Summations Only

Two thousand year old, unknowing, superstitious men reporting events that they never witnessed is not evidence. The Gospel writers are unknown and never witnessed anything and wrote decades later. Paul had a vision, if you can believe him. Without the need to believe it, there is not much reason to actually believe it.
This is not what we call evidence today. It's what you call evidence. For some reason god decided he wouldn't give anything else. One conclusion, is it's evidence of the human imagination only and the gullibility of people.

You keep making that claim but always refuse to provide Chapter and Verse so that the claim might be examined. There is even a whole thread (Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?) devoted to looking at such claimed prophecy but unfortunately not one has turned out to be supportable so far. Perhaps you have other examples of the prophecy you claim is there and we could take a look at them too.But of course, other religions also have prophecies, Greek and Roman gods even had well organized channels so folk could know the prophecies were genuine and authentic straight from the gods. There was a whole career path for prophets and often they received honor even in their own countries.And don't forget about Ragnark; now there is some serious prophesying.There are also the Hindu prophecies and almost all of them have come true.So it seems lots of other religions have specific prophecies that have been fulfilled but we have not been able to get similar specifics from the "Bible Christians". Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Other religions have oracles, only the Bible has prophecy.

Too funny but you are just showing your ignorance yet again. Many religions specifically say they have prophecy; I even gave you a specific example with the Ragnark.Do you know anything about history?

Only the Bible has genuine prophecy.

You keep making that claim yet never offer any support for your assertion. Why is it we have never been able to get a Biblical Christian to show us even a single example of "genuine prophecy" that can stand up to examination?You keep making that claim but always refuse to provide Chapter and Verse so that the claim might be examined. There is even a whole thread (Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?) devoted to looking at such claimed prophecy but unfortunately not one has turned out to be supportable so far.Perhaps you have other examples of the prophecy you claim is there and we could take a look at them too?

We know that debunkers like you just make up your own stuff and insist you're right, just as you've now got Golffly parroting, lie after lie after lie, and nobody can win a debate with such frauds. I've argued all these things with Orthodox Jews and they're better at it than you are and still as wrong as wrong can be. Sorry, not willing to put myself through such lies any more. People who have a sincere desire to know the truth, that the Bible is the only source of genuine prophecy, can find it without my help.

So the simple truth is that once again you cannot or will not offer anything to support your assertions.Got it.But just for the record there is the thread ( Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? ) and if you actually had any support then it would seem you could provide at least a single example.The sad part and why you should be pitied is that despite what you claim I do, what I actually do is post just what the Bible stories really say so that everyone can see whether or not what I claim is a lie.

You fragment the Bible and read it out of context. It is to be read as a whole, every part in the light of every other part. It is not two contradicted by seven, it is two elaborated by seven.

That is of course pure prejudice, something you believe without evidence. But you have to call them liars to say this, and what right do you have to call anyone a liar without proof? There are claims to have been eyewitnesses to most of the important events of scripture. Ordinarily a person should be taken at his word shouldn't he, especially if his claim is corroborated by many others, which is the case with the Bible witnesses. It is pure blind prejudice that causes you to treat them so unfairly. Nobody regards them as unknown who believes the Bible, they have clear identities both in their writing and in others' descriptions of them. Again this is just something you believe without the slightest cause. Again, they describe things they witnessed and for you to say they didn't takes some kind of extreme arrogance, no way to treat your fellow human beings. Two or three decades later to write something down that had been preached and rehearsed daily for all those years is not a problem, especially in a time when people were used to verbal sources of information. The disciples recounted the events of Jesus' life over and over again for their entire lives. Except of course the fact that he tells it at least three times to various people and it was the most dramatic event of his life that completely changed him from a Pharisee to a preacher of the gospel. Again, not to believe him is to impose your own arrogant prejudice on him. Really? Eyewitness reports are no longer evidence? What an amazing thing to say. What you seem to be completely unable to grasp is that this is nothing but prejudice on your part. You are prejudiced against the idea of the supernatural so that no matter how many witnesses testify to it you will treat them as crazy people or liars and trust in your own blind bias. A rational person should recognize when there is evidence against his bias and stop and consider it.Modern man is indeed prejudiced against such ideas, it's ingrained in us, drummed into us. Nothing could be harder to take seriously than accounts of miracles and a person talking from heaven and so on. But that is nothing but our prejudice. The honesty of the Biblical reporters ought to make you stop and reconsider your bias.Again, granted it's hard, the stories are so outside our biases and expectatons it opens us up to unimaginable wonders to take them seriously. I went through that too, the amazing realization that things I'd thought impossible were in fact real. Blows your mind if you let it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have been observing this debate for awhile now. Whenever I judge something to be true or false, I not only take into consideration what is said, but who said it and if possible a character evaluation of such an individual. Critics would assert that humans by nature do not want to believe it because it would mean that we would have to be accountable to such a God and we by nature do not want this to be true. I have examined many arguments both pro and con. Neither side has a monopoly on conclusiveness.I will say that Christians whom I know personally have good character and are not prone to making rash assertions in everyday life.Characters in the Bible, such as Saul of Tarsus aka Paul do not strike me as having any ulterior motive--simply a great amount of zeal--which one would expect had one actually had a supernatural encounter.I realize that what some would call the "woo factor" is unprovable and so I wont attempt to do so.We need to ask ourselves if the stories themselves have any weight or merit in regards to human nature and destiny or whether they----as critics suggest---are propaganda for a new religion.I believe as i do because I see evidence nearly every day of lives changing for the better.

No matter how many times I hear this argument it still sounds inane. I'll note here that you weren't willing to put your name to it. You just used the anonymous term "critic".

In making my post, I tried to convey the point that the terminology was a quibble, and that I hoped the substance of the argument to that point was not over the quibble. But if quibble, we must, we might note that Paul heard Jesus voice, but neither he nor the men with him saw anything or anyone. Many people would not claim to have 'met' the person whose voice he heard.In my opinion, it is scarcely worth arguing about. The more important question is whether it happened at all. I personally find the story of Paul's conversion credible. But I don't pretend that I reached my conclusion based on the evidence. Because there is no evidence. Absolutely none. Because the idea is not obvious. It's inane.I was completely clear about my reasoning. 'Prejudice' (if that is the word) against the supernatural is entirely rational. Natural and not supernatural is the state of affairs encountered and expected all of the time. To label such thing as prejudice is akin to complaining that people are 'locked into' rational thinking or reasoning.In short saying someone is 'prejudiced against the supernatural' really means that the person is not subject to superstition.I'm sure even you catch yourself exhibiting the same bias on a regular basis. When you cannot find your keys, I'm sure you look for them rather than immediately trying to think of a way to get them back from a poltergeist. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You need to step out of your mythology if you're going to converse clearly with people in the real world. Paul did not meet Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. Paul had a vision on the road to Damascus. According to the Bible Paul saw a "flash from heaven" and heard a voice identifying itself as Jesus. Maybe to you hearing voices from the sky is the same as meeting someone, but not to anyone else.But if it makes you happy and to be more specific, Paul never met Jesus before he died. And remember that the New Testament is just a bunch of stories anyway, not documented events. Well, I stand corrected. Apparently you *do* accept the supernatural events recounted in the mythologies of other religions. So help me out here. If supernatural events recounted in the Bible are evidence that Christianity is the one true religion, then why aren't supernatural events recounted in the holy books of other religions evidence that *they* are the one true religion? You actually answer this question in the next paragraph: How do you tell the difference between a "real miracle" and a "puny imitation"? And this evidence of the supernatural would be? This is the same logical fallacy you've been trapped in since the beginning of this thread. You can't use evidence from the Bible to prove the evidence from the Bible. That's circular. You need evidence external to the Bible, of which you have none. I do confess to having a bias against ideas unsupported by any evidence.--Percy

There you go again. The 2/7 debacle .
It's amazing to me, not stupid things you say, but how you are void of the normal human emotion of embarrassment that should accompany such complete and total absurdity.