|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Wrong thread.
But I will point out that End Times prophecy is a total mess. That neither the Olivet Discourse, nor Revelation have room for a pre-Tribulation Rapture, that the popularity of the idea that the Rapture is coming soon, likely on Rosh Hashanah is reason enough for preachers to talk about it - and a preacher talking about things related to Rosh Hashanah when Rosh Hashanah is approaching is to do with Rosh Hashanah approaching. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There were ? I don’t remember you mentioning any. I do remember seeing people predicting the Rapture every Rosh Hashanah for some years.
quote: No, they don’t.
quote: Matthew 24 doesn’t specify. The Revelation certainly mentions Christians. And the general Resurrection of Christians - which is supposed to be part of the Rapture doesn’t occur until after the Milennium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I’m sure they will come up with more next year. But if those ‘timing indicators are so good why not mention them ?
quote: Really ? Because I suspect that it is.
quote: No, the way the information is arranged does not indicate a pre-Tribulation Rapture in Matthew 24. And since you are a Biblical Inerrantist of course you disagree with the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In other words they were less important to you than a preacher talking about stuff related to Rosh Hashanah - when Rosh Hashanah is approaching. Can’t have been very good.
quote: And why would the 70th anniversary be important? Even the Rosh Hashanah timing is dubious but you won’t find anything in prophecy that makes the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the modern state of Israel anything important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: This is just a silly apologetic. For any answer you can go on asking why. And that includes a God. It might be different if you have a good reason why a God would exist, but you don’t. So the whole thing goes nowhere. It’s just a waste of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
And this is where you demonstrate your poor ability to judge arguments again.
quote: In actual reality, the internal evidence indicates that the story was written down hundreds of years after the original events. The numbers are clearly implausible. Neither external histories nor archaeology provides any real support for it. In other words it is a legend, you have no witness evidence in there and there is no reason to believe the miracle stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I admit that your lies are abundant, but they aren’t evidence of God. Ranting and raving against the truth simply proves your irrationality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Ad hominem attacks do nothing to disprove the facts. It’s odd though that you think that the Bible is the creation of unbelieving "scholars" who had a bias against the supernatural. But it’s hardly the first time you’ve made claims like that.
quote: If we throw the Book of Exodus in the trash as revisionist crap, where does that leave your case? Even when we talk about the historical and archaeological evidence you are going to need more than ad hominem to justify your claims.
quote: Except when you don’t like it, as we saw in the case of God hardening the Pharaoh’s heart - also in Exodus.
quote: According to traditions of unknown origin which are hardly sufficient to answer the internal evidence of the books themselves.
quote: Well that’s another lie and a pretty irrational one since everyone can read your posts and see it’s a lie. A bit rant-ish too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Of course it is ad hominem since it is directed against the people and not against their arguments. Moreover you have yet to provide any reason to believe that it is true or even relevant. For instance a scholar’s views on the supernatural have no bearing on the absence of useful historical markers in the text of Exodus.
quote: And that is a lie.
quote: And there we see your usual hate of the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Because lying and bullying doesn’t work on us ? You know how much you’d whine if someone said something similar about you. Especially if it was true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
No they don’t say worse, and you provide ample justification for what is said.
The current thread being an obvious example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I will not speak for the others but that does not represent my view. I would argue against the Resurrection on the grounds that the evidence we have is better explained by the Resurrection being a legend rather than a genuine event. The closest I would get to your idea is the argument that naturalistic explanations must be preferred on grounds of likelihood - resurrections are not normal events - but I think my argument is strong enough to win without that point (not to say that it is not a valid point - it is - only to say that it is not needed). Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That’s funny since you feel free to change the Bible to suit yourself. It’s also funny since science doesn’t require you to believe even established theories. You can’t pretend it says something other than it does, but you can disagree with it.
quote: Let us note that Biblical Inerrancy is a far less important doctrine to Christianity in general than the Resurrection. Let us also note that the use of disciplinary action to compel belief on pain of expulsion is a rather questionable idea anyway. And also let us note that Biblical Inerrancy is easily seen to be false. Remember your last thread on the subject: Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections (which could more accurately be titled Biblical Inerrancy falls flat on its face)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It certainly isn’t false.
quote: Because nobody has heard of Albert Einstein.... Seriously, it is possible to get recognition by going against established theory. You just need a very strong case. And the payoff can be really high.More, that really only applies to strongly established theories - physicists can get papers published proposing alternatives to Dark Matter, for instance. It’s bad methodology more than unorthodox conclusions that tend to get scientists in trouble. quote: But you get in worse trouble for making false claims, employing poor reasoning and insisting that your arguments are good even when it has been shown that they are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It is neither silly nor pedantic to point out that there is no analogy. A scientist is not expelled from science simply for unorthodox beliefs. There are no scientific theories that must be believed.
quote: And there you go making false claims again. The Bible is not inerrant. Remember your utter failure to defend it ? I’ve already linked to the thread today and I’ll do it again if I must.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024