"I’m saying GOD doesn’t exist!"

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#661 Apr 7, 2013
Prophecies to Identify the Messiah, Which Jesus Does Not Fulfill:

1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#662 Apr 7, 2013
Prophecies to Identify the Messiah, Which Jesus Does Not Fulfill:

1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.



Prophecies Christians Use to Verify Jesus as the Messiah, Yet Clearly Fail:

4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

5) Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.

6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.

7) "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1. Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").

8) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.

A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#663 Apr 7, 2013
Statements Jesus Made Which Are False:
9) Jesus in John 14:12 & Mark 16:17-18 said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." This implies that Jesus’ true followers should be able to routinely perform the following tricks: 1) cast out devils, 2) speak in tongues, 3) take up serpents, 4) drink poisons without harm, and 5) cure the sick by touching them and MANY other of Jesus’ "works". Curiously I have yet to see a Christian that can do any of the above on demand.
10) In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it." In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus’ name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely.
11) Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection (1 Corinthian 15:14-17). Yet Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights. Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only one and a half days, so he could not have been the messiah by his own and Paul’s admission.
12) Jesus’ prophecy in John 13:38 ("The cock shall not crow, till thou [Peter] hast denied me three times") is false. Mark 14:66-68 shows the cock crowed after the first denial, not the third.
13) In Mark 10:19 Jesus said: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." Jesus needs to re-read the Ten Commandments. There is no Old Testament commandment against defrauding. The only relevant statement about defrauding is in Leviticus 19:13 , which says : "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor." This is an OT law, but is not listed with the Ten Commandments. Surely, if Jesus was god incarnate he would know the commandments.
14) "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13). If Jesus is in heaven, how can he be down on earth speaking? Moreover, according to 2 Kings 2:11 ("and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") Jesus was not the only person to ascend into heaven, nor was he the first. Elijah preceded him and apparently Enoch did also ("And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him"--Genesis 5:24).
15) In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." This obviously has to be false, for Jesus was supposed to lay dead in the tomb for three days following his crucifixion.
1 6) Jesus says : "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy" (Matthew 5:43). This statement does not exist in the OT either. In fact, Proverbs 24:17 says, "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth…"
17) Jesus is reported to say: "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it" (Luke 16:16). Certainly every man is not pressing to enter the kingdom of God. The very fact that I am an atheist (one third of the world’s population does not believe in a god) proves this verse to be false.
18) "Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" (Matthew 12:5) Nowhere does the OT state that the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath and were considered blameless.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#664 Apr 7, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care that through out history people have wrongly claimed supernatural ability. I'm not talking about them or that nonsense. Kindly do not refer to it again. I also don't care what the Quran says or doesn't, I've never read it. If it talks about prophecy, it's up to Muslims to show the accuracy thereof. They in turn will be right or wrong on merit of their evidence but not presuppositions either way.
Apparently the only thing you care about is what you happen to believe – the truth be damned.

“Belief in the truth commences with the doubting of all those 'truths' we once believed." - Friedrich Nietzsche
LGK wrote:
No-one is talking about supernatural human abilities except yourself.
So you are suggesting that prophesy is not a supernatural phenomenon?
LGK wrote:
This is a strawman. It's also an oxymoron, humans are not supernatural. It's also an oxymoron to say science can confirm or disconfirm the supernatural.
proph•e•sy (v)
1. to predict what is going to happen
2. to supposedly reveal the will of a deity in predicting a future event

A human being with the ability to predict the future, prophesy, would be considered to have a supernatural ability.

su•per•nat•u•ral (adj)
1. relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
2. relating to or attributed to a deity
3. relating to or attributed to magic or the occult

Scientific testing can most definitely determine whether or not the ability to accurately predict the future exists.
LGK wrote:
Operations science only works under natural conditions, of course it won't work under any supernatural conditions - whatever it is you mean by them.
“The supernatural is the natural not yet understood.“- Elbert Hubbard
LGK wrote:
Having dispelled of more smoke screens & red-herrings lets get back down to earth. Yes there are similarities and dissimilarities between Wreck of The Titan & the Titanic, but it's the similarities that count. How do you account them, guesses?
co•in•ci•dence (n)
1. something that happens by chance in a surprising or remarkable way
2. the fact or condition of happening at the same time or place or being identical
LGK wrote:
PS
Naturalism is a superstition. It's not that anyone has proved there is no supernatural but they have arbitrarily proclaimed there isn't then faithfully believed their proclamations. We digress.
“Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.”- Adam Smith
LGK

Erith, UK

#665 Apr 7, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already told you once. Anyway, it was "AFAIAA", you had one too many "A's" in your search. It means "as far as I am aware".
OK, let's say for argument's sake intentionality has not been proven, I'm not sure what exactly that means but will grant it for now. Do you still agree that representation requires a mind? The issue then is do we find it in objects other than human creations / artefacts. The answer of course can be yes or it can be no.

On the dog, is dog genome the dog itself or some other manifestation of dog? I take it as a given that we'll agree the genome is not the actual dog. What I need is agreement on what designation we give the genome in relation to the dog. I think it's self-evidently a representation of the dog & it's about or of the dog etc but I don't want to get too hung-up on terminology, is there a particular term that you prefer for this phenomenon?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#666 Apr 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently the only thing you care about is what you happen to believe – the truth be damned.
“Belief in the truth commences with the doubting of all those 'truths' we once believed." - Friedrich Nietzsche
<quoted text>
So you are suggesting that prophesy is not a supernatural phenomenon?
<quoted text>
proph•e•sy (v)
1. to predict what is going to happen
2. to supposedly reveal the will of a deity in predicting a future event
A human being with the ability to predict the future, prophesy, would be considered to have a supernatural ability.
su•per•nat•u•ral (adj)
1. relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
2. relating to or attributed to a deity
3. relating to or attributed to magic or the occult
Scientific testing can most definitely determine whether or not the ability to accurately predict the future exists.
<quoted text>
“The supernatural is the natural not yet understood.“- Elbert Hubbard
<quoted text>
co•in•ci•dence (n)
1. something that happens by chance in a surprising or remarkable way
2. the fact or condition of happening at the same time or place or being identical
<quoted text>
“Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.”- Adam Smith
If "Scientific testing can most definitely determine whether or not the ability to accurately predict the future exists" then why can't evolutionists tell us what man will evolve into next?

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#667 Apr 7, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, let's say for argument's sake intentionality has not been proven, I'm not sure what exactly that means but will grant it for now. Do you still agree that representation requires a mind? The issue then is do we find it in objects other than human creations / artefacts. The answer of course can be yes or it can be no.
On the dog, is dog genome the dog itself or some other manifestation of dog? I take it as a given that we'll agree the genome is not the actual dog. What I need is agreement on what designation we give the genome in relation to the dog. I think it's self-evidently a representation of the dog & it's about or of the dog etc but I don't want to get too hung-up on terminology, is there a particular term that you prefer for this phenomenon?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian...
LGK

Erith, UK

#668 Apr 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently the only thing you care about is what you happen to believe – the truth be damned.
“Belief in the truth commences with the doubting of all those 'truths' we once believed." - Friedrich Nietzsche
<quoted text>
So you are suggesting that prophesy is not a supernatural phenomenon?
<quoted text>
proph•e•sy (v)
1. to predict what is going to happen
2. to supposedly reveal the will of a deity in predicting a future event
A human being with the ability to predict the future, prophesy, would be considered to have a supernatural ability.
su•per•nat•u•ral (adj)
1. relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
2. relating to or attributed to a deity
3. relating to or attributed to magic or the occult
Scientific testing can most definitely determine whether or not the ability to accurately predict the future exists.
<quoted text>
“The supernatural is the natural not yet understood.“- Elbert Hubbard
<quoted text>
co•in•ci•dence (n)
1. something that happens by chance in a surprising or remarkable way
2. the fact or condition of happening at the same time or place or being identical
<quoted text>
“Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.”- Adam Smith
Nietzsche's statement is self-defeating. He must NOT doubt the existence of doubt or that he is capable of it. He must not doubt that he exists, he is sane, he can understand new truths, new truths exist. His quotes sound clever if unexamined.

I am saying prophecy either has happened and can be uncovered or it has not. Words like "supernatural" serve only to cloud the issue and detract from simple questions or enquiries. The Bible is a book and therefore it can be interrogated for accuracy, just like any other book. Christians are encouraged to test things, no holds barred.

Now, have you given up on how you account for similarities between Wreck of The Titan & the Titanic or are you going to try & give an account. Either way, Wreck of the Titan is one instance where a future event was foretold with high degrees of accuracy. We can know this without smoke screening it with "supernatural". If we can know Wreck of The Titan was accurate (or inaccurate) foretelling, we can do the same with the Bible.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#669 Apr 7, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, let's say for argument's sake intentionality has not been proven, I'm not sure what exactly that means but will grant it for now. Do you still agree that representation requires a mind?
Yes, it requires a HUMAN mind.
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue then is do we find it in objects other than human creations / artefacts. The answer of course can be yes or it can be no.
Representation is a function of the human mind, not objects. It's how the brain holds information about things.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#670 Apr 7, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If "Scientific testing can most definitely determine whether or not the ability to accurately predict the future exists" then why can't evolutionists tell us what man will evolve into next?
well, you have certainly evolved into a first class idiot...

why don't you give us a demo of something supernatural...
LGK

Erith, UK

#671 Apr 7, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it requires a HUMAN mind.
<quoted text>
Representation is a function of the human mind, not objects. It's how the brain holds information about things.
Does the acorn hold any information?

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#672 Apr 7, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has established that the OT prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ were "back-filled". Its only asserted but never proven.
“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Charles Darwin
No one has ever proved that your God exists, so all bets are off.

What HAS been proved, many times over, is that every single aspect of the Jesus fable was adapted from an earlier myth.

For example, the virgin birth/godly father, the star announcing the birth, the birth during the winter solstice, the gifts of the magi, the edict to slaughter all the male children, the healings and the miracles, the betrayal, the execution on a cross, the resurrection (coincidental with the spring equinox), and the bodily ascension into the heavens.

What's also been proved, many times over, is that none of Jesus' teachings were new. In fact, most of the so-called wisdom of Jesus can be found in Buddhists texts which predate the New Testament by centuries.

You're ignorant of ancient history, mythology, archaeology, and anthropology, so of course you'll continue to cling to your irrational beliefs and you'll continue to worship your non-existent 2000-year-old Jewish zombie.

Such is the life of a moron. So be it.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#673 Apr 7, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the acorn hold any information?
Yes, DNA. However, this is not a representation as referred to by philosophy, which is about mental states.

"The Representational Theory of Mind (RTM)(which goes back at least to Aristotle) takes as its starting point commonsense mental states, such as thoughts, beliefs, desires, perceptions and imagings."

"RTM defines such intentional mental states as relations to mental representations, and explains the intentionality of the former in terms of the semantic properties of the latter. For example, to believe that Elvis is dead is to be appropriately related to a mental representation whose propositional content is that Elvis is dead.(The desire that Elvis be dead, the fear that he is dead, the regret that he is dead, etc., involve different relations to the same mental representation.) To perceive a strawberry is, on the representational view, to have a sensory experience of some kind which is appropriately related to (e.g., caused by) the strawberry."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-repr...

AFAIAC, EVERYTHING to do with intentionality / representation takes place within the HUMAN mind and has nothing at all to do with how living things came into being and developed. If you believe otherwise I suggest you provide links to formal articles (not christian apologetics bollocks) which say living things need to have a concept in order to exist.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#674 Apr 7, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If "Scientific testing can most definitely determine whether or not the ability to accurately predict the future exists" then why can't evolutionists tell us what man will evolve into next?
If I understand what you are saying correctly you are confusing the issue. If a prophet (or anyone else) makes predictions that he says will not occur for hundreds of years into the future of course no one alive today can determine the accuracy of those predictions. If the weatherman makes a prediction about the weather or if an astrologer makes predictions about what will happen next week or next month of course the accuracy of the predictions can be determined. No astrologer, holy man, weatherman or Bible scholar has ever demonstrated the ability in scientifically controlled tests to always predict future events accurately?

Prophecies in holy books are generally written in vague terms without a specific time frame. Christians, Muslims and Hindus have been waiting for centuries for some prophecies to occur. Believers say simply because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it isn’t going to. The fact that these prophecies are vague also allows believers to retro-fit events into them.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#676 Apr 7, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has ever proved that your God exists, so all bets are off.
What HAS been proved, many times over, is that every single aspect of the Jesus fable was adapted from an earlier myth.
For example, the virgin birth/godly father, the star announcing the birth, the birth during the winter solstice, the gifts of the magi, the edict to slaughter all the male children, the healings and the miracles, the betrayal, the execution on a cross, the resurrection (coincidental with the spring equinox), and the bodily ascension into the heavens.
What's also been proved, many times over, is that none of Jesus' teachings were new. In fact, most of the so-called wisdom of Jesus can be found in Buddhists texts which predate the New Testament by centuries.
You're ignorant of ancient history, mythology, archaeology, and anthropology, so of course you'll continue to cling to your irrational beliefs and you'll continue to worship your non-existent 2000-year-old Jewish zombie.
Such is the life of a moron. So be it.
Christ proved the God of the Bible exist by rising from the dead.

Again, what scholar who has studied the gospels has concluded that "the virgin birth/godly father, the star announcing the birth, the birth during the winter solstice, the gifts of the magi, the edict to slaughter all the male children, the healings and the miracles, the betrayal, the execution on a cross, the resurrection (coincidental with the spring equinox), and the bodily ascension into the heavens" were all taken from pagan myths?

Now you also owe us all an explanation how some of the smartest people in history have believed in Christ? How could that be?
LGK

Erith, UK

#677 Apr 7, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, DNA. However, this is not a representation as referred to by philosophy, which is about mental states.
"The Representational Theory of Mind (RTM)(which goes back at least to Aristotle) takes as its starting point commonsense mental states, such as thoughts, beliefs, desires, perceptions and imagings."
"RTM defines such intentional mental states as relations to mental representations, and explains the intentionality of the former in terms of the semantic properties of the latter. For example, to believe that Elvis is dead is to be appropriately related to a mental representation whose propositional content is that Elvis is dead.(The desire that Elvis be dead, the fear that he is dead, the regret that he is dead, etc., involve different relations to the same mental representation.) To perceive a strawberry is, on the representational view, to have a sensory experience of some kind which is appropriately related to (e.g., caused by) the strawberry."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-repr...
AFAIAC, EVERYTHING to do with intentionality / representation takes place within the HUMAN mind and has nothing at all to do with how living things came into being and developed. If you believe otherwise I suggest you provide links to formal articles (not christian apologetics bollocks) which say living things need to have a concept in order to exist.
OK, let' say acorn DNA is not representation "as referred to by philosophy...." Is it nevertheless a form of oak tree but not the oak tree itself by whatever term we designate this characteristic?

Do you think manufactured products that go via blue-prints eg like that of a Rolex watch start off as representations of the products & that this representation takes place in minds?

How living things began is unknown, I have studied this extensively. However, we can observe characteristics of living things today and make rational inferences of how they might have arisen, no holds barred. I take it you agree that this is a rational thing to do.

On sources of information, I have long since abandoned classifying them into Christian, Jewish, atheist, Republican or New Labour. My prime consideration is the merit or de-merit of what they say on logical & evidential grounds, their allegiance is less important & irrelevant to truth or falsely. Otherwise I'll just be committing a genetic fallacy.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#680 Apr 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
If I understand what you are saying correctly you are confusing the issue. If a prophet (or anyone else) makes predictions that he says will not occur for hundreds of years into the future of course no one alive today can determine the accuracy of those predictions. If the weatherman makes a prediction about the weather or if an astrologer makes predictions about what will happen next week or next month of course the accuracy of the predictions can be determined. No astrologer, holy man, weatherman or Bible scholar has ever demonstrated the ability in scientifically controlled tests to always predict future events accurately?
Prophecies in holy books are generally written in vague terms without a specific time frame. Christians, Muslims and Hindus have been waiting for centuries for some prophecies to occur. Believers say simply because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it isn’t going to. The fact that these prophecies are vague also allows believers to retro-fit events into them.
Here is the problem you have. Isaiah makes specific prophecies about the future that were fulfilled by Christ (Isaiah 53). Isaiah wrote centuries before Christ. Jesus makes a prediction of the temple about 40 years into the future that was literally fulfilled in 70 AD. In fact the gospel writers make no mention of the temple destruction because it was destroyed after the gospels were written.

I do agree some prophecies are difficult to see. Take Jesus's prediction of what the world was going to be like before He returns. Some think we are close while others not. Very difficult to know right now.

BTW- weathermen do make accurate predictions about the weather all the time.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#681 Apr 7, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Nietzsche's statement is self-defeating. He must NOT doubt the existence of doubt or that he is capable of it. He must not doubt that he exists, he is sane, he can understand new truths, new truths exist. His quotes sound clever if unexamined.
I am not surprised that you are unable to grasp the meaning of Nietzsche’s quote. You consider your beliefs to be absolute unquestionable truth. Think about this…

“It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows.”– Epictetus (55 –135CE) Greek sage and philosopher
LGK wrote:
I am saying prophecy either has happened and can be uncovered or it has not. Words like "supernatural" serve only to cloud the issue and detract from simple questions or enquiries. The Bible is a book and therefore it can be interrogated for accuracy, just like any other book. Christians are encouraged to test things, no holds barred.
Determining the accuracy of Bible prophesy is not nearly as cut and dried for a rational thinker as it is for a believer like yourself. The prophecies in holy books are notoriously vague. Jews and Christians both accept the Old Testament as the word of “God” yet where Christians see prophecies of Jesus Jews don’t. It’s all very subjective.
LGK wrote:
Now, have you given up on how you account for similarities between Wreck of The Titan & the Titanic or are you going to try & give an account. Either way, Wreck of the Titan is one instance where a future event was foretold with high degrees of accuracy. We can know this without smoke screening it with "supernatural". If we can know Wreck of The Titan was accurate (or inaccurate) foretelling, we can do the same with the Bible.
Watch out for Friday the thirteenth you know how bad things always happen.

Again...
"The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses." - Francis Bacon

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#682 Apr 7, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Christ proved the God of the Bible exist by rising from the dead.
Again, what scholar who has studied the gospels has concluded that "the virgin birth/godly father, the star announcing the birth, the birth during the winter solstice, the gifts of the magi, the edict to slaughter all the male children, the healings and the miracles, the betrayal, the execution on a cross, the resurrection (coincidental with the spring equinox), and the bodily ascension into the heavens" were all taken from pagan myths?
Now you also owe us all an explanation how some of the smartest people in history have believed in Christ? How could that be?
really?... just because you are baptized as a baby into the religion of your parents doesn't mean you believe it... I was baptized a catholic as a baby.. listed in the church as a catholic... hardly proves I believe it does it....93% of the National Academy of Science (which includes 300+ NObel Prize winners) do not believe in any gods....those are the smartest of the smart...what does that tell you?... and Einstein did not believe in any gods or the bible... hmmmmmm.....try again m0r0n....

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#683 Apr 7, 2013
"Christ proved the God of the Bible exist by rising from the dead"

bwhahahahhaha...yeah sure he did... care to prove it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Don't Blame God! 1 hr dollarsbill 7
The Baptist Church (Jan '08) 2 hr dollarsbill 45
Hellmouth: Capitalism Deities 23 hr Abishai100 1
What Does God Hate? Mon True or False 1
The Color of People's Skin Mon True or False 1
MESSAGE FROM GOD to THE REPUBLICANS of USA (Nov '14) Mon True or False 13
was King David black? (Jan '14) Mon True or False 38
More from around the web