ya and he uses a real think buttery topping on the popcorn...the kool laid tastes like jizz though...
AR-Hall of Famer
ya and he uses a real think buttery topping on the popcorn...the kool laid tastes like jizz though...
AR-Hall of Famer
can you blame him....look at me i am beautiful.....
email me at [email protected]
Member
Thinks positive boys. Your thoughts have a direct impact on your feelings. Always be positive.
Snook~ AR Lounge Monitor
My milk shake brings all the boys to the yard,
and they're like,
its better than yours,
damn right its better than yours,
I can teach you,
but I have to charge
Member
I am a chic magnet. It is weird, I lost my voice, and girls like me more now than when I had my voice. I write them little notes on a pad and they love it.
Member
As Lewis said, Christ was eigther Lord, Liar, or lunatic. How did He fullfill the prophecies concerning Him in the Old Testament?
Anabolic Member
He didn't.Originally Posted by boots555
Not that you'll read them, or that it will change your opinions if you do, here are some links to enlightening websites disputing your unfounded assertion:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html
http://www.salafipublications.com/sp...articlePages=1
Also, Jesus was prophesied to have been the son of King David, but if you check out the genaologies given in the New Testament, you'll find that while one version shows Jesus to be the son of Joseph who was a descendant of David, the other version shows Jesus to be the son of Mary, who was not a descendant of David.
One problem with this is, if Jesus was the son of a virgin, then Joseph was not his father and he was not not a descendant of King David. If Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, then he was not born of a virgin, which also becomes a problem.
So, though CS Lewis said, "Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar," there's another option. Jesus is a work of fiction, and that's all there is to that.
Knowledgeable Member
Ok Tock, I speed read through your links... what would you like to talk about on those... the main jist of the article is trying to discredit Mathew's writing to take away from the meaning or content... that is called strawman.
I don't know where you got that Mary's and Joseph's lineage are different, but in both Luke (mary's) and Mathew's (joseph's) link them to the tribe and seed of David.
A lot of the other interpretations of the prophecy fulfilment in the links above is explaining what the intent of the original author was writing about and that it was not intended to apply to Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy... in otherwords if you take psalm 23, which is David's poem about his affliction, then you can't use that to apply to Jesus... but, the whole idea of prophecy in this manner originates in Judaism... you don't have to accept the prophecies in that manner, but no one asked anyone too... it is for the Jews and the prophecies were fulfilled according to their manner and interpretation... Jesus uses many examples to say that God reveals himself to the "simple" and hides from the "wise"...
from a textbook reading it is just like the links stated above... applied to a different time.. to a faithful servant it is fulfilment of the prophecy of the messiah..
Last edited by rockinred; 05-22-2008 at 09:06 PM.
Member
Good post
Member
Tocks arguements are red herrings and can be thrown out with a little bit of study. These things have been debated down through the years. A good understanding of theology is all you need to understand this. This isnt even considered a problem accoding to most scholars. I have never heard this point argued before in debate,
Better sites
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Li...tThinking.aspx
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/
http://www.euroleadershipresources.o...hp?NetworkID=1
Last edited by boots555; 05-22-2008 at 09:12 PM.
Member
Infidels arguments are weak. The best liberal new testament scholar i know of is a man by the name of Erhman. I would encourage people to read the transcript of the debate btw. Erhman and Craig. Erhman wouldnt even allow the debate to be posted on his sight at first. I dont know if he has now. Craig was clearly the winner.
http://www.holycross.edu/departments...surrdebate.htm
Knowledgeable Member
One more thing about all this... I have been suckered into a lot of debates about many, many bible topics and truths... I have never seen it go anywhere but a prideful measurement of ones intellect... I have had the same intense debates with believers and nonbelievers alike... they lead to nowhere in the end...
I will go on here and say that my profession about this is one of faith... this is not measured by a person's ability to have an open mind... In one Gospel they told Jesus about a leader in the Sanhedrein that had the most open mind and the only response Jesus gave to it was to open your heart....
So with that being said mine is one of an open heart and I am going to respectfully bow out of this thread... There is much more I would like to say, but I have to learn from my past experiences... and that is that intellectual debates about the details of things leads to nowhere for the most part...
I don't know anything about God's true judgement of everyone and their daily decisions and actions in life... I only know about my walk in life and the decisions I make daily. With the measure of judgment that I give is the same measure I will receive and hopefully I don't pass any judgement on anyone cause I need lots of room for forgiveness in my walk in life.
You all try to have a peaceful debate here... express opinions, no need to force anything on anyone... besides Jesus never did anyways so why should anyone else.
Member
Good post, I would love to go deeper into this debate because the historical evidence is so powerful concerning the life and especially the death of Christ.
Anabolic Member
Well, you're wrong. Not even liberal scholars would go that far.
Member
Whats incredible is the entire New Testament could be pieced together with only writings of the the early church fathers. We have found a writing from the gospel of John from the first century A.D.
Anabolic Member
Well, your wrong, even liberal Scholarship doesnt even go that far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
Authorship
The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity traditionally holding that the author was John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Several other authors have historically been suggested, including Papias, John the Presbyter and Cerinthus, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle. Most modern experts conclude the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness.[11]
The text itself is unclear about the issue. John 21:20–25 contains information that could be construed as autobiographical. Conservative scholars generally assume that first person "I" in verse 25, the disciple in verse 24 and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple) in verse 20 are the same person;[12][13] they further identify all three descriptors with the Apostle John through a combination of external and internal evidence.[14] Critics point out that the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24–25 indicates that the author of the epilogue, who is supposed a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.[15][16]
Ancient testimony is similarly conflicted. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as Irenaeus.[14] Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who is said to have received it from the Apostles directly.[14] Charles E. Hill argues that there is a solid early orthodox tradition of authorship: the tradition that an apostle of Jesus wrote the Gospel and can be attested to as early as the first two decades of the second century, and there are many Church Fathers in the remainder of the second century that ascribe the text to John the Apostle.[17] Martin Hengel and Jorge Frey similarly argue for John the Presbyter as the author of the text.[citation needed] Hill goes on to propose that Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias’ elders, and Hierapolis' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles possibly all quote from the Gospel of John.
Epiphanius, however, takes note of an Early Christian sect, the Alogi, who believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic.[18] Corroborating this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims that the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation), but not the Gospel of John, was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus. This discussion of the Alogi represents the only instance in which both the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John were specifically attributed to Cerinthus.[18] Hill asserts that, at that time, the Gospel of John was never attributed to Cerinthus by the established orthodoxy; that Eusebius was only stating a theory that he had heard; and that Eusebius himself believed the Gospel to have been written by the Apostle John.[19]
Starting in the 19th century, critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[20]
Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel.[21] He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).
Among scholars, Ephesus in Asia Minor is a popular suggestion for the gospel's origin.[2]
Date
Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars. Justin Martyr quoted from the gospel of John, which would also support that the Gospel was in existence by at least the middle of the second century,[22] and the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel, is usually dated between 125 and 160 CE.[23]
The traditional view is supported by reference to the statement of Clement of Alexandria that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other gospels (Eusibius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7). This would place the writing of John's gospel sufficiently after the writing of the synoptics.
Conservative scholars consider internal evidences, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eye-witness (John 13:23ff, 18:10, 18:15, 19:26–27, 19:34, 20:8, 20:24–29), sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as 50–70. Barrett suggests an earliest date of 90, based on familiarity with Mark’s gospel, and the late date of a synagogue expulsion of Christians (which is a theme in John).[24] Morris suggests 70, given Qumran parallels and John’s turns of phrase, such as "his disciples" vs. "the disciples".[25] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[26]
There are critical scholars who are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50–70?) and culminating in a final text around 95–100. This date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called "appendix" to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple", supposedly the leader of the Johannine community that would have produced the text. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' followers, then a death around 90–100 is reasonable.
Banned
spirit filled speaking in tongues, baptised by full imersion.
Mark16:17 And these signs shall follow them that BELIEVE. In my name shall they cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues.
Baptise: Baptiso- Immerse.
Been BB'ing 6 years.
Anabolic Member
I still chuckle at the continuous statements that it is a 100% historical fact that Jesus the Christ was a real person as depicted by the gospels. You do realize the gospels weren't written by the people they were attributed to?
The epistles of Paul make no, zero, zip mention of Christ as embodied ever as a human. Paul is mild gnostic who relied entirely on old testament for his revelation about Jesus. He knew nothing of a human named Christ, to him the death and resurrect occured on a different plane of existence.
Read Earl Doherty or some stuff by Robert M. Price.
Member
Well, your wrong, even liberal Scholarship doesnt even go that far. Not even the Jesus seminar would agree with you. The Gospels were written by who they claimed to be, I would love to debate you on this subject. Have you read the letters of Paul? it doesnt sound like it. You need to read the new testament. Paul claims to have encounters with the risen Christ.
Anabolic Member
You could say that to anything, couldn't you?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-electi..._cid=rss_world
THE Republican presidential nominee John McCain has broken with two controversial televangelists whose endorsements he once trumpeted to win support from religious conservatives.
Well, you're wrong, even liberal scholarship doesn't go that far
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11576122/
Kenya Mob Burns 15 Women to Death over Witchcraft
A mob of about 100 people in western Kenya burned alive15 women accused of witchcraft on Wednesday, the AFP reports. The mob also torched about 50 houses in the local village of Nyakeo. "I can't believe my wife of many years would be killed so brutally by people who cannot prove their case even before God," said Enoch Obiero, a pastor. Kenyan officials have vowed to "hunt the suspects down," but this is just one of many incidents of vigalante and mob violence in Kenya's "sorcery belt." Dozens of suspected people were killed in western Kenya in the 1990s, amid allegations of sorcery. Several cases were also reported in recent months in neighbouring Tanzania, forcing President Jakaya Kikwete to order special protection for albino, who were being murdered and mutilated for good luck by with-doctors.
Well, you're wrong. Not even liberal scholarship goes that far.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/austin+...:::::f:EN:M:/e
Well, you're wrong. Not even liberal scholarship goes that far.
Banned
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. ICor 1:27-29
Anabolic Member
Ya, right . . . like this is supposed to make the ignorant and nonsensical BS in the Bible any easier to swallow?
Dumb is still dumb, regardless of how pretty of a dress you put it in.
Anabolic Member
Robert Price is a fellow of the Jesus seminar, he is about the only sane secular biblical scholar out there. Everyone else has some warped view and interprets it from there.
You have got to be kidding me right? Any serious scholar knows they werent. It was a writing style of the age. Write something and attribute it to someone else. Read Ehrman on this.
No he doesn't. There is only one vague passage where he talks about "seeing" christ with 500 brothers. The greek translation can also be worded as vision.
Read Earl Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle" for an indepth analysis of Paul and how he is not related to th Gospel accounts of Jesus.
In the end the Gospels and Paul's view of the Christ is not very difficult to view as simply old testament midrash. For those who would argue "well how did we get so many people believing he did exist?" Do you ask yourself the same question regarding Greek, Roman, Egyption gods?
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
Last edited by Psychotron; 05-23-2008 at 10:20 PM.
Anabolic Member
Still no one has answered the question as to why Jesus and/or God for that matter ever put pen to pad?
Boots you keep saying even the most liberal scholars accept your facts but say nothing in regards to the 'liberal' scholars cited by others on this forum.
Religion is a personal choice. Leave it at that! You cannot convince a non-believer anymore than a non-believer can convince you. For every so-called expert you point to in order to prove your religion is true, someone can point out an equal number (if not more) that it doesn't.
Fact remains Christianity is relatively new in the history of man. Its definitely not perfect, and there are many holes in it. But if Jesus makes you a better person, then so be it. But you cannot fault a person because he/she doesn't need YOUR God to be a better person.
The divisive nature of religion is the reason why the world is in peril now.
Associate Member
Funny how we argue and fight for centuries about the existence of a god we have never seen.
Christianity? Not for me. Santa for adults.
Senior Member
Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. BUT HE LOVES YOU! He loves you and he needs money....-George Carlin
Last edited by qualityclrk1; 05-24-2008 at 02:41 PM.
Senior Member
another good quote:
"I am often made sick when a rich person in a rich nation attributes some minor blessing to God on account of his faith and prayers when the same God allows thousands of orphaned, exploited, abused, malnourished, homeless, innocent children to die in filthy gutters around the world every single day." - David Mann
Knowledgeable Member
That "love" is shown through his ability to let you be forgiven, every single thing anything anyone has done is forgivable as long as you accept that gift. Think about how many times a person can sin a day and times that by how many years they live and then times that by how many people there are in the world. Lets say you make rules and 6 billion people disobey 30 rules a day for years and years and years, your going to be pissed and consequences arise! If you think about how many sins people commit in their lives we're lucky to have a way out.
By saying this he is basically saying God should police the world. If God didn't let these things happen he would take away choice by forcing us not to do those things. So its either freedom to choose or we're all robots and we do exactly what he says to do no matter what and love can not be forced and thats what he wants from us. Its not God's fault that these bad things happen, its ours, he has no obligation to fix our problems that are caused by US because of stuff that he told us not to do!
CHEMICALLY ENGINEERED
Okay, so WE caused these problems.....
Are you saying humans are more powerful than God?
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Senior Member
and one for everyone to ponder:
"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense." - Mark Twain
Anabolic Member
Great qoute of the man Einstien
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
Snook~ AR Lounge Monitor
The get quote of Forrest Gump:
"Mama always said life was like a box a chocolates, never know what you're gonna get. "
Banned
It amazes me how people prefer to trust in the vain wisdom of man to justify their own lifestyle instead of believing the bible, which if they investigated has all been proven to be true except where it talks about the end of this world.
Banned
To disobey God is to move out of the realm of which he works;ie blessings etc. You don't get punished.
Veritas, Aequitas ~
holy crap magic, you went to town on that post.
Banned
Nice work Magic
Banned
Dang! I was waiting for magic to kick into this thread. You have out done yourself. Very ineteresting read BTW...
CHEMICALLY ENGINEERED
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
"I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life."
"Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?"
"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
"Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."
"All religions have been made by men."
Author of Functional Training with a Fork
I agree!
Banned
It has been proven through historical findings that the true tribes of Israel (Israelites) settled in England (Ephraim) then certain tribes spread throughout certain countries. The tribe of Manessah populated America, and others went to Australia (Great Southern Land, new testament), New zealand, Canada, Europe, etc These peoples are the old testament people of God,and are still subject to Gods old testament promises of blessings and power. But as the Governments of these countries seek to distance themselves from the teachings of God they are losing the blessing that is their birthright. Thus becoming less powerful and less prosperous. Proverbs 16:7 When a mans ways please the Lord,he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote