|
Author
|
Topic: Is Jesus the Circular Messiah?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: Who is more credible and reliable? St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, St. Paul, author of Hebrews, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, David, etc, etc. Or: Your typical axe-grinding Atheist-evolutionist "scholar"?
Since there is actual evidence for what the scholars are claiming, I'd have to go with them.
Hundreds of millions of persons since the 15th century AD, from every ethnic backround, economic status and level of education, have sided with the Biblical authors.
Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true or not.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: Hundreds of millions of persons since the 15th century AD, from every ethnic backround, economic status and level of education, have sided with the Biblical authors. This massive group of persons disagree.
Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true or not.
Point evasion.
No it isn't, it addresses the point perfectly. If I take a bunny, and let millions of people vote on what sex it has, does this change the actual sex of the bunny to whatever the people voted for most?
Except when it is the Theory of Evolution and the number of scientists that support, of course.
No, this also goes for the theory of evolution. We accept it to be true because of the evidence supporting it, not because eveerybody keeps saying it is true.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: options
Cold Foreign Object writes: Any other option is a subset belonging to one of these two. Boiled down: the authors either lied or told the truth.
Or, they lied about some bits, and told the truth about others.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: But we are not talking about your ridiculous straw men.
It is not a straw man, it is a perfectly fine analogy to show that truth does not depend on popularity.
The fact that hundreds of millions of diverse persons recognize the veracity of the textual evidence exposes the "evidence" of Atheists and Evolutionists to be non-credible and unreliable axe grinding.
Repeating time: Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true or not.
Evolutionists commonly support evolution by saying evolution is true because the vast majority of scientists support.
Do they now? If they do, they are idiots. There is mountains of evidence for evolution, all they have to do is refer to them to make clear why they are supporting it.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: Yes it does.
Am I getting through to you? Once again. If I take a bunny, and ask millions of people to vote on its sex, does the sex of the bunny change to whatever was voted for most?
Why else is something accepted as true? Of course this is rhetorical.
Because of the supporting evidence?
Ray: "Evolutionists commonly support evolution by saying evolution is true because the vast majority of scientists support." Huntard: "Do they now? If they do, they are idiots."
Nice quote mine there, in the next sentence I point out there are mountains of evidence for evolution. You conveniently left out that bit.
Ray: Evolutionists are idiots but they feel the near unanimous support of ToE by scientists is good evidence of its veracity.
If they do, they are idiots. Something makes me suspect they don't though.....what would that be....AH YES! The mountains of evidence mentioned earlier.
The Bible enjoys mammoth support from persons of all walks of life, social status, and education.
Here we go again: Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true.
The issue, which you keep avoiding and evading, is credibility and reliability.
I avoided NOTHING. Reliability and credibility can only be determined by supporting evidence, not by how many people believe something to be the way it is.
The Biblical authors held to be----saints----literally.
*scrapes throat* Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true. Further, this is an appeal to authority.
Atheists are infidels----liars.
And we top it of with an ad hominen. Well done, you almost completed the set.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: Hundreds of millions of persons from diverse backrounds, social and economic status, and education agree that the Bible is true: the Divinely inspired word of God.
So you say. To which I have time and time again replied with: Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true. And I'll do it just one extra time in the hope you'll get it now. Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true.
Hundreds of millions of persons from diverse backrounds, social and economic status, and education agree that the Bible is most credible and reliable, that is, a Book which reports what many persons were thinking.
Right.... Should I repeat myself three times now? Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true. Only supporting evidence can show if something is reliable or credible, NOTHING else.
Yes, it is. And you seem to think that your personal "authority" is exempt from your own belief.
No it isn't. I might think something to be true, it could be entirely wrong. I believed in Atlantis when I was younger. Then I studied it some more, and found there was NO evidence whatsoever to support the story. So, now I don't. You know why? Because popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: 2 PROOFS
chemscience writes: Here are 2 of many places the Bible holds data unknown & unknowable to humans when it was written:
Alright, let's have them
1. There are fountains in the sea. In October '08 a broadcast about the abyss showed "black smokers", vents from which issue enormous quantities of superheated water. These were discovered in 1978 and reported in Natl Geo in '79. Earth's largest geophysical feature is the deep sea 40,000 mile intercontinental rift which is populated with these fountains. 35 centuries ago they were named at Genesis 7:11, 8:2 and centuries later at Proverbs 8:28.
Gen. 7:11:
quote:
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
This also speaks of the heavens having windows, somehow I don't think you want to claim that. Gen. 8:2:
quote:
The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained
Again we have the windows here, but more importantly: "The fountains also of the deep{...)were stopped" they're still here today. Did god make a mistake when he put that in the bible? Prov. 8:28:
quote:
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep
Of course this talks about when god broke them up in the first place, it's a reference to Gen. 7:11. So, were the fountains stopped? They are still here today. Try again.
2. Repeatedly we're forbidden to consume blood, a prohibition ratified at the Apostolic conference. (Acts 15:29 & 21:25) Logically that includes transfusions. Now enlightened MDs have named bloodless surgery as the "Gold Strandard". San Antonio Baptist Hospital went bloodless this year, and in Atlanta Catholic St. Joseph's hospital routinely does open-heart surgery on Jehovah's witnesses with no blood and splendid results.
So, people that NEED a blood transfusion should be left to die, nice fellow, this god of yours.
Just realised this is kinda off topic, sorry! Edited by Huntard, : off topic and all
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by chemscience, posted 10-29-2008 1:02 AM | | chemscience has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: My point was that the Bible has diverse support from persons from all walks of life, social status, economic status, and educational credentials.
I'm not going to say it again.....Oh alright : Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true.
The Koran does not.
Yes it does. There are Muslim doctors, economists, hell, I bet there are even Muslim biologists and pretty much anything else you can think of.
How do you explain this kind and degree of support of a Text that reports what persons were thinking?
Because people are usually indoctrinated with this stuff form a very early age, and when one bases one's world view upon something, it's very hard to let it go.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: Hundreds of millions of persons from diverse backrounds, social status, economic status, and educational credentials, disagree.
They can disagree all they like, doesn't change the fact that the ONLY thing that can show something to be correct is evidence, not popularity.
While support of the Koran has the numbers it does not come close to all of said criteria.
YES IT DOES. Muslims are as diverse as Christians in this world.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: Hundreds of millions of persons from diverse backrounds, social status, economic status, and educational credentials, accept the Bible as true because it IS evidence and because of the corroborating evidence.
There is NO evidence backing up many things claimed in the bible. The flood and creation to name two. So, what is this evidence that the claims of the bible are true? Please present it.
Not even close. Muslim countries kill Christians and Christianity is illegal. You have resorted to self-evident nonsense equivalent to denying a round Earth or the Holocaust. Oh wait, Muslims deny the Holocaust too.
Wow....Are you ever bigoted or what? There are also normal Muslims you know, and not all of them deny the holocaust. In fact there are Christians who deny the holocaust as well, or blame the Jews for the crucifixion, how nice of them. But since I am spewing nonsense, it will be easy for you to refute my claims with evidence, please do so.
I hunt for the truth
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by DrJones*, posted 10-29-2008 6:18 PM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: In line with the topic: 1. Even the most vocal critics of the Bible and Christianity (= the Jesus Seminar) admit that Christ lived. Do you agree?
No, I don't. I say the Jesus of the bible NEVER existed.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: If critics do not dispute His existence then yes, of course----that is the point.
I'm a critic, and I dispute his existence. And once again, even if the ENTIRE world believes something to be true, does not mean it is
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: The truth of the statement is self-evident. There is no evidence that contradicts.
There is no evidence that contradicts the flying spaghetti monster either. The point is finding SUPPORTING evidence. And the statement is a lot, but NOT self evident.
Assuming your percentage is more or less correct and assuming we agree as to what "face value" means, this percentage of Christians (who are undoubtedly evolutionists) are explained the way the Bible explains original apostle Judas.
Of course they are, how could we ever have doubted. And just to be absolutely clear, this was sarcasm, so don't go crying "Hallelujah! a convert" just yet.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: Interesting comment.
Yes, a very good comment as well.
So you are saying that if He did not live in the way the Bible portrays then He did not live?
No he's NOT, he is saying that even IF there was a guy named jesus, and even IF that guy was the inspiration for all the stories in the bible, that doesn't mean ANY of those stories happened. Unless you have independent evidence of ANY of the acts jesus performed according to the bible, they are just stories and nothing more.
I will be getting around to this after we resolve the first issue above.
Since it's the same issue, I'd say you're free to move on.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Cold Foreign Object writes: Your belief is refuted by the critics who are scholars who accept His existence. Very few scholars of any persuasion deny that Christ lived.
Appeal to Authority. Show me the evidence Jesus lived and acted as described in the bible. Then I will shut up, until then I will keep harassing you to provide evidence. And don't go crying "Harassment!" now, I don't mean in that sense.
I hunt for the truth
|
™ Version 4.2
