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.
stuck between him and deny everything is actually painful at times. I have to teach my kids how to separate claims based on how the universe works from claims based on addiction, abuse, and mental illness.
It is not verified outside the Bible. That is why there id no agreement even among scholars. Jesus' birth id put anywhere between 4BC and 2 AD.
Josephus, Strabo, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Velleius ALL verify the different years outside of the Bible. And the relevant scholars DO agree. it is only the apologists who pretend otherwise, invent ad hoc excuses, and ignore evidence they do not like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Post the verses that verify what you say. Since there w many Herrod's, be sure to tell which one the verse is referring to and how you know it.
Matthew 2.
The Return to Nazareth
19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”
21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
I know because that is EXACTLY what your bible says. How come you do not know your own Bible?
So once again I post evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Post the verse you think make you case and we will see.
Matthew 2:19-23 as posted above for the first two (when Judea was independent of Rome), and Luke 2:1, when Judea was a part of Rome.
Luke 2.
The Birth of Jesus
1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
So once again I post evidence from a book you appear ignorant of. Even the Bible says you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
NOT TRUE. I have written record, which you can't disprove.
So it is both true and not true? The reasons you dismissed my evidence apply to the bible as well, as you yourself admit. So you admit the Bible no verifiable evidence. In your own words. That is why I quoted you doing this very thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
It is not my opinion the dates you are using are not in the Bible. It is not my opinion those dates are estimated.
See above. Better yet, here is you saying why you can not use the bible to back up your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
The Bible does not give dates. Therefor they are estimated and even that is not agreed on 100% by scholars. Therefore you have no verifiable evidence.
Bye bye Bible as verifiable evidence, in your own words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
I want you to give me the exact verse you are referring to. I think you are beating around he bush because you don't have one.
Again? It is the one where Hebrews states if Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest. Google it for yourself. But you need to read the passages around it for context of Jesus being the heavenly priest.
Josephus, Strabo, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Velleius ALL verify the different years outside of the Bible. And the relevant scholars DO agree. it is only the apologists who pretend otherwise, invent ad hoc excuses, and ignore evidence they do not like.
Matthew 2.
The Return to Nazareth
19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”
21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
I know because that is EXACTLY what your bible says. How come you do not know your own Bible?
So once again I post evidence.
Matthew 2:19-23 as posted above for the first two (when Judea was independent of Rome), and Luke 2:1, when Judea was a part of Rome.
Luke 2.
The Birth of Jesus
1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
So once again I post evidence from a book you appear ignorant of. Even the Bible says you are wrong.
So it is both true and not true? The reasons you dismissed my evidence apply to the bible as well, as you yourself admit. So you admit the Bible no verifiable evidence. In your own words. That is why I quoted you doing this very thing.
See above. Better yet, here is you saying why you can not use the bible to back up your claims.
Bye bye Bible as verifiable evidence, in your own words.
Again? It is the one where Hebrews states if Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest. Google it for yourself. But you need to read the passages around it for context of Jesus being the heavenly priest.
This is why you don’t use the Bible as a history book...
There is no evidence they don't exist. If anyone says they do, they must provide the evidence.
What I am trying to establish is what you believe the default position on such fanciful beings existing should be . You seem to be saying above that we might have to accept the possibility they exist because there is no evidence they don't, but also that anyone claiming they exist has to show evidence of such . These are largely opposite stances . So is the default that such beings do not deserve consideration as existing until evidence is presented for them, or that they deserve consideration until proven to be non existent ?
There is no evidence they don't exist. If anyone says they do, they must provide the evidence.
This is a RIDICULOUS statement. How exactly is one to go about providing evidence for something which DOESN'T exist? Providing physical evidence would prove that the thing DOES exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
The opinion they don''t exist is the fact there is no evidence they do exist. No one has ever seen a dino, but there is evidence they did exist at one time.
There is no evidence for flying reindeer though IS THERE? Just as there is no evidence for flying reanimated corpses.
This is a RIDICULOUS statement. How exactly is one to go about providing evidence for something which DOESN'T exist? Providing physical evidence would prove that the thing DOES exist.
There is no evidence for flying reindeer though IS THERE? Just as there is no evidence for flying reanimated corpses.
As long as you analyze from our modern perspective and state of mind, you will miss the reason the ancients used parables and figures of speech. Try to place yourself in sth state of mind of a relative primitive who was absolutely terrified of Spirits, considered their body inseparable from themselves, and had no conception of consciousness as Spirit. It should not be that difficult since some of you still think that way. How would you communicate to such a mind that when we die our true self (Spirit) leaves our physical body and joins the heavens? The ascension of a physical resurrected corpse would be the only viable explanation for such a mind.
As long as you analyze from our modern perspective and state of mind, you will miss the reason the ancients used parables and figures of speech. Try to place yourself in sth state of mind of a relative primitive who was absolutely terrified of Spirits, considered their body inseparable from themselves, and had no conception of consciousness as Spirit. It should not be that difficult since some of you still think that way. How would you communicate to such a mind that when we die our true self (Spirit) leaves our physical body and joins the heavens? The ascension of a physical resurrected corpse would be the only viable explanation for such a mind.
I understand perfectly well why ancient people, even intelligent individuals, would have developed these beliefs in ancient times. But this is the 21st century, and there is no excuse for this sort of primitive make believe today. It's like encountering a grown adult who still sucks their thumb.
Why would anyone today conclude that "our true self (Spirit) leaves our physical body and joins the heavens?" That's pure make believe.
What I am trying to establish is what you believe the default position on such fanciful beings existing should be . You seem to be saying above that we might have to accept the possibility they exist because there is no evidence they don't, but also that anyone claiming they exist has to show evidence of such . These are largely opposite stances . So is the default that such beings do not deserve consideration as existing until evidence is presented for them, or that they deserve consideration until proven to be non existent ?
lmao wall, good luck.
he has no concept of laying out all the data and coming up with a reasonable conclusion that offers an explanation, mechanism, and make predictions. 'can't prove me wrong" is needed by people that do not understand the process of forming sound beliefs.
I understand perfectly well why ancient people, even intelligent individuals, would have developed these beliefs in ancient times. But this is the 21st century, and there is no excuse for this sort of primitive make believe today. It's like encountering a grown adult who still sucks their thumb.
Why would anyone today conclude that "our true self (Spirit) leaves our physical body and joins the heavens?" That's pure make believe.
how do you handle the angst of death for these people? You can see people physically relax when given this option. they go on with their lives with no cost to me. My brother believes in an afterlife. I tell him I don't believe in it but I don't put him down.
But, BIG BUTT, he also doesn't make rules based on "god said so", so I can leave it be. Other than god, we pretty much line up on law making.
Since I am just tho opposite of a Pharisee, it can be Jesus accusing me. It is you and you also judge me in spite of what Jesus says. Now to prove you are just blowing smoke and that from a coal fired furnace, I challenge yo to post what Jesus is accusing me of and how do you know He is? You pride, which is the sin of sins, makes you think you are omniscient. Let me assure you, you are not even close.
Has any conservative Christian, and that's the only ones I care about, said I turn their stomach? No, they will give me a big
Reading comprehension is your problem. I have NEVER said the mark and the curse are the same thing. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Is that an honest way to discuss? Thank you for comparing me to the person who replace America'd worst president. I would rather speak from both sides of my mouth than speak with a forked tongue and lie about people I don't know just because they reject my theology. Most of your comments turn my stomach.
I get what is moral/non-moral from what God says. You get your from you personal opinion. God is omniscient, you are not. When you disagree with God, you simply say He did not say that or did not mean that. Atheist are easier for you to talk to because your theology is closer to theirs. Which ones are more moral. That comment is just you blowing more smoke for something you have no evidence for.
Stupid comments like that turn my stomach. Why should I apologize for overlooking something. No one was hurt or insulted. You insult me all the time and have yet to apologize. Your sinful pride will not allow you to.Have you never overlooked anything?
What I did was inadvertent. You defined "hyperbole" incorrectly and gave 2 examples that were not hyperbole. You did not apologize for that and what you did was no inadvertent. Try to apply your own standards to yourself first.
If you kept every law in the Bible, you would be righteous. That is a no-brainer. I find them glorious because they came fro a glorious, inerrant God. You only keep the ones you agree with and I doubt if you even do that 100%.
And you are the one who continues to tell those you don't know what they are doing. I have said many times I am still a sinner, but all of my sins have been paid for. So have your but youdon't seem o Give Jesus the credit for paying for them. How sad.
You keep implying I have accused you of something. I have not. Accusing other is what you do, not true fundamentalist. We are not allowe to. Only the liberals get to do that because they have become omniscient.
I can no longer waste a lot of time replying to your obnoxious posts and lies.
Here is the first thing I posted about the Bible using hyperbole and which you flat out denied:
Quote:
Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:25-27
Since the above is NOT hyperbole, how much DO you HATE your wife and children? If it is literal you must literally HATE those in your own family. It is no wonder that they don't trust you enough to speak honestly to you as you HATE them because Jesus did not use hyperbole.
Where is your CROSS? Since Jesus did not speak in hyperbole, you need a physical CROSS like the one He carried. If it's really big, I suppose you don't get out too much unless you have a large trailer to put it on. Even then you wouldn't be following Jesus' directive because He mentioned nothing about putting it on a trailer. He talked about His following to be His disciple.
This is enough to show how ignorant you are of the English language.
Finally, let me congratulate you on saying one honest thing in the above post:
Quote:
Has any conservative Christian [done so], and that's the only ones I care about, -----
Omega2
We are well aware of how no one can mix you up with Jesus who cared about EVERYONE, even non-Jews, even a Pharisee or two who came to repent. YOU however, only care about what "conservative" Christians think, and dismiss everyone else as worthless toads in your world.
You exhibit the common psychological characteristics surrounding fundamentalists:
Quote:
To insure that we are not threatened by ideas that are not part of the group identity, we project onto those who hold contrary ideas images of sin, evil, and degradation.
---------------------------------
There is no doubt that fundamentalists see the world as if their knowledge of it were absolute. Rigidly held beliefs, intolerance of alternative points of view, capacity to reinterpret history to fit their worldview, and rejection of scientific evidence are all manifestations of a fundamentalist ideology
The list made by Dr. Wiviott certainly encompasses some primary psychological problems of fundamentalists--lack of self esteem, projection of evil onto others, sexual confliction, fear of death, and a book that can be held onto when all else fails.
At least you are able to claim you have psychological problems, or "the Devil made me do it." For the rest of us, we have to look in a mirror and accept ourselves for what we are.
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.
