Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 271 of 427 (544488)
01-26-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by John 10:10
01-26-2010 6:56 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
i do not believe the term is "kingdom on earth". the first coming was his perfect life, death, and resurrection. the second coming was after the rapture. the dead rise and join jesus in heaven, and jesus comes with his big army of angels and the words for his name are all over him.blah, blah, blah. he never sets up an "earthly kingdom". he leaves with all of the saved believers, with the world at satan's disposal. then God does the whole universe all over again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by John 10:10, posted 01-26-2010 6:56 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by purpledawn, posted 01-27-2010 4:58 AM hawkes nightmare has not replied
 Message 275 by John 10:10, posted 01-27-2010 11:25 AM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 272 of 427 (544490)
01-26-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by John 10:10
01-26-2010 6:56 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Brian writes:
While you are here, since no one has explained my first point, the bloodline of David, why don't you have a go at solving that major obstacle instead of firing out meaningless garbage from God's Big Book of Fairytales?
John 10:10 writes:
Paul explains how this was fulfilled in Messiah Jesus in Gal 3,
Brian asked for an explanation other than from your book.
You are still using the Bible to prove itself.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by John 10:10, posted 01-26-2010 6:56 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by John 10:10, posted 01-27-2010 11:34 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 273 of 427 (544561)
01-27-2010 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by hawkes nightmare
01-26-2010 7:09 PM


The Kingdom is Where?
quote:
i do not believe the term is "kingdom on earth". the first coming was his perfect life, death, and resurrection. the second coming was after the rapture. the dead rise and join jesus in heaven, and jesus comes with his big army of angels and the words for his name are all over him.blah, blah, blah. he never sets up an "earthly kingdom". he leaves with all of the saved believers, with the world at satan's disposal. then God does the whole universe all over again.
Please provide scripture to support your comments.
Where does it say in the messianic prophecies that the dead would rise and join the messiah in heaven or that God would "do the whole universe all over again"?

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-26-2010 7:09 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 274 of 427 (544581)
01-27-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by PaulK
01-21-2010 12:24 PM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Of course it does not. If you admitted that you are incapable of dealing with the texts on that basis, that would end it. Are you incapable of doing that ?
I dont know where you studied logic or how to analyze a text, but I m pretty sure even the simplest of minds would require us to keep 7:13 in the entire context of the chapter and book, which clearly includes God as its author and God as directing these affairs.
To this point in the debate you have REFUSED acknowledge the text from this standpoint. To make this point clear to all readers here I would ask you to provide the post or statement, where you have included God, either directly or indirectly as a part of the text. We on the other hand have considered and addressed most if not all of brians contentions and entertained them as possiblities to the solution.
Paul, are you going to admint that God is repleat in the text and assume atleast the possibility of his involvement? or are you going to use verbage to disregard that point, util the discussion becomes pointless
Now tell your audience again Paul who is disregarding the text.
That would depend on the work, and it's purpose would it not ? If it collects old stories it might take it's references from those stories. If it expresses the author's views it might be an expression of his faith. You could ask much the same question about texts outside of your religion, such as the Quran.
See here is what I mean, More side tracking verbage that refuses to take the take the text at face value
And I've not said anything to contradict that. Of course, relevance is not always obvious and sometimes has to be shown, and you have been rather poor on that.
relevance of the plain text needs to be demonstrated??????. First you cry that we are disregarding the plain text, then you isolate a single verse, which disregards the plain text, then you disregard the rest of the text which speaks of Gods involvement, then you disregard Pegs very insightful observation that it is the THRONE, not a person, that is under consideration, then AFTER ALL OF THIS ABSURDITY, you have the nerve to conclude that I am somehow not going by the plain text. reaaly Paul, do you think your readers are not seeing these simple points.
Your problem is that you are not ACTUALLY prepared to discuss the text, but have involved yourself in a vicious circle and problem from which you cannot extricate yourself
Again we have your confusion between understanding the text and believing the text. That is, the text credits God with originating the Nathan prophecy, but it can be read and understood without believing that to be true. And in this case it would not make the slightest difference.
I know you have your pride Paul, but some people really should just say, I should not have involved in a discussion, where I had not considered all the logical ramifications beforehand.
Paul, if you and brian believe that most of the Old testament statements and stories are myth in the first place, then there is no rational way for you to make the following statement:
That is, the text credits God with originating the Nathan prophecy, but it can be read and understood without believing that to be true. And in this case it would not make the slightest difference.
given the fact that you and brian believe most of even the Old testament to be myth, this is without a doubt the most ignorant statement I have ever heard.
nathans prophecy is useless and pointless without a belief that it is actual and REAL in the first place. Since you will find nathans prophecy nowhere outside the book of Samuel, how in the world could it be understood or believed outside of its ENTIRE CONTEXT, or for that matter INSIDE its context and ISOLATING on verse as you do
Your method of proceeding, is absurd at best. Please be my guest and explain how Nathans prophecy could be understood outside of its ENTIRE CONTEXT and without including his comments about God in the process
It's right there in Greek mythology and the Quran, too. But you don't believe those, do you ?
No. But, nor would i proceed in a discussion with a Mormon or muslim without the idea or consideration, that God does not exist or that it is not possible that he is or is not possible author of thier writings. I would assume that he exists and that he could have something to do with those writings. it would be pointless otherwise.
Im certainly not going to proceed in a discussion with a person that actually believes Hercules was actually involved with and direct by a pantheon of mythological Gods. i would pat them on the head, smile and say, you have a nice day now
Except for the fact that I am not attempting to do anything so broad. All I am attempting to do is establish whose kingdom it is, according to 2 Samuel 7:13. And the most important aspect would be the text of 2 Samuel 7:13. And yes it is absurd to try to exclude the clear meaning of it as Peg tried to do.
Peg writes:
Solomon was to be the builder temple, but another decendent would be the indefinitely lasting ruler of Davids throne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAM writes:
Now watch this, his conclusions do not violate that text and more importantly they are supported by the rest of the Old and NT
PaulK writes:
Really ? Perhaps you can explain how the quote above can be read from 2 Samuel 7:13
i know your readers do Paul, but perhaps now you are starting to see the relevance of the entire text and God in the process.
Any person looking at your above statement would probably pat you on the head and say have a nice day.
Paul if God exists and is the author of the book of samuel and the rest of the Old and New testaments, its not hard to figure out how peg would get that out of a single text.
Paul there is no common ground here and we might as well be talking about hercules.
We have acknowledged brians aspects and only when you wish to be objective and consider the possibility that God was actually directing samuel, Nathan and these individuals, will the discussion have any common frame of reference.
if you start with the belief that God does not exist, not a part of the scriptures, the discussion is nonsensical. i dont know how to better make this point.
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2010 12:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Nuggin, posted 01-27-2010 11:27 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 279 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2010 11:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 284 by purpledawn, posted 01-27-2010 5:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 275 of 427 (544587)
01-27-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by hawkes nightmare
01-26-2010 7:09 PM


Why I know Jesus was a success
You may not believe the Lord Jesus will set up His "earthly kingdom" when He returns, but Zech 14:9 says differently:
"And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-26-2010 7:09 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Nuggin, posted 01-27-2010 11:29 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 276 of 427 (544588)
01-27-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Dawn Bertot
01-27-2010 10:55 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
if you start with the belief that God does not exist, not a part of the scriptures, the discussion is nonsensical. i dont know how to better make this point.
The inverse is also true. If you start with the belief that God does exist, the discussion is nonsensical.
Just like if you start with the belief that God AND other deities exist -or- if you start with the belief that God doesn't exist but that other deities do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-27-2010 10:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 277 of 427 (544590)
01-27-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by John 10:10
01-27-2010 11:25 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
How is that claim any more valid than the same claim in a thousand other religions?
Practically every religion on Earth has a "Well, you better believe this story or one day you'll be sorry! Now please give me money and follow my rules" statement just like that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by John 10:10, posted 01-27-2010 11:25 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2010 10:32 AM Nuggin has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 278 of 427 (544591)
01-27-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by bluescat48
01-26-2010 7:41 PM


Why I know Jesus was a success
Why not ask those who believe in Judaism to explain Judaism from some other source other than the Torah and the Old Testament writings?
Yes, the New Testament will always be used to show how God has fulfilled most of the promises/prophesies He made in the Old Testament, and those that are yet to be fulfilled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by bluescat48, posted 01-26-2010 7:41 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Brian, posted 01-27-2010 11:56 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 281 by bluescat48, posted 01-27-2010 1:39 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 282 by Nuggin, posted 01-27-2010 2:47 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 279 of 427 (544592)
01-27-2010 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Dawn Bertot
01-27-2010 10:55 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
quote:
I dont know where you studied logic or how to analyze a text, but I m pretty sure even the simplest of minds would require us to keep 7:13 in the entire context of the chapter and book, which clearly includes God as its author and God as directing these affairs.
And even the simplest of minds should be able to tell the difference between knowing what a text says and believing it. Even if we grant that God is supposedly the originator of the prophecy (but NOT of the book itself) and that the writers believed that God was directing events, this does not tell us that these things are true. Nor - if we are taking the book as a historical document - can we assume that they are true.
Oh, and I studied logic at the University of Birmingham, if you must know.
quote:
To this point in the debate you have REFUSED acknowledge the text from this standpoint. To make this point clear to all readers here I would ask you to provide the post or statement, where you have included God, either directly or indirectly as a part of the text. We on the other hand have considered and addressed most if not all of brians contentions and entertained them as possiblities to the solution.
Simply demanding that we adopt your viewpoint - a repeated theme in your posts - is neither reasonable or productive. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this thread is about Brian's reasoning, and if you wish to show that that is invalid you need to either do it within Brian's viewpoint (which treats the Bible like any other historical document) or provide arguments for your views. You have done neither. Nor have you even come up with an argument which makes use of those assumptions.
quote:
Now tell your audience again Paul who is disregarding the text.
You and Peg. Peg's reading - which you apparently jumped in to defend - is not valid and you have yet to make any sort of argument to the contrary.
quote:
See here is what I mean, More side tracking verbage that refuses to take the take the text at face value
That "side track" was a direct answer to a question that YOU raised. And of course if I hadn't answered you would likely accuse me of evading the issue.
quote:
relevance of the plain text needs to be demonstrated??????. First you cry that we are disregarding the plain text, then you isolate a single verse, which disregards the plain text, then you disregard the rest of the text which speaks of Gods involvement, then you disregard Pegs very insightful observation that it is the THRONE, not a person, that is under consideration, then AFTER ALL OF THIS ABSURDITY, you have the nerve to conclude that I am somehow not going by the plain text. reaaly Paul, do you think your readers are not seeing these simple points.
Any reader who "sees" any such thing has a problem, since none of them is true.
quote:
Your problem is that you are not ACTUALLY prepared to discuss the text, but have involved yourself in a vicious circle and problem from which you cannot extricate yourself
Can you just skip the false accusations and actually produce a rational argument ?
quote:
I know you have your pride Paul, but some people really should just say, I should not have involved in a discussion, where I had not considered all the logical ramifications beforehand.
Paul, if you and brian believe that most of the Old testament statements and stories are myth in the first place, then there is no rational way for you to make the following statement:
That is, the text credits God with originating the Nathan prophecy, but it can be read and understood without believing that to be true. And in this case it would not make the slightest difference.

This is all just an attempt to bully by assertion. Unless and until you can produce a rational argument to support your claims I have no reason to believe them. My pride doesn't enter into it.
quote:
nathans prophecy is useless and pointless without a belief that it is actual and REAL in the first place. Since you will find nathans prophecy nowhere outside the book of Samuel, how in the world could it be understood or believed outside of its ENTIRE CONTEXT, or for that matter INSIDE its context and ISOLATING on verse as you do
Again this is all assertion and no argument.
quote:
Im certainly not going to proceed in a discussion with a person that actually believes Hercules was actually involved with and direct by a pantheon of mythological Gods. i would pat them on the head, smile and say, you have a nice day now
But you are prepared to demand that I do something very like that.
quote:
Except for the fact that I am not attempting to do anything so broad. All I am attempting to do is establish whose kingdom it is, according to 2 Samuel 7:13. And the most important aspect would be the text of 2 Samuel 7:13. And yes it is absurd to try to exclude the clear meaning of it as Peg tried to do.
Peg writes:
Solomon was to be the builder temple, but another decendent would be the indefinitely lasting ruler of Davids throne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAM writes:
Now watch this, his conclusions do not violate that text and more importantly they are supported by the rest of the Old and NT
PaulK writes:
Really ? Perhaps you can explain how the quote above can be read from 2 Samuel 7:13
i know your readers do Paul, but perhaps now you are starting to see the relevance of the entire text and God in the process.
Apparently YOU don't know because you were meant to be explaining it and you haven't.
quote:
Paul there is no common ground here and we might as well be talking about hercules.
We have acknowledged brians aspects and only when you wish to be objective and consider the possibility that God was actually directing samuel, Nathan and these individuals, will the discussion have any common frame of reference.
if you start with the belief that God does not exist, not a part of the scriptures, the discussion is nonsensical. i dont know how to better make this point.
If the only way you can make a point is to loudly assert it, with added false accusations for spice then there is a good chance that it isn't true. Even worse, it seems that you can't even provide a rational argument even with your preferred assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-27-2010 10:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2010 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 280 of 427 (544594)
01-27-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by John 10:10
01-27-2010 11:34 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Yes, the New Testament will always be used to show how God has fulfilled most of the promises/prophesies He made in the Old Testament, and those that are yet to be fulfilled.
And so we are back to the circular reasoning and self delusion required to accept Jesus.
And back to the fact that Jesus did not fulfil a single prophecy.
Anyway, thanks for the input, it wasn't totally useless, but it certainly didn't do Jesus' case any good.
And in true John 10:10 (good buddy) fashion: Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by John 10:10, posted 01-27-2010 11:34 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2010 10:40 AM Brian has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 281 of 427 (544607)
01-27-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by John 10:10
01-27-2010 11:34 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Why not ask those who believe in Judaism to explain Judaism from some other source other than the Torah and the Old Testament writings?
Yes, the New Testament will always be used to show how God has fulfilled most of the promises/prophesies He made in the Old Testament, and those that are yet to be fulfilled.
Yes, mythology used to prove mythology. Unreliable writings written by who knows who and when. I might as well use Gone with the Wind as History of the US Civil War.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by John 10:10, posted 01-27-2010 11:34 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 282 of 427 (544619)
01-27-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by John 10:10
01-27-2010 11:34 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Yes, the New Testament will always be used to show how God has fulfilled most of the promises/prophesies He made in the Old Testament, and those that are yet to be fulfilled.
Here's a test for you:
Go to any book store. Go to the Sci-fi/Fantasy section. Pick out any book with a sword or dragon on the front and read it. Odds are pretty damn good that that book is going to contain a prophecy which will, within the pages of that book, be fulfilled.
Does that mean that Lomax the North Raider is the son of God? Or does it mean that when the authors get to write both the prophecy and the history they can make everything match up as they see fit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by John 10:10, posted 01-27-2010 11:34 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2010 3:40 PM Nuggin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 427 (544628)
01-27-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Nuggin
01-27-2010 2:47 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Here's a test for you:
Go to any book store. Go to the Sci-fi/Fantasy section. Pick out any book with a sword or dragon on the front and read it. Odds are pretty damn good that that book is going to contain a prophecy which will, within the pages of that book, be fulfilled.
Does that mean that Lomax the North Raider is the son of God? Or does it mean that when the authors get to write both the prophecy and the history they can make everything match up as they see fit?
Meh... I get your point but one book by one author is a lot less impressive than the group of books that the Bible is.
The test would be better with something a little more analogous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Nuggin, posted 01-27-2010 2:47 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Nuggin, posted 01-27-2010 5:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 286 by Brian, posted 01-28-2010 3:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 284 of 427 (544641)
01-27-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Dawn Bertot
01-27-2010 10:55 AM


Address the Text
quote:
I dont know where you studied logic or how to analyze a text, but I m pretty sure even the simplest of minds would require us to keep 7:13 in the entire context of the chapter and book, which clearly includes God as its author and God as directing these affairs.
The text does not tell us that God wrote the account. God does speak in the story, but the text does not tell us that God was directing all aspects of the story.
quote:
relevance of the plain text needs to be demonstrated??????. First you cry that we are disregarding the plain text, then you isolate a single verse, which disregards the plain text, then you disregard the rest of the text which speaks of Gods involvement, then you disregard Pegs very insightful observation that it is the THRONE, not a person, that is under consideration, then AFTER ALL OF THIS ABSURDITY, you have the nerve to conclude that I am somehow not going by the plain text. reaaly Paul, do you think your readers are not seeing these simple points.
You haven't actually addressed the text in the entire context of the chapter and the book. I'm not going to type the whole chapter or book, people can read. The italics are my addition and understanding.
2 Samuel 7:11-13 (Nathan is to say this to David)
"The LORD declares to you (David) that the LORD himself will establish a house for you (David): When your (David) days are over and you (David) rest with your (David) fathers, I (God) will raise up your (David) offspring to succeed you (David), who will come from your (David) own body, and I (God) will establish his (David's offspring) kingdom. He (the offspring who will succeed David) is the one who will build a house for my name (God), and I (God) will establish the throne of his (the offspring who will succeed David) kingdom forever.
God will establish the throne of the offspring's kingdom for ever.
IOW, it is the throne of Solomon's kingdom. The throne in this promise is not separate from Solomon.
Nathan continues in verse 16:
Your (David) house and your (David) kingdom will endure for ever before me (God); your (David) throne will be established for ever.
Show me in the text that the throne (and I assume we aren't talking about the physical chair but the authority) is separate from David or Solomon or their heirs.
It has already been discussed that the continuation of the kingship through Solomon's line was dependent on behavior. Message 131 and Message 197
It has also been discussed that words translated as forever does not mean never ending. Message 173
It has been discussed that even their songs reflected that God revoked his promise. Message 216
I've also shown in Message 228, that the supposed speech by Jeremiah that God doesn't break promises was not in the Septuagint. So it was a later addition.
Show me that the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel is separate from David or his heirs through Solomon. You haven't shown us that yet.
God's own authority is separate from David and his heirs and is not connected to the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel. The throne in 2 Samuel is attached to the people. It is about governing the people of Israel. Jesus didn't govern the people of Israel.
Please address the text. Since you feel it is obvious, then show us.
Edited by purpledawn, : Typo
Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed link
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-27-2010 10:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 285 of 427 (544643)
01-27-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Meh... I get your point but one book by one author is a lot less impressive than the group of books that the Bible is.
Okay, grab EVERY book from any given series with multiple authors. "Dragonlance" or whatever else is out there (honestly haven't checked out sci-fi/fant in a long time) and you'll see the EXACT same thing.
A unified world, recurring characters with magical powers, prophecies, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2010 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Huntard, posted 01-28-2010 3:32 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024