Proof the God was created by Man (Commandments, believers, Lord)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny how I see a scientist constantly giving us new things to fears so we will run out and buy products instead of offering practical solutions. Millions of dollars donated to things like cancer research and what do we get year after year, nothing but the same old horrible treatments of chemo and radiation.
Some of us might not be alive today if not for cancer research. And other medical research. I might have died when I contracted Legionnaire's disease had it not been for research into the development of antibiotics. It sure felt like I was dying!
Why claim that Christianity is a lie and mock us when you don't even understand the basics? You don't even understand why the OT laws don't apply anymore much less more advanced concepts like the gifts of the spirit.
The only "laws" that apply seem to be the oppression of the LGBT and the complete fabricated one against a woman's choice...
This thread is funnier than watching Comedy Central....
On the surface. In reality it is more terrifying than any nightmare when one realizes that fundism like that espoused by Senor Cruz, would turn everyone into a slave of some mythological god under penalty of immediate DEATH.
Actually there are more verses in the NT that clearly speak to homosexuality being a sin. Sorry if the Word of God offends you so much.
There are verses in the NT that clearly state that faith is not enough for salvation, and that good works are also required. Does the Word of God (tm) offend you?
How do you not understand that your interpretation of the Bible is YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE? I have read the Bible and understand what it says. Then along come umteenth quadillions of individual Christians with their various personal interpretations all claiming that the Bible only means exactly what they say it means. I know what the words themselves say though perfectly well. So when you say something like "OT laws don't apply anymore" even I, an atheist, notices that Jesus is reputed to have said:
Matt.5
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So when you say things like "the OT laws don't apply anymore much less more advanced concepts like the gifts of the spirit," it's clear that you are simply manufacturing your own belief system as needed.
You can read the Bible all you want, but you'll never fully understand it as long as you are spiritually dead.
You just prove it here again by thinking that Jesus is saying the OT law should never pass away. That's what He is saying at all. Most Christian denominations agree on the important basics. Sure we have some minor differences but we all agree that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and the only way to heaven is to be be born again and our greatest call is to love and put people before our own self desires. Even snake handler churches will agree on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Here are some "gifts of the spirit" for you. Verses 9-20 do not appear in the oldest versions of Gospel Mark, but were tacked on in later centuries.
GOT QUESTIONS.ORG
Question: "Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?"
Answer: Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.
In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.
The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark. Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?
Mark 16:
18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
From this tacked on verse in mark, we have Christians doing THIS:
First, it has never been established or proven that the Mark verse was "tacked on". You can dispute it all you want, but you'll never have solid proof that this verse was not inspired by God. Futhermore, you have very old manuscripts like Codex Alexandrinus which does have the verse. The passage aligns with other verses in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
And then you are shocked, SHOCKED, you say, when non believers mock you and your claims that of course you personally know what you are talking about. Well, what Christian DOES NOT fully believe that the Bible means exactly what they have determined that it means.
I'm not shocked at the mockery. I expect it. I don't even really mind if you want to make fun of me. The thing that gets under my skin is that your side won't own up to it. You are disrespectful, offensive, rude and insulting yet try to tell me that it is justified or even that it is a good thing in a debate which is off the charts ridiculous.
First, it has never been established or proven that the Mark verse was "tacked on". You can dispute it all you want, but you'll never have solid proof that this verse was not inspired by God. Futhermore, you have very old manuscripts like Codex Alexandrinus which does have the verse. The passage aligns with other verses in the Bible.
Some ancient mss. have the quote and some has a space in their text for where the verse should be.
Here is a small quote on this matter:
"Standing in contrast with the evidence for omission is the external and internal evidence for the inclusion of verses 9-20. The verses are, in fact, present in the vast number of witnesses (see the UBS Greek text’s critical apparatus—Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189). This point alone is insufficient to demonstrate the genuineness of a passage, since manuscripts may perpetuate an erroneous reading that crept into the text and then happened to survive in greater numbers than those manuscripts that preserved the original reading. Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of the witnesses that support verses 9-20 cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: “It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark” (1987, p. 287, emp. added). Such longstanding and widespread acceptance cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily. It is, at least, possible that the prevalence of manuscript support for the verses is due to their genuineness."
You can go here to read the pros and cons for the text being genuine or not: https://apologeticspress.org/apconte...13&article=704
Quote:
I'm not shocked at the mockery. I expect it. I don't even really mind if you want to make fun of me. The thing that gets under my skin is that your side won't own up to it. You are disrespectful, offensive, rude and insulting yet try to tell me that it is justified or even that it is a good thing in a debate which is off the charts ridiculous.
It is par for the course when dealing with the unfaithed. Moderator cut: deleted
Last edited by mensaguy; 02-25-2016 at 08:44 AM..
Reason: Discussing moderation
Euse is the laughing stock of gullibility and credulity.
Moderator cut: deleted
Quote:
I was wondering why George Wald was on the front of that video appearing to have made that quote.
Euse apparently does not realize that creationists are experts at Quote Mining.
I suggest you try to prove wrong all the quotes in that video like I asked you to.
Quote:
George Wald never said what that YouTube video is depicting.
Euse I suggest you go to the library and look up that paper "The Origin of Life," which appeared in the August 1954 (pages 44-53) issue of Scientific American and this is what you will find with respect to what George Wald actually said.
I suggest you stop making fun of those you don't agree with.
Quote:
I will even make it easy for you. Just print out this PDF and take it to your library and ask them to help you find this paper.
I thought by now you would have learned to check your sources before posting rubbish.
They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
What should they say about a person who fails to learn that you can't just believe everything you read or find on YouTube?
What do you say about a person who does not realize the importance of checking out the original source for information before deciding if it's accurate or correct?
Just prove the quotes in the video are not correct. Oh, and try to quit with your immature bullying tactics. It is so puerile.
Last edited by mensaguy; 02-25-2016 at 08:46 AM..
Reason: Discussing moderation
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
by...?
