Enjoy... poor word choice there me thinks.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Resurrection? I don't recall their being any concrete evidence of Jesus actually being resurrected.That would rather be the point of the Resurrection, wouldn't it? Because how could Jesus be resurrected if he did not die first? And that death could come from any source - an errant pebble, a disease... or perhaps a treacherous disciple.
How can you assume, without them even existing anymore, or reading them, that that they would in anyway back up Jesus's claim that Moses wrote about him?This argument depends on a sola Scriptura interpretation of the Bible - i.e. that the only books referred to in scripture are those which we now possess as Scripture. We know this to be false - Jesus and the Apostles refer to books which were known as late as the third and fourth century but have been lost since then.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, Icehawk, if you can't accept the Resurrection for the sake of constructing an argument regarding it, then there's not much point in discussing exegesis with you, is there?Icehawk wrote:Resurrection? I don't recall their being any concrete evidence of Jesus actually being resurrected.
He was pointing out that it wasn't a mistake in the first place. Jesus was supposed to choose a traitor.Franc28 wrote:So he did choose a devil for an apostle. You have failed to point out the mistake, just tried to make it look better.[John] 6:70 Jesus chose "a devil" for an apostle. Oh well, everyone makes mistakes.
The "devil" Jesus is referring to in this passage is Judas Iscariot. This is just plain an example of failing to read in-context for the sake of nitpicking, since there HAD to be a betrayer (Judas) for the prophesy to be fulfilled.
How is it "limiting God"? Why would God change the prophecy? Explain these things, and how it is "limiting" God by saying he didn't change the prophecy when he could have, since an obvious variable is whether he would want to or not.And God could have just changed the "prophecy" so he did not have to choose a devil (Judas). You are committing the common fallacy of limiting your god.
Iceberg wrote:John wrote his Gospel close to the end of the 1st century, and it would have been useless for him to write down a "chapter and verse" which wouldn't yet exist for three more centuries.
The most common version of the Bible today is the King James version, compiled by order of King James I of England (also King James IV of Scotland, this was in the time before they unified under the banner of the United Kingdom) in the early 17th Century. About, oh, sixteen hundred fucking years after the events that most of the New Testament refers to! Sixteen hundred years for writings to get lost or altered. And, to add more into it, it had been translated from Hebrew to Greek and Latin to other languages and English, and in translation you can lose more meaning in the text as the translators find the proper terms in the output language to relay with the input language material they would be using.And here I thought the Bible was timeless.
Using the Onion to back up your argument shows just how weak and pathetic it is. The Onion is a fucking satire site, not a legitimate source. It'd be like, I dunno, Trekkies using the DITL or Fivers using the B5Tech website in vs. debates. Of course, the Onion doesn't pretend to be legitimate, so it's not as bad as DITL, B5Tech, trueorigins, and other such sites.The Onion had a good article that lampooned on that. The Bible was written by desert dwellers, and about all it's good for is tell us what desert dwellers thought was "cool". It's completely valueless scientifically or morally.
Sorry, but the willingness to die for someone doesn't equate to validity, if that's what you're implying. All it takes is a con artist and a bunch of gullible people, like ... say scientifically uneducated religious zealots back during the beginning of the millennium?Moses spoke of the Messiah.
Jesus was the Messiah (or at least he said he was, the Apostles believed that he was so strongly that they went to their deaths rather than deny him, and modern Christians believe that he was).
I don't see what this proves. There's no evidence that Jesus was the messiah for the Jews, other than the hearsay in the New Testament, which was written by <surprise!> followers of Jesus!Therefore, if Moses spoke of the Messiah and Jesus was the Messiah, then Moses spoke of Jesus.
SPOOFE wrote:For the love of Spam, can we PLEASE drop this "Concession Accepted" crap? There's such a thing as running a joke into the ground, buckaroos.
I think that would be putting it lightly, he looks like he's enjoyed a few too many Krusty Burgers fortified with pure fat...no offense Mike but that shot on that picture just doesn't look good.Durandal wrote:That picture makes Mike look like a member of the Lump Club.
Umm...because people aren't logical all the time I suppose.What i dont get is how a person can put so much faith in a book written hundreds of years ago, that has been changed hundreds of times, and that can be handely disproven by science. Cristian are willing to kill for these beliefs, beliefs that are responsible for millions of deaths.