheists because they refused to believe in the Roman Gods.
but there is also an affirmation of a positive doctrine - evolution.This assertion is provably false.
Ok - so do it.
What other doctrines exist - for the atheist?Atheism is a description, not a doctrine.
It is a worldview. It has many doctrines.
Let us explore.I'm looking forward to hearing your ideas.
In due course and at the appropriate time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think the problem for the atheist is that if their position is labeled a worldview - then that implicitly means they too a religion.This is a little silly too. Their are religious atheists. Does an atheist bhudist have two religions? No of course not.
I think you are attempting to conflate two different ideas.
Buddhists don't go around calling themselves atheist Buddhists. They affirm there is no god. But they don't call themselves atheists, not in the way secular atheists do. But the other thing you seem to miss about Buddhists is that they are not an exclusive religion. In other words, they don't have an issue with having two religions - they are what is called a polytheistic religion. I have met so called Christian Buddhists. And I have met so called Muslim Buddhists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
@TradesecretWhy? Because I had no choice, God made me a Christian.Calvinism sighting!
LOL - actually I prefer Jeremiah 1:5.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Great Question - unfortunately what the word believe means is fluid and what the measures of argument and persuasion keep moving when being discussed or presented.
What? I believe Christianity to be correct.
Why? Because I had no choice, God made me a Christian.
Evidence and Argument to make me believe? None.
In hindsight, I can draw attention to many evidence and arguments that are valid - yet - even if God stood in front of me and did amazing miracles - this would not prove to me that God is real or that Christianity is correct.
I don't believe because I have been convinced. I am convinced because I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Glad to see you have finally come up with a source apart from your own imagination.
So the idea you are asserting is that the kingly sons of David are ALL called the Son of God.
Great article but does not come anywhere near trying to make the above claim. In fact he suggests that all Jews are sons of God. He refers to Psalm 2 in respect of David and perhaps Solomon. Again - this does not come close to proving that all the sons of David, kingly or not are called the son of God. In fact there is a thought in that article that the Son of God - was referring to coming messiah.
God’s Son and Kiss the Son. Rabbi David Markowitz"The term son of God appears a number of times in the Torah where it clearly does not refer to a biological relationship. See for example Deuteronomy 14:1: "You [Israel] are sons to the Lord your God," as well as Exodus 4:22, where God tell Moses to tell Pharaoh "My son, My firstborn Israel" (Exodus 4:22). The meaning is that God has a special relationship with His nation, but clearly the bond is emotional and not physical.
The Torah likewise uses this expression for other great individuals. See for example Psalms 89:27-28 in reference to King David, and II Samuel 7:14 in reference to Solomon: “I will be to him as a Father and he will be to Me as a son.”
In this verse, the commentators understand God’s “son” as referring to King David himself (or possibly the future Messiah (Ibn Ezra)), who serves God with the filial devotion of a son honoring his father (Ibn Ezra, Radak), who represents and protects a nation known collectively as God’s son (Rashi, Metzudat David), or who leads the world as an (inheriting) son who controls his father’s property (Malbim)..................."
So the Jews are all sons of god. None of this proves that ALL sons of David - in the kingly line are called sons of God. It generally refers to all Israel. It specifically refers to David and to Solomon. One who is biologically the son of David. None of it goes towards suggesting that every son of David - or king is called the son of God.
Professor, Claremont School of Theology"Biblical authors claim that the kings of Israel and Judah were divinely chosen and that they were expected to abide by the covenant (see, for example, Deut 17:14-17, 1Sam 8-12, 1Kgs 2:3-4). Ps 2 calls the Davidic king a “son” of Yhwh. In a similar way, powerful kings in ancient treaties called their lesser allies “sons.” Thus, Israelites saw their king as a lesser agent of their god, ruling on his behalf (see Hag 2:20-23). Since Yhwh was in charge, he was responsible for protecting the king of Israel from threats by enemies (2Sam 7, Ps 2) and for punishing him and even removing him if he did not fulfill divine expectations (1Sam 13-14, 2Sam 7, 1Kgs 11:29-39). Ps 72 calls upon G-d to grant the king divine justice and righteousness so that he might rule the people properly, and Isa 32:1-2 calls upon the king to rule in righteousness so that his officers will govern with justice (see Isa 9:5-9, Isa 11:1-9).................."
Sweeney is an excellent scholar. I like him. I have even enjoyed having a coffee with him. But this article does not prove that every kingly son of David was also called a son of God which is what your contention was. David specifically was called in Psalm 2 - a son. But it does not go further than that. Kings of Israel were meant to protect their people and to act in righteousness. This does not equate to calling every kingly son of David down to Jesus - the son of God.
The Jewish King as God. The Bart Ehrman Blog: The History & Literature of Early Christianity ."The son of a human is human, just as the son of a dog is a dog and the son of a cat is a cat. And so what is the son of God? As it turns out, to the surprise of many casual readers of the Bible, there are passages where the king of Israel, widely called the son of God (e.g. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7), is actually referred to as divine, as god.
The Yale Hebrew Bible scholar John Collins points out that this notion ultimately appears to derive from Egyptian ways of thinking about their king, the Pharaoh, as a divine being. Even in Egypt, where the king was God, it did not mean that the king was on a par with the great gods, any more than the Roman emperor was thought to be on a par with Jupiter or Mars. But he was a god. In Egyptian and Roman circles, there were levels of divinity. And so too, as we have seen, in Jewish circles. And so it is that we find highly exalted terms used of the king of Israel, terms that may surprise readers who – based on the kind of thinking that developed in the fourth Christian century — think that there is an unbridgeable chasm between God and humans. Nonetheless, here it is, in the Bible itself, the king is called both Lord and God" .
Again Bart is an excellent scholar - although I have not met him. I have several of his books. His argument although intriguing is not established by his prooftexts - but by his references to scholars - such as John Collins. In other words it is not a biblical argument - it is derived in part from what other cultures did in that time and then extrapolating it back to Israel. His 2 Samuel reference and Psalm 2 both specifically refer to David not to his lineage. Nor to the assertion you make which is that all kingly sons of David are called sons of God. It simply is not true to say that all of Kings of Israel - or even the kingly sons of David are all called sons of God.
I have never denied that God called his people his children or even his sons. I have never denied that David was called God's son. Gee, even in Christian circles we talk about being the children of God - his sons and daughters - referring not a biological sense but similarly like the Rabbi does above you quote.
But what you asserted was that when the Gospels call Jesus the Son of God they were simply referring to him being the Son of David because all kingly sons of David were called the Son of God. This is what you asserted and what I have asked you to prove. You have not done so. Yes, you did provide some sources - thank you - but not the biblical references which you indicated would prove it.
I could I suppose mount an argument along the author's line above - that kings in general were considered gods of sons of god - not in a divine sense but as the representative of God. But it is entirely another thing to take that argument and extrapolate it to Jesus - where in at least one Gospel - we are told his father was the Holy Spirit. And that his relationship to David is covenantal through Joseph. And while I tend to agree that Jesus is related to David through Mary, it would also appear that her line was biological not the royal line.
So not only have not you demonstrated your assertion from the bible - you have not been able to extend it to Jesus based on the NT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Firstly, you are so patronizing, it makes most people sick.
If i take a different position to you on the scriptures - it does not mean I do not scrutinize the Scriptures. It just means I see things differently to you. As for the Jewish Kings being called sons of God, what you have presented has not proved anything. Yet I will attend to that when I have more time. Presently, I am in disagreement with you.
You should produce evidence for what you assert not for my benefit. You have asked me to prove things you knew. And in any event, I have never pretended to know anything. And if you present an idea which I have not heard, it does not mean I have not studied, not read widely, it just means that you have provided information that I have not attended to as yet. And this by the way is how it is with EVERY ACADEMIC in the world. The next academic who says they know everything about their subject is a liar.
I do pass on most things I learn if I can. I have no pretensions in doing otherwise. I am not so up myself that I think my own creative idea and interpretation about the bible ought to be spread about. In fact I take warm comfort in knowing that the same conclusions I draw from the bible are the same that millions over the years have come too. It means that the interpretation methodology I utilise is consistent and scientific. Your on the other hand is non-scientific because no one else comes to the conclusions you draw.
I have noted many errors in your conclusions. Yes I tell you - and yes you don't agree with me. But I stand with many others in that position. You rarely produce anyone who agrees with you. I can think of just two occasions - despite the fact that I have asked you to produce your sources (Or have you conveniently not seen that request either)
Not answering is not the same as having no answer. Jesus talks about not throwing pearls before the swine.
You talk so much nonsense.
You do when it comes to scripture. You know why that is too don't you? Its because for all of your claims that you scrutinise these scriptures and for all of your alleged "qualifications", you have never read these scriptures for your self without interference . You have been told to turn to a page, had read out, and then explained for you and then, you have "merely passed it on"#20 WITHOUT QUESTION.
Proof please. Just more patronizing absurdities. As for accusing you of lying. You did. I provided the evidence.
When do you even produce an awkward question? Most of your questions arise from other people's thinking. Not from your own studies. It worries me not a moment that you judge me a false or fake prophet or teacher. And why would it? Who are you? and what qualifications do you possess to make such a sweeping statement? Oh wait - you have none -
In relation to the Son of God, no - not yet you have not. And I will attend to that shortly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There are no real qualifications though.
Are you assuming that my qualifications obtained from a world class reputable university are not real? Wow! that certainly is a huge assertion. Would you care to prove that a post graduate degree from Melbourne University is not a real qualification?
Pseudo-qualification and sincerity, still doesn't validate the Christian god hypothesis....Or the Christian god hypothesis doesn't validate your pseudo-qualifications or sincerity.
LOL @ you. What qualification do you think I obtained that makes you think it is a pseudo- qualification? Did I ever indicate that my qualification proves the existence of God? You just speak nonsense - it seems you are the one that does not have qualifications to make such assertions?
You might or might not be counselling troubled people with invalid data.
And pray tell - what is the invalid date that I am using?
It seems to me that you are the one who is playing dumb. Every world class university in the world has the post grad degrees that I hold. You calling it pseudo only reveals your atheistic worldview. You however don't even play in the real world. Do you leave your home - or do you spend all day playing on your computer? DO you have a real job? Do you have trouble making friends?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The entire premise is false, the only thing atheism speaks on, is one's belief of a god(s):Merriam Webster defines Atheism as such:"a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any godsb: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"In other words, by definition, Atheism can not be a world view. The same way not believing in Santa Claus is not a world view, or not being apart of boy/girl scouts isn't a community
So start a movement about not believing in Santa Claus. Call yourself an asanta. Believing in Santa Claus is entirely different to believing in God. For you they may be the same - but that speaks volumes all by itself.
Not believing in Santa has what sort of implications? Let us see if we can see a worldview in that? What does believing in Santa tell us about life and humanity and death?
If one believes in Santa Claus it tells us what?
probably that you live in the last 1000 years. Probably that you live in a Western Nation - Probably that you live in a country that celebrates Christmas. It does not tell us whether you believe in God. It tells us that you probably believe that Christmas is all about presents and love and being good. It tells us that you probably think it should snow on Christmas. It tells us that you probably believe in elves and dwarves and flying reindeers. It does not tell us about God. It does not tell us about humanity, well actually I suppose it does a little. that people can be good - if they try or they want too. That you get rewarded for being good. But not everyone is good. It tells us nothing about death. It tells us about hope - and sadness.
But overall it cannot provide a worldview which is essentially tells us three things about life. It tells us about God. It tells us about the nature of humanity. And it tells us about death. Atheism tells us that there is no god. It tells us that man is an animal - which survives by being the fittest. that basically as an animals it has no absolute rules or rights - or morals. It tells us that when we die - that is it.
Worldview also can be linked to understanding things like philosophy or economics or law etc - but not necessarily. A worldview - the way you see the world - requires three elements and atheism checks all the boxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am a lawyer. There you go. Now you know.I see . So you were just being smart when I asked you a BIBLICAL - yes or no - question by responding with "I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no.".It is a shame that in the capacity as a lawyer that you do not question and scrutinise the scriptures. I would hate you as my barrister.
I was not trying to be smart. I was just responding from where I am. Stop with the insults. I scrutinize everything. This is why you despise me so much. I constantly reveal that you have no clue what you are talking about. I could care less about being your lawyer. You seem like most of my clients - you think you know better than the lawyer.
I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police.Or by someone who may be holding more facts than the defence think they have ?
No comment is an appropriate response. It matters not how you want to read it.
no comment is the right thing to do.It sure is, when you have no answer to give anyway.
It is always the best thing to do - especially when you have the right answers.
It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case.I agree. This will be the dictate concerning The Burden of Proof, wouldn't it? The obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments that YOU make. Along with - It is to he that makes the claims to provide the proof? Something you fail to do often. It's a shame that YOU do not use the same yardstick when it comes to claims YOU have made about the bible.
Yes, I fail sometimes. So what I am human. I am not pretending to know everything or to have all the answers. There are plenty of times I say I don't know. Or I say I am speculating. I use the appropriate yardstick when coming to bible. I don't use beyond reasonable doubt I use on the balance of probabilities - and this is the standard that people who study history and documents use. The fact that you don't even realise this only demonstrates your ignorance.
So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid?Not at all, but it was you that brought "YOUR CLIENTS" into a thread concerning questions about the bible, that you cannot yourself answer. It wasn't me.
Again I respond to the waffle you ask. If you are going to go around in circles rather than getting the point - I will join you.
Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students,I should think not! . That would be robbing them wouldn't it? Or would the legal term in the biblical sense be "fleecing your sheep"?
Whatever I do is none of your business. The fact you think you can JUDGE me - is sad and pathetic.
Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely.How old are your BIBLICAL students?
They range from 16 - 90. They include undergrads through to PH.D.s and from a range of different religious and non-religious backgrounds.
Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no.Then STOP! conflating the two completely different subjects. You wouldn't get away with such shenanigans in any court of law in the west. I am only questioning you on matters biblical as you know full well . You are trying to bring simple questions and queries about the bible in a Court Of Law setting. Do you not realise how desperate this is, not to mention how stupid you are coming across as?
I answered a question. I have just responded by saying I don't answer with simplistic yes or no answers. That is all I have done. AND you hate it. You want to lead me up the proverbial path to prove how brilliant you are. I am not going to play your games. I don't care if it looks desperate - because like you - I know the truth of what you are attempting to do. And you call me stupid?
But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.And there it is. And doesn't surprise me one single bit.Both Pastor and Chaplain. That doesn't understand the scriptures him/her self. You Christians just love your titles don't you.... Reverend? I bet you just love being 'revered ' too.
LOL! - I certainly don't understand the bible in the way you distort them. This is true. You don't have a proper methodology. You just choose passages out of context and run with it. But hey - don't let the facts stand in the way of playing your game. And I am not a reverend.
Deleted your false accusations.
I replied to yet another of your unfounded accusations about me here. I see you have avoided it like one of the Egyptian plagues.Son of God.
Yes, I saw that - and thank you. I am glad you took the time to FINALLY answer my question. Again your hypocrisy is evident though - for some reason - the fact that you miss something is evidence that you are not running away. If I miss something or forget something you just accuse. You really are a two faced bit of work.
I am not expecting an apology .. Reverend
Good, because I don't apologise unless I have done something wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There are no real qualifications though.Pseudo-qualification and sincerity, still doesn't validate the Christian god hypothesis....Or the Christian god hypothesis doesn't validate your pseudo-qualifications or sincerity.You might or might not be counselling troubled people with invalid data.
I have no idea what you are saying. Can you put it into English please?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers."Clients"? So you charge people (your clients) to listen to your version of the gospels then?Do you allow your "clients" to question you on your own in-depth biblical knowledge?And what do you call these "counseling" sessions ?
I am a lawyer. There you go. Now you know. I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police. I don't care how you read that - no comment is the right thing to do. When we are in a contested hearing, I, in the first instance, will counsel my client not to get into the stand to be cross examined. It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case. It is not mine to prove we are innocent. It is our job to make sure the prosecutor does his or her job properly. If my client insists in getting into the box - despite my advices - I will examine him or her asking open ended questions so that they can answer particular questions. I never ask a question I don't know the answer to. And I am not actually allowed to ask my client - yes or no questions because I would be accused of leading the witness. And then the prosecution will cross - examine my client. The cross-examiner is permitted to ask both open ended questions and leading questions. He would be foolish to ask open ended questions. His job is to ask leading questions. He wants a yes or a no. Why? Because then he can lead him into traps and inconsistencies. I counsel my clients - NEVER to answer a question with a yes or no - but always to qualify what you are saying - because the cross examiner never asks a question without a purpose or intention to lead to somewhere. But the first rule of cross - examination is NEVER ask a question you don't know the answer too. Because when you do - the answer you will get will probably upset the apple cart and throw you off. But I know that the same advice is being given to witnesses for the prosecution for when I cross examine. And there will be times when I insist to the judge - that the witness needs to answer the question - with a simple yes or no. But judges do not lightly support this submission. And the reason they don't is because they know that doing so - is leading the witness into unfair or unforeseen traps. Just because witness X saw Y do something with his left hand 6 months ago and wrote it in his statement does not mean that his evidence today that Y used his right hand and is confident that it was not his left hand - does not automatically mean that Y is innocent. statements made close to the time of the crime recalled differently 6 months later - are inconsistent and can be used to call into question the reliability of the witness's evidence - but that inconsistency does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case.
So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid?
Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students, I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them.
Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely. I have no problem with this. Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no. But they are free to ask me whatever the like about the law. I do charge them for that privilege.
I never talked about counseling session. I said I counsel my clients. Lawyers are called Counsel. We council our clients. We give advice.
But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
u going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk!I really do not understand your point here.I am not surprised.I have said over and over again that Jesus was a Jew. I have never denied it. If you think I have - find it please and post a link to it. Otherwise stop telling lies.Strawman. I have never said that you have denied Jesus was a Jew and think you aught to show some evidence for YOUR accusation of me telling lies.I have no issue calling Jesus the king of the Jews. I have never denied this either. Again I request that you find a post where I have done so - and make a link to it.You are attempting to create a strawman. I have never said you have denied Jesus was Jew or king of the Jews, so why are you creating an argument around something that I have never said. You do this with the scriptures too.Otherwise STOP TELLING LIES. I never said Jesus was a Spirit. Find a post where I say he was a spirit. Post a link. OTHERWISE STOP TELLING LIES.That is three times you have accused me of lying in three short lines. I think it is time that you offered up some evidence for these accusations that you appear so damn sure of.Where have I ever said Jesus was a Christian?Strawman. I don't where have you said that. I haven't ever said you have said that, so who was it?I make the claim, that he was the head of the church.The Christian church? did he know this?I make the claim that he was the saviour and redeemer of all nations - not just the Jews.Yes and you have never proven that. You Christians may well have made Jesus "your saviour", but the scriptures make it clear who he came to save , don't they. do you need reminding , here you are:He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."Matthew 15:24. Tell me, who were those lost sheep? Christians?I make the claim that he is the second person of the Triune Godhead.According to Christians maybe. and again no evidence for that claim. But i reckon if he were here today he'd regard you Christians as Pagans and be appalled that a new religion had sprang up in his name.I have never claimed he was a Christian.I know. I have never claimed that you did .He is the father of the church.Yes you have said that twice now. And I take it you mean the Christian church and not the Jewish church? What church did Jesus mean when he said to Peter that he will build his church. Matthew 16:18He is its head. Christians name themselves after Jesus.Which means what?Why would I call him a monk?I didn't say you did. So I don't know why you would call him a monk, did you call him a monk? . My you are getting all confused and pants tied aren't you.You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God.Your lies just get worse and worse.That's plural. Your accusations are becoming more frequent and a little too often now . I suggest you start offering up some proof of my lies or simply stop.Oh and just to leave you with something to ponder, the whole nation of IS-RA-EL was gods son. His "first born". I told you, you simply do not understand your own fkn scriptures."Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn"Why do I feel a biblical re-write coming on.
Here is your proof.
Jesus was a Jew. when are you going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4953/post-links/210684
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So is the point of our discussions for me to confirm and deny things is it?As I have explained, I want to know if I am reading the text correctly. I am trying to work out who is talking to who . This is why I am asking these questions.A man runs to Jesus whilst possessed by 2.000 demons. He then starts talking to Jesus asking him a question and begs jeus not to torture him. Is this the correct reading.6 When he [the man] saw Jesus from a distance, he [the man] ran and fell on his knees in front of him. [Jesus] .7 He [the man] shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?[ he,the man said ] In God’s name don’t torture me[ the man said]”.What is so hard for you to confirm in those to verses? Just tell me f or not I have read it wrong.
If it is so easy - why are you asking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You know as well as I do that although Darwin articulated the doctrine of Evolution, that many people believed in a form of it over the years. I could go to the internet and find examples of this as well as you can. But what is the point of that? I am sure you won't deny it is the fact or are you prepared to say that evolution is a modern doctrine that has arisen because of a new type of prophet? This after all is not a topic on evolution. It is on atheism and worldview.
Now you want me to define terms clearly. Whatever for? Do you know what evolution is? OF course you do. Perhaps you want to make sure I understand it the same way as you do? How do you know I don't? You often throw out your definition of God or understanding of God - despite the fact that it is not the same as mine. Or you (speaking generally) request people to define their God - so that you (generally) can pick it to pieces.
This topic is about the worldview of atheists. Atheists pretend they don't have a worldview. In fact they bury their heads into the sand and say things like "we don't have a faith - our position is that we are a "non-faith". It is not that we don't believe in God, we can see no evidence for any god. This is the only thing that might be said to unite us - otherwise we are all individuals with our own views about everything else. In fact our non-belief in god is only incidental to who we are as humans. We are humans first, we start there, and then we look at the evidence about us in response to the life we live. We might never ever entertain the question of God because it might never be raised with us. Hence to suggest that it is somehow relevant to the way I think is nonsense - an absurdity.
I on the other hand think that type of thinking is an absurdity and profoundly ignorant. To live in a world that is dominated by religions and ideas about God or gods is a truism. To pretend that this can be simply deleted is nonsense. Everyone in every culture - even the Russian Communist and Chinese Communist ones, unless history is destroyed completely, the notion of god or gods will arise.
I think the problem for the atheist is that if their position is labeled a worldview - then that implicitly means they too a religion. And this of course is exactly the reason they took the view secular and changed its meaning to mean "non-religious". A term that by definition excludes religion. After all if they can exclude religion - then they cannot be labeled one. It is fudging the truth though. It is bringing the cart before the horse. It is hiding one's head in the sand.
Every atheist is an evolutionist. Despite requesting examples otherwise - you keep dodging this one. Please find me an example of an atheist who is not an evolutionist.
Not every theist is an evolutionist. Many are. Not every theist is a creationist. Yet creationism is still a doctrine that unites many theists- although it is not more than a generalization. Applying that to atheists - it might be the case that some atheists deny evolution, but even this would not be enough to deny that evolution is a doctrine of atheistic worldview.
There is a commonality amongst atheists in the West. There is a commonality amongst atheists in the East. Both have their worldviews. Marxist / Lennonism is a communist worldview - but not just a communist worldview but an Atheistic communistic worldview. Secular Humanism is a Western Atheistic Worldview. Buddhism is an Atheistic Spiritual worldview.
But one thing common to all of these worldviews is evolution. What I would like to explore is other commonalities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus was a Jew. when are you going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk!
I really do not understand your point here. I have said over and over again that Jesus was a Jew. I have never denied it. If you think I have - find it please and post a link to it. Otherwise stop telling lies. I have no issue calling Jesus the king of the Jews. I have never denied this either. Again I request that you find a post where I have done so - and make a link to it. Otherwise STOP TELLING LIES. I never said Jesus was a Spirit. Find a post where I say he was a spirit. Post a link. OTHERWISE STOP TELLING LIES.
Where have I ever said Jesus was a Christian? I make the claim, that he was the head of the church. I make the claim that he was the saviour and redeemer of all nations - not just the Jews. I make the claim that he is the second person of the Triune Godhead. I have never claimed he was a Christian. He is the father of the church. He is its head. Christians name themselves after Jesus.
Why would I call him a monk?
You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God.
Your lies just get worse and worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Think about it logically.Who made all these biblical claims?...Was it ordinary everyday folk, or was it shamanic individuals.A bloke goes up a mountain and smokes a few joints, or chews a few leaves, or has a few bevvies and has a chat with a god....Now that's plausible.And all these witnesses....There weren't actually that many, were there?....Most witness is just repetition.
If you seriously believe what you have just written - perhaps it is you who has been spoking a few joints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I don't run away. I don't desert threads when they become difficult. I answer questions - but never sufficiently for you - that is quite different. I don't think you ever answer my questions - and in fact up until very recently when you made a declaration, I was of the view that you refused to answer questions because you were a coward.
I have said I don't have answers for every question. In fact on many occasions I have said I don't know. I have indicated at times I will speculate. And I do at time.
But so far as I can tell - I have never run away from any question. I really don't have a need too. It is not me on trial here. Yes, sometimes I say things - or assert things which I need time to find the evidence for. On those occasions -- normally - not always - it is because you or the Brother or someone else has made some dumb assertion and I foolishly respond back with a similar retort.
Saying I wont answer with a yes or a no is not running away. It is saying that I won't play your game. I won't be led down a particular path for you to entrap me - which is the way you do things. For you to then say - you are running away - is therefore not only disingenuous but cowardly. Not to mention bullyish.
Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers.
In response to your question about what happened around the time Jesus died - I did answer. It was not a yes or a no. I answered it by responding to the text. More than you did. I also responded by highlighting the point which is that the book is not written chronologically. I highlighted that Matthew spoke about a point after the resurrection. But you - no do not accept or even engage with these relevant points - you want a yes or no. Well Stephen, there is no yes or no answer. This is not me running away - in fact I would submit that you are the one running away from the evidence here - and the context - and the type of language that is being employed here - because your eyes can only see one thing - and you have an agenda. I said to you, that we should take it as being real, unless the language intimates or gives clues that we ought to take it another way. But you - no - you just try and ram home a point which has been done and dusted because the discussion has evolved since then.
Stop playing games. If you want to assert something - do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Hi Mopac, nice to see you back.
The western "Christian" world has long since slid into apostasy, that is, has long since abandoned true Christianity. The Christianity that most people are exposed to bears little resemblence to the ancient faith that was passed down from the apostles, through the church fathers, and even preserved today in The Orthodox Catholic Church, which is the living church of Christ.
The Holy Spirit alone has preserved his people in his church. It is not exclusive to the walls of the Orthodox denomination. (Denomination used advisedly) I think it is unfair and incorrect to say that the church bears little resemblance to the faith that was passed from the Apostles. In fact I would take the position that there is much in common. A different culture and time admittedly, but much in common otherwise.
Most people and even Christians in the west know little to nothing about Christianity as it has been historically practiced and understood. If they have any idea at all, they are taught that Roman Catholicism was the original form of Christianity. They are taught that a thousand years ago, the four patriarchs of the Eastern churches rebelled against the one supreme patriarch of Rome. What they don't know is that the present day Roman Catholic Church cut off from The Orthodox Catholic Church precisely because their church slid into heresy.
It matters little really whether many people know little to nothing about early Christianity. People often do things without knowing why they do it. I don't hold to the view - as many Protestants don't - that the Catholic church was the original form of Christianity. In fact, that is typically something RC's teach and also that OC teach but does not have a consensus within Protestantism. I agree with the position that the 4 Patriarchs were excommunicated and I think for good reason. They took the position that the reconciliation of Christ was not a sufficient reason to live in peace with the Western part of the church and refused to reunite. It is appropriate for the church to cut off those that teach heresy and division.
Nearly half a millenium later, the Roman Catholic Church's deviation from the faith sparked the reformation which splintered western Christianity into thousands of competing sects that would often time even war against eachother.
Again, it was the Holy Spirit who sparked the Reformation. True the RC had fallen into error in some of the most fundamental aspects of its theology. Yet the Reformation did not split the church - this was never an intention. Luther, the so called father of the Reformation, sought to reform from within. It is too bad that the Orthodox Church has never had similar persons to help to purify it. The Orthodox Church has long devolved into superstition rejecting the doctrines of faith and the authority of the Scriptures. The Protestant Churches are in agreement with over 95% of their teachings. There are only very few which are in disagreement - and none which prevent the Christian churches from meeting in worship together in liberty.
That very same deviation from the faith which corrupted Roman Catholicism and spawned protestantism eventually lead to the modern age which has taken the over reliance on rationalism and romanticism that corrupted western Christianity and ran away free with it, ditching Christianity all together. Eventually even abandoning the belief in God, The Truth. What results is an age of nihilism, where every man is their own god. Where supermen like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and others are able to rise up and cause untold destruction, because having lost God, people no longer are able to discern good from evil, what is real from unreality. The hodge podge has become noise that drowns out truth, and people as a result willingly subject themselves to demons.
There is a humanistic spirit which arose during the Renaissance - a throwback to ancient Greek theology, to a polytheistic understanding of the world and philosophy.. This has led in part to the theories of relativism which form part of the modern psyche and which is opposed to all forms of Christianity and indeed religions that promote or endorse Monotheism. What you fail to comment on is the anti-Christian sentiments that attack the very Christianity you think was already in apostasy. If your opening line was correct then the new theology - of the relativistic Greek religions - would endorse the American and Western religions, not seek to destroy it. And yet - your own words betray you. If your position is correct - then the new views would not be embracing Orthodox Religion - but be attacking it - just like they do with the Western Churches. The Orthodox church is very easily able to adapt to the modern worldview because the OC is into superstition, polytheistic teaching, and tradition. It like the modern worldview of the Atheists are in bed together with their rejection of the authority of the bible.
Today we live in an age where each individual is their own god, able to reject reality and substitute it with their own fantasy. Because there is no longer a belief in absolute truth or ultimate reality, the masses have been plagued with various psychological maladaptions and emotional instabilities. They have been cursed, and this curse will ultimately lead to their destruction and the destruction of their society. It will be the kind of downfall that will have them all weeping, cursing, and crying in despondancy. Having no discernment, they will consent to the very thing that destroys them. Drunk with their delusion, they will drink to their death, and lament spinelessly as they do so. They will destroy themselves, and curse God while doing so.
Again this is why the OC is able to connect with the modern masses. The people of the world are able to embrace a bible which does have a truth - so far as you can simply find the truth for it in symbols - but not the words themselves.
According to Abbot Damascene, the book "Orthodox Survival Course" which has gone into this matter with great detail and references should be released hopefully within a year out of St Herman's press. Until then, you can listen to it here...But while this work chronicles the apostasy of the west, and is eye opening to the things going on today both in the false Christian world and the secular world, recognizing the apostasy is not alone sufficient. Only Christ can save you, and not the Christ of heretics. Orthodox Christianity is True Religion.
There is only ONE true church - and that is the church of which Jesus Christ is the Head of it. It has many members - or denominations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
When I said the man was talking about Jesus as God - I was not meaning to indicate he was not talking to Jesus. The man said to Jesus - what do you want with me Jesus, son of the most high God? He is clearly not only talking to Jesus - but describing him as well.I see you haven't bothered to confirm or deny anything either way above. So stop trying to be clever, because you'er not, by any means.John the baptist was said to have " had a demon " too, didn't he?
So is the point of our discussions for me to confirm and deny things is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is it wrong to demand or request fealty? When would it be right and when would it be wrong? Are there times when such a thing is warranted?Loyalty and respect must be EARNED.It cannot be DEMANDED.The other dodgy thing about this comment is - imagine if we applied to this to our own world - and yes I think it is ok to do that. When the government says - do not kill or do not rape or do not have sex with children under the age of consent - if the government says - hey when you break these laws - the implication is - the punishment will - be life in prison or the death penalty or a great big fine - are we able to make the statement - the state demands loyalty to its laws based upon pain of the punishment?"This is an excellent observation and highlights a key distinction between your DOGMATIC (authoritarian) thinking and the alternative.
Of course it can be demanded. This is what every state does in the world today. There is not one STATE that says to its citizens - you can do whatever you want - you don't owe me loyalty. don't pay taxes - spit at the police yad yada.
Respect and loyalty don't have to be earned on every occasion. Parent's don't need to earn respect for their children to obey. Police don't have to earn people's respect for them to be police officers. While it is true that in some cases - loyalty and respect do need to be earned - this is not how it is ON EVERY OCCASION.
God does not need to earn your respect. Nor does he need to earn your loyalty to him. what a ridiculous thing to think or to say. It is like saying to the oxygen that we breathe - I am not going to breathe your air until you have earned my respect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What none of you ever really get is the flip side of the picture you paint. If the presumption that God is good holds true, then God will be seen to be good by those who love him and evil by those who don't.Why did "YHWH" create hell?
God created Hell for the Devil and his angels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that the use of hallucinogenic and mind altering substances was probably rife back in the day.....Seriously.It's only latterly that we have come to understand the negative implications of substance abuse.
That would make it convenient for you. Unfortunately, for you - there is not a psychologist on this planet would was provide an opinion along the lines that these witnesses were all hallucinating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Since Matthew is picturing their resurrection as it were as part of the entire scene here.....Yes he is isn't he. He telling us about it years after the fact after picturing the whole scene in his minds eye, isn't he? It simply hasn't entered your brain that Mathew just maybe talking spiritually, has it?LOL! Are you serious? I said above "I actually have a different answer."https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4948/post-links/210134.Your link isn't working.I am also the one who raised we need to look at it perhaps in different waysNo that was me . I said;"I do have to say though, that all these bodies "sleeping" then suddenly leaving their tombs en masse does, as you correctly say appear to be " A crazy and ridiculous event" On the surface maybe, but below it may actually have meant something else entirely"? Last but one sentence.#4"52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.I don't answer yes or no.Why ever not? That is a verse from the bible isn't it? Why can you not simply confirm that it is?I am not a witness to be cross-examined or to be led by a lawyer.Yes you are. You are a servant of Christ. Your job is to go out into the world and " bare witness" to the gospels and the life of the Christ. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant ".here try this on>>> “You Will Be My Witnesses”: Five Truths About Witnessing From the Book of Acts. https://davidschrock.com/2016/12/15/you-will-be-my-witnesses-five-truths-about-witnessing-from-the-book-of-acts/to be cross-examined or to be led by a lawyer.And that is the problem isn't it? When you are put on the backfoot you have absolutely nothing in reply. Because you are only taught to speak of what you "witnessed" (which - just like the gospel writers - in your case is absolutely nothing ). And when it comes to simple questions, BOOOM! you hit a brick wall and are turned into a mangled mess of hypocrisy and contradictions.What was the point or purpose of a load believed "dead" people "coming out of the graves" and marching on the city en masse?What happened when they got there?Why didn't they "rise from their tombs" BEFORE the Christ was so viciously beaten and nailed to a cross?Where are the gasps of shock, surprise or even fear of those alive on seeing these long dead rotten stinking corpses just walking into their city en masse??Were they arrested as followers of Jesus?Did they ever die again?Were they also crucified?Were they Killed?Did they die again in the earthquake?Were they re-resurrected?This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is why the story makes no fkn sense! AND THIS is why it has to mean something else if it happened at all!!!!! I have told you, you are not clever at all. If you were you would be able to answer those simple questions above because they do have answers. But you cannot even bring yourself to confirm or deny if a biblical verse is correct. Trade secret? The only person to claim that title that has no secrets to trade.. One just needs to be able to read the book in the way that he wanted us to read it.I see. Which is how exactly?Did he (Matthew) write the book for all those millions illiterate peasants of the time and in the future to be able to notice, and know, that when he wrote one thing, that they should automatically know and understand that he actually meant something else entirely?
I never said I would not answer, I just said I was not going to be led like a lawyer leads a witness. I also said I was not going to answer questions with a yes or a no. I think these questions require more complete responses. And the fact that you detest this demonstrates that you are not interested in the truth - just your version of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
People coming to life - because Jesus has died - actually has wonderful encouragement for me and believers.And I am genuinely pleased for you.
Your are welcome.
It was after all, the point of his death and resurrection from the believer's point of view.Ah, and this is what is bugging me about the verse. Try answering the question this time around ."52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.
LOL! I am not a witness. I am not under cross examination. I do not have to answer yes or no. It is not a simplistic answer - even though that is what you desire.
Part of the answer is talking about exactly what happened at Jesus' death and part of that answer is talking about what happened later. There is no particular reason to think otherwise. The gospels never claim to be speaking in exact chronological order. They are books written prior to Gutenberg. And are meant to be read like books in those times. It is silly to try and read them as a modern person reads a modern book. Surely, even you are aware of the differences?
Since Matthew is picturing their resurrection as it were as part of the entire scene here.....Yes he is isn't he. He telling us about it years after the fact after picturing the whole scene in his minds eye, isn't he? It simply hasn't entered your brain that Mathew just maybe talking spiritually, has it?
LOL! Are you serious? I said above "I actually have a different answer."https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4948/post-links/210134.
I am also the one who raised we need to look at it perhaps in different ways before we decide to throw it out. Or have you CONVENIENTLY forgotten that?
Matthew wrote the book many years after. And this is obvious in many aspects. No one has said otherwise. But nor does it mean anything is inaccurate. One just needs to be able to read the book in the way that he wanted us to read it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF) the classic greek skeptics were atheists before the theory of evolution was discovered (THEN) it is possible to be an atheist with no corresponding belief in evolution.If you see a problem with my logic please point out the specific flaw in the structure of my argument or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.You just keep repeating your first argument which I have already refuted rather than moving forward or explaining your case.
just as you pass by my arguments.
The ancient greeks - skeptics did believe in a form of evolution. Not articulated as such like Darwin's was - but certainly a form of it. You have yet to actually provide any atheist that does not believe in a form of evolution. Yes, I am talking about evolution per se - not even the scientific version as you understand it. You in fact took it down that road in https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4933/post-links/209445. Prior to that time - evolution was being used by me generally as an idea. In fact I actually distanced what I was talking about from the so called ToE because I know as you do that evolutionists existed prior to its articulated doctrine by Darwin. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4933/post-links/209736
All atheists are evolutionists. IT is a doctrine by implication that flows from their theology. It is one among many.
Created: