Arthur Durnan Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2005 Okay, alright, I read you: Then go ahead & inform us about Europe's future set-up & the nations which will come together...and against whom? Your non-Bible hypothesis is telum imbelle sine ictu from, in my books, Dysfunction Junction. Should one hold one's breath? P.S. Kindly refrain from perusing the Holy Bible on this, yes? http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted December 24, 2005 No, it is indeed circular reasoning, but not all is circular reasoning, because the biblke isn't writen as one book. To escpe the circular reasoning, you need differnt books, written at differnt dates. Which is exactly my point! The Bible escapes circular reasoning of explaination because it is really many books and or letters, written at different dates. Each one is tied together and they do a pretty good job of validating each other within the same Bible. Now, consider this: Would it satisfy the requirements of proof if some of these books were stand-alone works, seperate from the Bible? Hypothetically, of course, let's say that the Book of John was not included in the Bible. Would it, then, be proof enough that the other Books were the real Word of God? If so, then why is it negated simply because it was included? You can try this excercise with any of the Books in the Bible. 2nd point: Many, perhaps, view this Bible of ours as something that was written in a day and put out to the world. Nothing is further than the truth! It is a collection of books and letters written over a long period of time by many writers, most of whom did not know each other personally. Yes, it was decided that certain books were Scripture and some were not, and they were bound together into one. Some say that it was this process that cast doubts on It's validity. I say, the Holy Spirit was the guiding factor, and it's was under His influence that only the correct works were included. Is it simply my opinion, or is it truth? But, of course, there is something missing, now isn't there? Yes, of course there is: for if the Holy Spirit doesn't live in your heart, how then will the Bible make sense to you? Perhaps now is the time to settle this matter in your heart? Can we help you settle this matter? Thank you, and have a wonderful Christmas! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 19 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/20/1967 Share Posted December 24, 2005 Yes, you would have to produce the manuscript for such a charge to carry any weight. Anyone can make the accusation that the stories were made up, but demonstrating that with credible evidence is a different story. Indeed. And my biblical knowlege about Jesus being the prophesised Messiah or not is too swallow. I just didn't study the subject enough...I need to read the prophets but I never came furthen then History, Wisdom and Law. (First parts of the OT) Yes a few maybe, but not to the degree that Jesus fulfilled them. To fulfill the number of prophecies that Jesus did, it would require the one doing the fulfilling to be in control of everything including including other people. Jesus' fulfillment was too specific Prophets can be right about events and wrong about other things. There are prophets who were right outside of the bible and to me it is very possible that the bible prophets did 'see' the future, but not 100% true. Question: Is Micah 5:2 a prophecy wich leads to Jesus? The Bible escapes circular reasoning of explaination because it is really many books and or letters, written at different dates. Hmm..not really all true. If a newer writer knows what older writers wrote, then you can base your newer writing on them. You can build on what those before you wrote. Still it is never all circular reasoning. But, of course, there is something missing, now isn't there? Yes, of course there is: for if the Holy Spirit doesn't live in your heart, how then will the Bible make sense to you? Some parts make perfect sense. Proverbs has a lot of wisdom. other parts seem like complete nonsenmse though... You can turn this point around, because you have the holy spirit and too much faith, you're making sense out of something that makes no sense. If I use this trick, the entire holy spirit arguemt is turned into a "Yes.", "No." Yes!" "No!" "YES!" "NO!" YEEES!!!" "NOOO!!!" arguement and it seems impossible to escape from that. Can we help you settle this matter? I know I've argued too much even though I'm new... But please don't try to convert me...It won't work, others have tried and it will only turn every conversation with me into an a conversion attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2005 He doesn't...But the ones writing a Story about him could. So even though historical evidence validates he was born in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth, that he was born a virgin, and that He died on a cross....it's still made up? George Washington was actually Mexican, because the writers wanted to hide the fact he was because it ruined the image of white people. They wanted a strong white leader and not a Mexican leader. And this claim is valid because this is equivalent to your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted December 24, 2005 Indeed. And my biblical knowlege about Jesus being the prophesised Messiah or not is too swallow. I just didn't study the subject enough...I need to read the prophets but I never came furthen then History, Wisdom and Law. (First parts of the OT) Perhaps, then, you should hold any other comments on the matter until you read the whole thing? So even though historical evidence validates he was born in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth, that he was born a virgin, LOL Joel, I'm sure you meant he was born of a virgin? I know I've argued too much even though I'm new... But please don't try to convert me...It won't work, others have tried and it will only turn every conversation with me into an a conversion attempt. Fair enough, although if there's any converting going on, it won't be of me, but of God. Surely you understand that I am commanded to at least try, right? No offense intended. Have a good day! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2005 LOL Joel, I'm sure you meant he was born of a virgin? hahaha....oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted December 24, 2005 hahaha....oops AH- HA!! Busted! Your translation is of SATAN!!!!! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 19 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/20/1967 Share Posted December 24, 2005 So even though historical evidence validates he was born in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth, that he was born a virgin, and that He died on a cross....it's still made up? Tell me historical evidence of his Virgin Birth, through The Holy Mother Mary. I don't know any but the two bible gospels, and how did they know if Mary was really a virgin...I don't think they have checked... George Washington was actually Mexican, because the writers wanted to hide the fact he was because it ruined the image of white people. They wanted a strong white leader and not a Mexican leader. And this claim is valid because this is equivalent to your logic. There are no protets of Jesus..There are of George Washington. Also, the longer something is ago, the more hazy any evidence becomes. Also, while it may not seem so to the believers, there are seeming contradictions in the gospels...Somethings are left out and added in some...Lazarus death/ressurection is only noted in John...While it was a very fgreat happening...Dead men don't rise everyday... Hey BTW...You've just said Im' right because my logic is. Nice of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted December 25, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 25, 2005 So even though historical evidence validates he was born in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth, that he was born a virgin, and that He died on a cross....it's still made up? Tell me historical evidence of his Virgin Birth, through The Holy Mother Mary. I don't know any but the two bible gospels, and how did they know if Mary was really a virgin...I don't think they have checked... George Washington was actually Mexican, because the writers wanted to hide the fact he was because it ruined the image of white people. They wanted a strong white leader and not a Mexican leader. And this claim is valid because this is equivalent to your logic. There are no protets of Jesus..There are of George Washington. Also, the longer something is ago, the more hazy any evidence becomes. Also, while it may not seem so to the believers, there are seeming contradictions in the gospels...Somethings are left out and added in some...Lazarus death/ressurection is only noted in John...While it was a very fgreat happening...Dead men don't rise everyday... Hey BTW...You've just said Im' right because my logic is. Nice of you. For historical evidence, look in the thread "Historical Evidence of Jesus." I supplied quite a bit. As for contradictions in the Gospels, , try me The Lazarus claim doesn't need to be present in other Gospels because they record other raisings from the dead that are equally just as big. Chances are this occured during the time the 70 were sent out and John, being the most loved disicple, decided to stay with Jesus...thus he would hve been the only witness. I mean, gosh, if the argument from absense works, why do you believe in blind evolution? As for admitting you're right... Iwas saying if I argued that George Washington was actually a Mexican you could not, under your logic, contradict me. I was showing your logic was faulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted December 25, 2005 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 2 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,073 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/02/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/10/1923 Share Posted December 25, 2005 No wonder George started an outer court forum. Half of the posters are outer their minds. e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts