Using the Bible to prove the Bible (mythology, miracles, prayer)

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by Cyno

Let's be intellectually honest on a couple points:

Why? I am constantly bombarded by Bible critics why think of themselves as paragons of virtue. This is a blatant accusation! Is that the way you normally introduce yourself to someone, accusing a complete stranger of dishonesty of any sort, and expect a civil dialogue with them? I do not appreciate being accused of anything by someone I never encountered. If you want me to respond to this, you’ve got to go about it a different way. Try using tact. Accusations are out of place.

Have you read about RNA enzyme replication? It would not necessarily prove this could NOT happen without help, with enough time and the right materials present it could happen, that doesn't prove or disprove it had or required help.

This is another expression of FAITH. What COULD happen is not science and amounts to nothing superior to the path followed by the religious. Time is the “poof” of secularists. Things that have information and meaning do not “happen” on their own. If you think so, then that’s YOUR form of miracle.There is a purpose behind all experiments.
Materials have to gathered, sorted and arranged in order, to get desired results.

Josephus provided invaluable historical records of time he lived in, but recounted his Jewish belief system about what happened before he lived and could witness it first hand. He basically was quoting the OT.

Wrong! Josephus was NOT quoting the NT. It is obvious that you did not check. Try Googling “The Syblis.”

Intellectual honesty suggests that you can't quote someone, quoting the source you're trying to validate. That has no more merit than quoting a modern day preacher, reading the OT.

There you go again, with your accusations. Since I’ve proven that you are mistaken, your point is effectively negated.

Again, quoting a Bible Atlas, assembled with one intent in mind, to sustain bible verses, while glancing over the truth that the opinion stated is just a belief, not a fact, but asserting as though it is conclusive evidence is not intellectually honest either, is it? It is also a mystery that you state in CAPS nothing to do with the bible, yet both the Josephus story and the Bible Atlas are profoundly about the bible.

This is your third accusation, in as many sentences, and I will not honor it with a response.

That is not to say that the bible does not contain some amount of useful and accurate historical record, it most likely does.

I will furnish you with two:
“First, over 700 years in advance, the prophet Micah foretold that the promised One would be born in Bethlehem, a small town in the land of Judah. (Micah 5:2) Where was Jesus actually born? Why, in that very town! (Matthew 2:1, 3-9) Second, many centuries in advance, the prophecy recorded at Daniel 9:25 pointed to the very year when the Messiah was to appear—29　C.E. The fulfillment of these and other prophecies proves that Jesus was the promised Messiah.” (Bible Teach, pp.39-40)

Fair enough and properly stated. It supports bible record, however, it certainly falls far short of conclusive proof, just to be balanced.…

Do you have any idea what constitutes “conclusive proof?” Jesus said: “Neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:31) What could be more conclusive than that? Yet, its still not enough for some.

forever . The Hebrew word, “Ad” (#05703) is used here. Davies Lexicon, p. 452, defines it, “properly progress, duration, hence long or indefinite time. . ..” In Amos 1:11 it says that Edom's anger “keeps tearing away forever” ( #5703 ad) Edom has long ago ceased to exist, so we know that the word does not mean there can be no end. In Job 20:4 it is translated, “of old, since man was placed upon the earth.” In Dan. 4:23 it is translated, “till seven years pass.”

You plagiarized this paragraph from here:
www.glenacres.org/Documents/300DestructionOfEarth.htm
because you did not give credit to its author, Ralph Johnson, and then accuse ME of “intellectual dishonesty.” Well - you sure showed us who the dishonest one is!
However, the entire document is seriously flawed anyway, since it repeatedly refers to God as “planning” or “making plans” which is a human construct.
Nevertheless, I must ask you:
How would you respond to this text? “One generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the earth abideth forever.” (Eccl. 1:4)What did Jesus mean when he taught his followers to pray: “Let your will be done, as in heaven, also upon earth?” (Matt. 6:9,10)
There is nothing temporary about heaven - is there?

Anytime you see "forever" in the bible, understand the translation was no translation at all, rather an interpretation of the language, to fit RC doctrine.

Eccl. 1:4 (above) - is this RC doctrine?
Your lesson in understanding Biblical terminology falls flat.
Take note of this, too:
When Jesus said the meek or mild-tempered ones “will inherit the earth,” at Matt. 5:5, he was quoting from Psalm 37:11,29.
INHERIT: 3. vt get something from a predecessor: to take something over from the person or group who previously lived in a place or did a jobin·her·it (Dictionary.com)
[Spelled[in-her-it] –verb (used with object)

1. to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business.
2. to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors. [/SIZE]
3. to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors.
4. to succeed (a person) as heir.
5. to receive as one's portion; come into possession of: to inherit his brother's old clothes.

–verb (used without object)
6. to take or receive property or the like by virtue of being heir to it.
7. to receive qualities, powers, duties, etc., as by inheritance (fol. by from).
8. to have succession as heir.
No one could “inherit” something that was destroyed. Could they? To be given a substitute is not the equivalent of an inheritance.

"Jesus knew that the Kingdom would rule the earth in righteousness forever. So, the earth itself will be populated by “righteous” ones who will “reside forever upon it.” Thus, by inspiration, David had described what the finale will be when Jehovah carries out his purpose (not plans) for our earth. Christians can rejoice that the things of which David saw just glimmerings, and could personally share in only by means of a future resurrection, they can experience. Those whom the Lord puts on his right hand as “sheep” have the opportunity to “reside forever” on a paradise earth governed forever from heaven." (WT 74, 6/15, p377-378)

Oh - and quit with the accusations, huh?

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

This is true, which is why i talk of 'biggies'. It's quite reasonable to say that the evangelists wouldn't record what Jesus had for breakfast or even every healing he did. But the point is that they would not leave out the 'biggies'. Not unless there was some darn good reason why they should.

Why wouldn't they leave out the biggies? Because you wouldn't? Because I wouldn't? They're not necessarily like you or I.

And for what reason do you think they had no good reason? For some what matters about Christ is his ministry. There's no reason for John to get into his childhood or nativity as that's not his interest. Biographers even now will sometimes ignore important swaths of a person's life to focus on an area that links best to what they want to say.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

The fulfillment of these and other prophecies proves that Jesus was the promised Messiah.”

He couldn't have been. He has no blood link to David

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Rafius

....and do we not catch John with his trousers down when when he transcribes verbatim, the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane......while he (John) was tired, hungry and SLEEPING with all the others.


Well they would do! They were specifically written for that very purpose.

Yet how did the writers of the New Testament manage to get the sun to darken for three hours at the time Christ died on the cross, as reported by historians of His time?

http://www.carm.org/there-non-biblic...-christs-death

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by Rafius

He couldn't have been. He has no blood link to David

You have got to be kidding!
"The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham:" (Matthew 1:1)

"But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife home, for that which has been begotten in her is by holy spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."" (Matthew 1:20-21)

"Well, all the crowds were simply carried away and began to say: “May this not perhaps be the Son of David?”” (Matthew 12:23)

“.　.　.And, look! a Phoe·ni´cian woman from those regions came out and cried aloud, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David. My daughter is badly demonized.”” (Matthew 15:22)

“.　.　.And, look! two blind men sitting beside the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying: “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” But the crowd sternly told them to keep silent; yet they cried all the louder, saying: “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!”” (Matthew 20:30-31)

“.　.　.As for the crowds, those going ahead of him and those following kept crying out: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!”” (Matthew 21:9)

“.　.　.When the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous things he did and the boys that were crying out in the temple and saying: “Save, we pray, the Son of David!” they became indignant” (Matthew 21:15)

“What do YOU think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.” He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?” And nobody was able to say a word in reply to him, nor did anyone dare from that day on to question him any further.” (Matthew 22:42-46)

What’s the point?
Well - why was Jesus known by all as the son of David? And how could the entire Jewish populace be so mistaken about the genealogy of Jesus? They weren’t! Everybody knew their ancestry and that of the others. That was because, according to the Mosaic Law, property rights were not to cross tribal lines by way of marriage or inheritance.

The genealogical records of the nation were housed in the temple at Jerusalem in the time of Christ. They were destroyed when the Romans burned the temple in 70 C.E.

If there was the slightest hint of irregularity in Jesus’ genealogy, his religious enemies would have pounced on it with gusto. As it was, they never even brought it up. Why not?

And here you thought I was going to resort to the “begats” so you can argue.

[Cyno]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

Why? I am constantly bombarded by Bible critics why think of themselves as paragons of virtue. This is a blatant accusation! Is that the way you normally introduce yourself to someone, accusing a complete stranger of dishonesty of any sort, and expect a civil dialogue with them? I do not appreciate being accused of anything by someone I never encountered. If you want me to respond to this, you’ve got to go about it a different way. Try using tact. Accusations are out of place......Oh - and quit with the accusations, huh?

Challenging the information you presented and the way it was presented is an accusation? This is supposed to be an arena of intelligent rebutal.

Since when is there a rule about introductions being required on a public forum prior to dialog?

You accuse/assumed me to be a bible critic, because I challenged your logic and a bible translation error, in much the same way as you vigorously responded, you are doing what you say shouldn't be done.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

What COULD happen is not science and amounts to nothing superior to the path followed by the religious. Time is the “poof” of secularists. Things that have information and meaning do not “happen” on their own. If you think so, then that’s YOUR form of miracle.There is a purpose behind all experiments.
Materials have to gathered, sorted and arranged in order, to get desired results.

My point was that with the right collection of "materials" and environment, can support a process, not that it will or won't. Who collected the "Material" to form fossils? Scientists? or did they happen on their own?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

Wrong! Josephus was NOT quoting the NT. It is obvious that you did not check. Try Googling “The Syblis.”

It's obvious you can't read, I said OT not NT(you even quoted me saying OT. ..LOL). And yes, his rendition is extremely similar to the OT, and he was a highly regarded and well studied Jew. Coincidence?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

There you go again, with your accusations. Since I’ve proven that you are mistaken, your point is effectively negated.

I will now accuse you of not being able to read and therefore ill-equipped to prove a mistake.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

Do you have any idea what constitutes “conclusive proof?” Jesus said: “Neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:31) What could be more conclusive than that? Yet, its still not enough for some.

You must be previously convinced that Jesus was the end all authority for that to be conclusive, otherwise that is not conclusive. Many of the people on this forum do not hold the same level of faith in the scriptures as you do, so you won't go far using them, to prove themselves.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

You plagiarized this paragraph from here:

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

www.glenacres.org/Documents/300DestructionOfEarth.htm
because you did not give credit to its author, Ralph Johnson, and then accuse ME of “intellectual dishonesty.” Well - you sure showed us who the dishonest one is!

Bawahaha.... you don't list an author for each verse of the bible you plagiarize, but that's simply a distraction from the real points at hand. And me using a copy of someone else's concordance lookup has nothing to do with validating or invalidating your provided proofs and you know it.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

However, the entire document is seriously flawed anyway, since it repeatedly refers to God as “planning” or

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

“making plans” which is a human construct.

Seems to me I remember a verse in Jeremiah that has God saying something like, "I know the plans I have for you" Besides, the enitre discussion of eternal is a distraction to the point of the thread, so I'll not spend much time on it, other than answer your question below.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

How would you respond to this text? “One generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the earth abideth forever.” (Eccl. 1:4)

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

What did Jesus mean when he taught his followers to pray: “Let your will be done, as in heaven, also upon earth?” (Matt. 6:9,10)

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

There is nothing temporary about heaven - is there?

First let's leave the heaven discussion out of this for now, not because we can't go there, but because the word eternal isn't part of Matt. 6:9,10, so that would be a tangent dialog.

Next the word "forever" in Eccl. 1:4 from Strong's Condordance, properly means "concealed, vanishing point, or out of mind."

If you hold to the eternal literal definition, Well there appears to be at least one or two contradictions in the bible on the topic.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

Eccl. 1:4 (above) - is this RC doctrine?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

Your lesson in understanding Biblical terminology falls flat.

It sure is RC doctrine, instilled through generations of careful crafting, recapitulation, and fear mongering, to prevent tampering and questioning. This gave the church great power over common people for centuries upon centuries.

Now to end with, my points were not an all out assault on you personally or your character, simply a challenge to the data presented and the rational behind declaring it to be concrete proof.

For example, how can you expect non-bible believers to accept with the same exclusive merit you grant to the authors of the bible atlas, when the authors (most likely) were not a collection of believers & non believers? That's an approach that is destined to be wasted.

Personally, I'd like to see a translation of the bible done by a group that included equal numbers of bible-believers and atheists, maybe even some non-Judea-Christian religious language scholars(Muslim, Buddist, Etc.) That would help reduce predispostions of interpretation, as included in the Latin Vulgate and the KJV versions, clearly guided and overseen by the RCC.

[Cyno]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

You have got to be kidding!
"The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham:" (Matthew 1:1)

"But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife home, for that which has been begotten in her is by holy spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."" (Matthew 1:20-21)

So if the Holy Spirit inseminated Mary how would Joseph's blood line be part of the equation?

[Vic235]

PhD of theology would use Bible to prove Bible; PhD of stu woud use stu to prove stu.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Yet how did the writers of the New Testament manage to get the sun to darken for three hours at the time Christ died on the cross, as reported by historians of His time?

Answer: They didn't! It didn't happen. George Cyncellus was quoting Africanus who was quoting Thallus who was quoting well know Christian claims of his time. There are no dates for Thallus but historians seem to think he was around towards the end of the 1st century CE. Like all the other 'secular historians that mentioned Jesus' claimed by Christianity, Thallus wasn't there, saw nothing and just reported on what he had heard. Even if Thallus had seen it first hand, this 'darkness' was supposed to have covered the whole land yet nobody but Thallus saw it???? Hell man, even the author of John appears not to have heard of this darkness because he doesn't mention it.

"Various writers have said that the account in the synoptic gospels is mythical. During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was “too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.” His arguments stemmed from Gibbon’s comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark. The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John. One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:

"It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".

In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two. Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama. To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints. Modern seismologists have studied the earthquake that rocked Nicaea and other cities throughout Bythenia. The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun. The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifi...ss_and_eclipse

Is there non-biblical evidence of a day of darkness at Christ's death? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Yeah right!! You might just as well link to AiG as Carm. Their record of lying for Jesus is just as long as AiG.

Also Campbell, do you know that exactly the same events ( sudden darkness at the sixth hour, a strong earthquake, rent stones, a temple entrance broken in two, and the rising of the dead) were used to describe the death of Julius Caesar and that the events were reported by multiple ancient writers (see Wiki link above)?? What does that tell you man?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

You have got to be kidding!

No! Jo was not the biological father of Jesus therefore there is no bloodline to David. Quite simple really.

[Gplex]

You could use the bible to prove the bible, IF the bible didn't contracted itself and many known facts.. If it was consistent, and factual on every claim, with untold knowledge on how to help ourselves, you probably could use it to prove itself.. I think you have more of a problem with circular logic.