Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Jump to Last Post 101-150 of 396 discussions (1882 posts)
  1. Jerami profile image60
    Jeramiposted 16 years ago

    If my mother were in all truth a virgin before she had sex with howard Hughes, and beyond any doubt remained chased forever afterwards, and I was born 9 months after her affair with Howard ( My father by the way) Thirty years later Howard dies. There is a vast waealth ready to be ceased. I don't get any of it unless I name it and claim it. Athiest don't want any part of it! There fore they probably wont get any.  My Grand father once told me " Ya gotta want it first or ya aint goina get it, unless it's something some body else wants ya to get like a flat tire or the clapse or somthing like that. If its good ya gotta want it first or ya ain't goina get it.

    replyreport
  2. kmackey32 profile image55
    kmackey32posted 16 years ago

    Who cares about someone elses religion

    replyreport
  3. enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    "Only a fool tries to define God..."
    You got that right. But still, I am a fool and I know it.

    Anyway, the argument that the Gospels are not scripture is bunk. Using this argument the entire Bible isn't scripture. The first five books written by Moses are called the Peneteuch, there are the books of the Prophets and so fourth. It's just how they are classified.

    Let's get back on track. Theism Vs. Athiesm

    The only progress that we have made was that the Bible can be used. It is historically and literally sound. This does not include religious content or context.

    I defined my presuppositions on the Bible in the opening statement:

    The Holy Bible is complete in it's content, context, and continuity. It has been preserved over the ages and is the most reliable ancient text known to man. The content of the text is true from beginning to end. The original Bible text is the infallible word of God, written by man through divine inspiration.

    I also defined my presuppositions on the definition of God:

    Triune. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. One Godhead three distinct personalities.
    God is all knowing, all present, and powerful.
    God is revealed to man through the scriptures and revelation.

    There should be plenty of ammunition. I even gave ya'll a freebie with the Trinity argument.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      So all your saying is god is a book.

      replyreport
      1. earnestshub profile image69
        earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I was taught that the trinity are identical in nature. I did not say I believe it though.

        replyreport
    2. Inspirepub profile image75
      Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      You are over-reaching, Ender.

      We do not have agreement that the Bible is historically and literally sound, only that it makes reference to real historical events. The accuracy of the detail is still in dispute.

      And the assertion of the literal truth of the whole text is still waiting for a logical deduction or credible source.

      Jenny

      replyreport
      1. Paraglider profile image92
        Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        It will wait a long time. The bible contains (at a rough guess) 100,000 statements, ostensibly of facts. can we not simply agree that it is impossible to verify each and every one of these, then agree that some may be true and some may not, and then move on? The only person claiming they are all true is enderw1ggins who has offered no proof (because there can be none, as even he must know). Some of these statements are in the nature of predictions which clearly have not (yet) been fulfilled. And as some of these refer to the end of time, logically they cannot be verified till that day comes. I for one am not prepared to continue this discussion till then.

        replyreport
        1. enderw1ggins profile image60
          enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Agreed. There is no way to observe historical accounts. The evidence that I did supply was on Literary Criticism.

          "Literary critics still follow Aristotles dictum that "the benefit of the doubt is given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.' (Montgomery, EA, 29)
          Therefore, 'one must listen the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known inaccuracies.'" (McDowell, EDV, p45)

          "The proposal to admit the Bible as an accurate historical and literary commentary in it's enirety is warranted on tested reliabillity in various branches of Literary Criticism such as; Textual Criticism, Source Criticism, and Form Criticism. (Literary Criticism of the Old Testament by Norman Habel, Text of the New Testament by Kurt and Barbara Aland.)"

          replyreport
          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Hey dude, Atheist's don't need this kind of evidence.Ok?
            They already KNOW there is no God. They are "free" thinkers and rational beings. They are on step from apes, and that's all we humans are. Now don't upset the apple cart by introducing something they have NO CHOICE but refute. There is absoluteloy NO WAY they are (or can be) wrong.
            lol lol lol lol

            replyreport
            1. enderw1ggins profile image60
              enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Prove it!

              replyreport
              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                I can't! I have had this discussion with them (atheists)MK,in particular.I'm with you on this one. The above was mere sarcasm on my part. They don't listen to much. Certainly don't respect any view other their own!
                That's my experience for the last several months. Wait and see. big_smile

                replyreport
                1. enderw1ggins profile image60
                  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh some juicy trash talkin'....I dig it!

                  replyreport
            2. Paraglider profile image92
              Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Really no need for that level of disrespect. Look back on my posts and you'll find not a single insult or offensive remark.

              replyreport
              1. enderw1ggins profile image60
                enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                It depends, was it mean spirited? Cuz if it wasn't playful then it wasn't any fun. Haha

                replyreport
              2. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                Pardon my sense of humor (sarcasm), but what point exactly did I get wrong?

                replyreport
          2. enderw1ggins profile image60
            enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            So far nobody has presented evidence to discredit this. My proposal stands.

            replyreport
            1. Inspirepub profile image75
              Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              The argument here is that the Bible should be accepted because it is internally consistent and there are no demonstrated inaccuracies.

              Atheists, surely some of you can do better than the one feeble attempt we have had so far at suggesting an inconsistency?

              Yes, God created man and woman in the first verse, but it doesn't say in the same split second. I have to support Ender's logic on this one - they are not necessarily inconsistent as presented here.

              Surely someone can come up with something a bit meatier? Contradictions between the Gospels, for God's sake, surely someone can find a few of those ... ?

              Alternatively, if you don't know the bible well enough to discuss inconsistencies, why not go for an inaccuracy or two?

              Get into the game, people!

              Jenny

              replyreport
        2. profile image0
          Leta Sposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          ...and some of those statements/books are poems--beautiful--such as the book of Psalms, but not the kind of thing you even WANT to equate with facts or literalness.  I mean, if I were the author, I'd be so insulted.

          replyreport
          1. Paraglider profile image92
            Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            I agree entirely. The bible stands as a literary compilation, which is my point from the beginning. I think that EW's insistence that it is literal truth in its entirety is just silly.

            replyreport
            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              So why not accept (it's) truth as such?

              replyreport
              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                Because that would be irrational.

                replyreport
                1. aka-dj profile image79
                  aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Of course it would be, only because it does not fit your world view. But we've been here before.Ye?

                  replyreport
                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    No - it would be irrational because of the dictionary definition of the word  "irrational."

                    Faith is believing something you know ain't so....... big_smile

                    replyreport
              2. Paraglider profile image92
                Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                EW says that it is standard practice to give the text the benefit of the doubt. Largely, I accept that, but against a sliding scale of probability: If the text says something reasonable, I'll accept it as probably true. If it says something outlandish, I'll consider it  possibly true, but probably not. And I'd require 3rd party evidence before revising that opinion. And if the text makes predictions, I'll reserve judgment because I have no way of seeing the future.
                In other words, my approach is to give the text the benefit of the doubt, like a good literary scholar, while applying critical judgment, like a good scientist. What is wrong with that approach?

                replyreport
                1. enderw1ggins profile image60
                  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Agree 100% I think i made a scribal error of my own earlier i wrote "literally" instead of "literary"! I was wondering why everybody was backpeddaling! Sorry, my mistake.

                  Here's my next proposal...let's talk about Jesus. Did He exist? Was He who He said He was? Old Testament prophecy concerning Jesus and such. We need to get on with this thing! Bring the fight back into it.

                  For now its 3 A.M. so i'm going to hit the sack.

                  replyreport
                  1. Paraglider profile image92
                    Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    Jenny et al -

                    In the following exchange, EW admits that his original insistence of complete literal truth was a 'scribal error'. He also agrees 100% with my description of how to approach a text. He then further proceeds to offer a new proposition for discussion, but doesn't set it out very coherently. At the foot of this post, I've paraphrased what I think he wants to discuss next, and humbly suggest that we turn out attention to this instead. Do you/we agree?
                    --------------------------------------------
                    The New Proposal is:
                    1. Jesus was a real historical character
                    2. The claims He made about Himself were true
                    3. His life, death and resurrection were predicted in OT

                    Adhering to EW's rules of debate, let's tackle this triple proposal.

                    replyreport
              3. Inspirepub profile image75
                Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think you can logically equate "prettily written" with "true", aka-dj.

                Jenny

                replyreport
        3. glendoncaba profile image80
          glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          It will wait a long time. The bible contains (at a rough guess) 100,000 statements, ostensibly of facts. can we not simply agree that it is impossible to verify each and every one of these, then agree that some may be true and some may not, and then move on? The only person claiming they are all true is enderw1ggins...

          Wrong.  He is compassed by a cloud of witnesses by faith.

          A host of prophets not killed by jezebel hiding in a cave.

          I believe.  and will put in a few words as time allows.

          replyreport
        1. onthewriteside profile image60
          onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Wrong.  He is compassed by a cloud of witnesses by faith.

          A host of prophets not killed by jezebel hiding in a cave.

          I believe.  and will put in a few words as time allows.

          Sorry Glendon....but what the heck do you mean?  And what does it have to do with the post you quoted?

          replyreport
        1. enderw1ggins profile image60
          enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry Glendon....but what the heck do you mean?  And what does it have to do with the post you quoted?

          I think he's stating the reasons why I CAN believe in the bible text in its entirety without being illogical....i'm guessing. Here's the way  I look at it.

          Let me quote Paraglider on this because it is an excellent point.

          "EW says that it is standard practice to give the text the benefit of the doubt. Largely, I accept that, but against a sliding scale of probability: If the text says something reasonable, I'll accept it as probably true. If it says something outlandish, I'll consider it  possibly true, but probably not."

          There are a great many things contained in the Bible that I am not quite sure about but I believe that they are true because the Bible hasn't let me down yet.

          As many of you can see, I am not a coward to criticism. Heck, I've even pointed out good evidence against my arguments and gave some freebie out.

          Point is, my duty as a Christian is to study the ins and outs. I must be more critical of the Bible than anyone else. In my studies I have found that every time the Bible has had a chance to be proven true...it has. Belief in the God of the Christian Bible is not irrational (for me). It follows the rules of logic. Convincing you guys is another story because you "rationally" hold the polar opposite conclusion.

          replyreport
        1. onthewriteside profile image60
          onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I think he's stating the reasons why I CAN believe in the bible text in its entirety without being illogical....i'm guessing. Here's the way  I look at it.

          Let me quote Paraglider on this because it is an excellent point.

          "EW says that it is standard practice to give the text the benefit of the doubt. Largely, I accept that, but against a sliding scale of probability: If the text says something reasonable, I'll accept it as probably true. If it says something outlandish, I'll consider it  possibly true, but probably not."

          There are a great many things contained in the Bible that I am not quite sure about but I believe that they are true because the Bible hasn't let me down yet.

          As many of you can see, I am not a coward to criticism. Heck, I've even pointed out good evidence against my arguments and gave some freebie out.

          Point is, my duty as a Christian is to study the ins and outs. I must be more critical of the Bible than anyone else. In my studies I have found that every time the Bible has had a chance to be proven true...it has. Belief in the God of the Christian Bible is not irrational (for me). It follows the rules of logic. Convincing you guys is another story because you "rationally" hold the polar opposite conclusion.


          Ender....uncharacteristically, very gently put.  And I, personally, as an Atheist have no problems with anyone's belief system...I never have.  In my book, as long as you're a good person (and I believe you are), then really the only way we differ is through our individual beliefs of what it takes for us to be good people.  Commonly, we are all socialized in one sense or another to learn our respective ethos, whether it be through religion, or parents, or otherwise.  I think this is innately true with all people of all beliefs.  There will always be "evil" people in the world.  And if they claim to be doing horrendous things in the name of their "God", then we Atheists will most probably be jumping on the "see what religion got you" bandwagon.  And if a man committed unspeakable acts and claimed no religious affiliation, you believers would most probably claim that it never would have happened had he known God.  As intelligent people, we know that neither of these suppositions are justifiable.  There are many more good people in the world then there are bad, (believers and non-believers alike), and once we learn to put our differences aside and accept the fact that, deep down, we all want the same thing, then perhaps we can finally achieve the long-sought-after peace that every decent human desires.

          For three days now, we have been debating the bases for our beliefs, or lack thereof, and I'm sure we could go on until the "second coming"...LOL!  With roughly 700 posts in three days, I think we would all have to agree that this forum has been a huge success.  And yet, in the end, what are we left with but the simple facts I presented in the first paragraph of this post.  Truth be told, that's all we'll ever have.

          As much as I have enjoyed the critical debate, the exchange of friendly "not-so-niceities", and even the occasional down-right rudeness of some people, I must tell you now that I am hanging up my hat.  Do I feel I have been beaten?  Nope.  Do I feel I have conquered?  Nope.  More importantly, do I really care one way or the other?  Nope.  And that is why, after three days, I must get back to more important business, and leave the debate to the rest of you.

          So let this last post suffice as my summation, (and perhaps a happy ending to this thread in general).  I wish all of you the best of everything, and as time permits, I'm sure I will see you elsewhere in the Forums.

          Sincerely, and most appreciatively yours,
          OnTheWriteSide

          replyreport
        1. Eric Graudins profile image60
          Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          This is probably the most sensible statement that I have ever read on the HubPages religious forums.

          Thanks OnTheWriteSide.

          replyreport
  • profile image0
    Leta Sposted 16 years ago

    Wow.  I see the rationalists have all but tired of posting (they get that way--they're SO...rational.)  Atheists now having something to say... And even some Christianists who support atheists.  Interesting anthropological study, wink, 16 pages long and a'counting.  And I see no other books but the bible are being held as valid sources.  Wow.  I'd have definitely gotten bored if I'd have stayed...

    So, just checking in...and checking out.

    replyreport
    1. Paraglider profile image92
      Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Sometimes the rational thing to do is go out for the evening, come home, go to bed, get up, have coffee, check emails, check yesterday's threads on hubpages. Good morning smile

      replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Ontherightside, glad to see you back and good point by the way.

    Lita, good observation

    Sandra,

    In a short, yes! You are on the right track!

    'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." John 1:1-4

    replyreport
    1. Jewels profile image89
      Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Let me get this right - you (enderw1ggins) are equating this verse with words on paper?  And words on paper you are saying is the bible?  And the bible you are saying is the word of God as transcribed and interpreted by men?

      replyreport
      1. Jewels profile image89
        Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        The interpretation of this verse alone may shed light on God as a personal deity.

        The Word is the principle of Life.  In John's Gospel:  "In the Word was Life, and the Life was the Light of men."

        Life refers to life force.  Life force doesn't have arms and legs.  It is the substance from which life emanates.

        This interpretation alone creates a major element of confusion among readers.  The Word was not the written word at all and has nothing to do with the words in a christian bible.  The Word is not the Rules.

        replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    onthewriteside, i misspelled your name! oops! Hey, I was checking out your hub...i'm buying your book when it comes out.

    ernestshub, you are right.

    replyreport
    1. onthewriteside profile image60
      onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Cool...thanks ender!

      replyreport
  • profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

    Did you all get the memo!  Calling all parties... god is a book.
    Now that we have finally cleared up all the confusion about god we can get to other reason for not believing this god.

    1. God's word changes every ten years or so
    2. A book had children
    3. There is no other truth about god because god is a book.
    5. If you burn in hell the book burns with you.
    6. If you make it to heaven the book will be there.

    You will not find god outside of the book so heaven and hell do not exist.  You cannot testify to god unless you first read the book and that is how you know it is gods word.

    It is the most reliable book ever written because it survived the ages but no other book is reliable that has survived much longer because it is not the word of god because you would have had to get the word of god from the book first to know it was god.

    Everyone before the bible was not real because they weren't lucky enough to receive the book first and all those who came before the NT was written are damned because they didn't get the book first.

    replyreport
    1. enderw1ggins profile image60
      enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Right track, wrong argument. You must follow the rules of the debate Sandra. You are right there...

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        What rules?  That there can be no other evidence to debate the existence of god because god is a book.

        Do you pray to the book?
        DO you make offerings to it?
        Why is there an image of Jesus in the church if the one true god is a book?

        I am sorry, I thought you were going somewhere but your views are more obscure than most.

        What did they do to you in bible school?  I don't know what to say but I am sorry that you believe that god is a book.

        replyreport
        1. Jewels profile image89
          Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          It appears following the goings on at the Council of Nicea that it was the intention of authority that people prescribe to and honor a book. Did they succeed? Hmmmm.

          replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    I'll spell it out just a little. God is One and God is three. Three personalities one substance. "In the beginning was the Word" this "Word" is referring to Jesus Christ. What does that say about Him? Keep digging. But you do have to follow the rules. This debate is monitored.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      But god cannot be two? lol  Ender, I like you but really... you gotta stop while you are ahead.  I know you have absolutely no idea how scary you sound but umm...

      Now you are saying god has a personality disorder. God is all but what it is.

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        This is old school Christian theology sister! In all of it's zany splendor.

        It would be beneficial to make a factual statement about the absurdity of Christian doctrine with a little source citation. At least give it a shot.

        Google, arguments against the infallibility of the Bible or something. Find a good source, us it to its advantage. Then add little insults and patronize the heck out of me....bam you got yourself a sweet little argument.

        And thank you...i like you too!

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          But you still don't get it.  The Bible is not god. I have to patronize the heck out of you because a "factual" statement is god is not a book. 

          God is a character in a book.  Not the other way around.

          replyreport
    2. usmanali81 profile image59
      usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this

      God is one and God is not 3. How can 3 become 1 or 1 become 3 ???
      Regarding "In the beginning was the Word" the sentence does not end here, further it says "the Word was with God"

      replyreport
      1. earnestshub profile image69
        earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        It is easy, just follow a religion and then read whatever your book says, and then interpret it however you like!

        replyreport
      2. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I have to apologize to you Usmani, I thought you were blowing smoke up my ass too when you said people actually think like this. 

        I was reading one of your hubs about it and I thought you were making it up.

        replyreport
      3. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        "and the Word was God"

        So why is this necessarily contradictory? It is puzzling, from 3 to 1 or 3 is 1. Mathmatically it seems impossible.

        Cite some references or deduce this thing logically.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          And that is all you have?  A word named god? Taken from "scripture" of the NT because the OT said, in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.

          Then explain for my entertainment only.

          Tell me when the name Jehovah or Yahweh appears in Genesis.
          Is this before or after Adam?

          replyreport
          1. Armatice profile image61
            Armaticeposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Yahweh is Hebrew for I Am, the name God told Moses to tell the others who sent him if they were to question the validity of his story after God speaks to him, so its after Adam. Of course that is just one of several names God is known by through out the Hebrew Scriptures. Jehovah is the closest English translation of Yahweh. Then again Yahweh is a translation of the Tetragrammaton of YHWH which is not exact either since the original Hebrew language was lost after the exile to Babylon by king Nebuchadnezzar when he banned the Hebrews form speaking in their native tongue. It was after they returned that they had to re-learn their language which was not the same as their ancestors.

            replyreport
            1. chukra G profile image61
              chukra Gposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              if there mentioned about 3 gods in bible, then check my hub --gods in this world-- simple explaination.

              replyreport
        2. Eric Graudins profile image60
          Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          OK, I'll have a go at a logical analogy.

          Imagine a motorcycle exhaust system with 3 pipes at one end, and one pipe at the other end. The three pipes are skilfully combined into one, and the place where the union occurs is often a thing of beauty.
          The 3 pipes are connected to the cylinders. The one pipe distributes the combined message from the 3 pipes.


          All the hot air enters the 3 pipes, swirls around a lot, and exits from the one pipe.

          There. A Perfect explanation of 3 to 1 topic that is being discussed here.
          Particularly the Hot Air swirling around and belching out into the world at large.

          I'll leave the  "3 is 1" argument for someone else. That's enough brain exercise for me today!

          replyreport
        3. usmanali81 profile image59
          usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this

          If there is no logic then there is no mathematics

          replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    "Regarding Bible, i dont agree as these Bibles are written by John, Mathew, Mark, Luke etc and not Jesus (peace be upon him) himself. It has undergone several changes and interpolations with the passage of time. It has got several flavours, old testaments, new testaments. It's not in it's origional language, HEBREW..................................... and many other defects"

    Prove it and you might have a valid argument.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      All you have to do is go to your local christian book store and pick up a few different copies and that should suffice. 

      The King James Version
      The New English Standard Version
      The Doray Reigms Version (sp?)
      The Lutheran Bible
      The New International Version
      The Jerusalem Bible...

      This list goes on and on and each and everyone who gets one says that their copy is the the most reliable.

      replyreport
    2. Inspirepub profile image75
      Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Well, atheists?

      Evidence for this one ...?

      Jenny

      replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    onthewriteside,
    Get some juicy stuff and start kicking my A@# already!

    replyreport
    1. onthewriteside profile image60
      onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      LOL!  I'm kinda winding down here ender...need to get some rest.  But I'll will be sure to check in tomorrow!

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Right on dood! I'm still gonna thrash upon your weak arguments...out of kindness of course!

        replyreport
  • Armatice profile image61
    Armaticeposted 16 years ago

    The way the Christian Trinity works is rather confusing and annoying. A good description would be to take a wheel, this represents the trinity, God would be the hub. Choose any three positions on the tire itself as the three personalities of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All three are God. God moves out from the hub to any one spot and that's Him. God is the Father, God is the Son and God is the Holy Spirit. The part that looses most is no one personality is equal to another. So the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and so on.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Cool.  Catholic?  Seems I heard that stuff in catechism class...

      Why is it confusing and annoying?  Not so hard to understand, except for the literal minded.  Sounds like a good metaphor for a possible (must be careful to say that here) truth.

      Now were all gonna break into real visual metaphors I see!  We also have the hot air swirling metaphor...

      replyreport
      1. Armatice profile image61
        Armaticeposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Father was a Catholic, mother a southern Baptist, I study different "Christian" faiths. Confusing for some is how God is the Father and the Son but the Father is not the Sun on so forth. Some say if God is all three the all three must be equal since the source is the same. Annoying cause because the Holy Spirit seems more of a force or essence of God rather than a personality. Really it does not matter, or should not, to the believers because the Father seems to be the most important personality since the Father is the one who sent Jesus, Jesus admits he is less than the one who sent him and Jesus says to worship and praise the Father. I have a good idea, meaning belief(watch Dogma), and my wife does not. She sees the Bible as any other story book. I can agree with her on that. The book was written by men, translated by men, used by men like the Catholics to control people even gain power almost over the King of England if not actually doing it. Some of the Hebrew Scriptures have historical validity as some of the kings and events have been recorded in other documents, like the documents of the kings in Syria that kept records of their own kings and of surrounding nations.

        replyreport
      2. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Id, It, Ego... or Father, Son, Holy Ghost. big_smile

        replyreport
    2. usmanali81 profile image59
      usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this

      O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes in your religion: nor say of Allah anything but the truth. Verily, Christ1 Jesus the son of Mary was no more than a messenger of Allah, and His Word which he bestowed upon Mary, And a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: For your Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (SURA NISAA) Holy Qur’ân 4:171

      For your kind information regarding the myth of TRINITY, the word TRINITY is not there in the complete range of Bibles whether OT or NT.

      The above mentioned verse of the Qur’an mentions the word TRINITY. No where in all of the Bibles you will find this word. In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in these interpolated Bibles where Jesus (pbuh) himself says, “I am God” or where he says, “worship me”. In fact the Bible contains statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in which he preached quite the contrary.

      replyreport
    3. Frank4YAHWEH profile image62
      Frank4YAHWEHposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, and if Father Yahweh is not of confusion, who is?

      For Yahweh is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all assemblies of the seperate ones (1 Corinthians 14:33).

      replyreport
  • Armatice profile image61
    Armaticeposted 16 years ago

    I feel the main problem with people trying to explain why the believe in God is because they have no idea who or what God is.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I feel the main problem is that you learn one way from parent/teachers/church, but that too often it is in the form of moralistic little stories...when many of us as people (and as a race) have grown past that.  I think the understanding of God is probably not something done prosaically.

      So, sounds like I would agree somewhat with your wife...

      replyreport
      1. Armatice profile image61
        Armaticeposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        One of the reasons I married her I guess, we both tend to be realists, thought I am always being deemed negative at work. People tend to have a sense of something else and sometimes feel like there is something either out there or surrounding them. They don't know what to cal it so the explain it by calling it God and following everyone else. People sometimes say they had a past life where they lived somewhere else and somehow think they were either reincarnated or they are a decedent of that person. What I have come to feel is they are just tuning into information of a past life that is just left over from their death. Since information is is basically energy and energy is everywhere and our minds have an incredible subconscious that picks up on many things we are not aware of. Memories are nothing more than energy waves stored in our minds, but after death the energy has to go somewhere, energy is not destroyed so it does move about the universe.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Leta Sposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          You tend to make some sense...to me, at least...as do some of the Indians.  Yes.  If God exists, in part, as witnessed by the metaphor of the Trinity, he would exist as physical reality--energy (can be seen as Spirit) as well as in other ways our finite minds can understand (the need for stories/Father/Son, the Son which equals enlightened man).  I'm not entirely certain what I think of reincarnation, but obviously, the nearly spiritual nature found in quantum physics has all but pointed the direction to energy/life force...

          I cannot say that's new agey, either, wink, as I don't see why it cannot stand with any mainstream faith (not religionists and literalness)...  God has got to be big enough, after all, to encompass the physical world, as I'm sure, as something of a self-proclaimed panthiest/mystic, I would claim.

          replyreport
          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            ......................

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              Leta Sposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

              Following me around again?  Thought you'd given it a break.  Look up pantheist.  Look up mystic.  It will make you feel better (or in your case, probably worse).  ....oh, yeah, we should all just go flat screen because that's what TK does.

              replyreport
              1. tksensei profile image60
                tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                LOL!!!

                replyreport
    2. usmanali81 profile image59
      usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Only God can best explain Himself. The definition of God is as follows

      Qur'an / Chapter 112 - The Unity, Sincerity, Oneness Of Allah
      1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
      2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
      3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
      4. And there is none like unto Him.

      replyreport
      1. mohitmisra profile image60
        mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I feel the main problem with people trying to explain why the believe in God is because they have no idea who or what God is.
        This is you for Usmanali.

        replyreport
  • Eric Graudins profile image60
    Eric Graudinsposted 16 years ago

    Hey guys,

    Can you PLEASE chop out the irrelevant bits when you quote someone else's post.

    I'm sure you don't enjoy scrolling down 4 screens of stuff that you've already read to get to the one line contribution that someone has made.
    And as this is a religious forum, I'm sure we all have the greatest respect and consideration for each other, and will all be happy to do this for the common good.

    Thanks, Eric G.

    replyreport
    1. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry for going off topic Eric.

      replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Alright you rabbit trailing people. Stay on topic!

    Contribute or beat it! I've just read 6 billion posts about nothing.

    replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Paraglider and Erik,

    Good to see you guys back.

    replyreport
  • Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Well, we have accidentally come to one more agreement:





    I concur with this also. Theism is boring. It would appear that even the theist agrees - why is it boring?

    Because it is wholly based on irrational beliefs. We do not have the bible accepted as a credible source other than to agree it makes occasional reference to genuine history.

    I have yet to see Mr. Wiggins make a valid argument, so I therefore conclude that his opening statement that atheism is boring has now been disproved - on the basis that this discussion is Theism vs Atheism, and we agree theism is boring.

    On to the irrational and illogical aspects. After reading through the several pages of responses, it would seem that there still has been no substantive or logical arguments posed in favor of using the bible as a credible source. I therefore conclude that this is not possible and to believe it as an infallible book is wholly irrational and illogical. Despit the proof and evidence of this thread showing that the bible has not been accepted as historically or literally sound the OP makes this statement:


    All we have is presuppositions, yet Mr. Wiggins has now jumped to the irrational and illogical conclusion that what was said was not said and the bible is suddenly "historically and literally sound." This is proof of the inherent illogical and irrational behavior of those who think they have the word of a god in their head.

    Atheism = 3
    Theism = 0

    big_smile

    replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    onthewtiteside wrote:

    Genesis 1-27:  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Genesis 2- Deals with the Adam being created alone first, then Eve was constructed from his rib.

    The Revised Standard Edition (RSV) of the Bible will be the text used by me. The RSV is a literal translation, meaning that this version was translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean and Greek manuscripts.

    The King James version of the Bible is a literal translation of the most agreed upon manuscripts. With newer discoveries of older and more reliable manuscripts, the RSV is the most accurate of translations thus far.


    Gen 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

    Gen 2:21, 22 "So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."

    Are these verses unreconcilable? In chapter one God made man in His own image, then goes on to say that He created both man and woman. In chapter 2 God created man first then woman. There is no contradiction.

    Onto onthewriteside's argument about similarities between ancient Sumerian text and the accounts in Genesis.

    There are three options.
    1. God created man and woman at the same time.
    2. God created man first.
    3. God created woman first.
    One in three chance is hardly evidence to support that the accounts in Genesis were borrowed from another source.

    replyreport
    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Irrational and illogical. You are missing the fourth option. The one that is actually correct. wink

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Nice little out of context quote. Childish argument.

        replyreport
        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          LOL

          I am just attempting to bring us back on track here Ender. There is physical proof that we were not "created," but rather evolved. Your rabbit hole as to which previous set of folk tales and myths the bible was culled from really has no bearing on the question at hand.

          And as for childish - I am beginning to think your 4 years studying how to apologize for christians really was a waste of time. wink

          I notice you have completed ignored the proof I provided that theism is boring, irrational and illogical though.......

          replyreport
          1. enderw1ggins profile image60
            enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Dood, i don't care what they say.. you rock!

            replyreport
            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              You mean they say things about me?..... sad

              replyreport
              1. enderw1ggins profile image60
                enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                I know! You are so kind...jerks!

                I have not refuted your exhaustively comprehensive proof because quite frankly i'm bored out of my wits.

                Christians with something good to say....where are you!?

                replyreport
                1. aka-dj profile image79
                  aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Been and gone, a lot of them. Bored out of their brains too, no doubt!

                  replyreport
                  1. enderw1ggins profile image60
                    enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    Hey, get a solid argument that fits within the rules of the debate and get dirty dood!

                    replyreport
    2. onthewriteside profile image60
      onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Ender,

      If we are going to use the revised standard edition, then let's quote it correctly:

      GEN 1-26:  Then God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness;...(emphasis mine)
      http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv … ;byte=1801


      The original Hebrew word used as the "US" above is "Elohim"...clearly a plural term which should, at the very least, be translated "Gods".  We have a plural entity, speaking to a plural audience.  In the Mesopotamian Atra Hasis text, it was indeed, a counsel of Anunnaki Gods who collectively agree to create Man.

      Even if one were to argue that the term "Elohim" in this verse referred to "emissaries of God"  or "angels" to explain the problem of plurality, (which is really stretching it), then that would infer that these other beings also had the same creative abilities as God himself.  This would relegate God to the position, at best, of being perhaps the King of the Sky Fairies (all of whom have similarly equal powers).  Additionally, why would an omnipotent God have to confer with anyone concerning what he wanted to do?  Any good monotheist would surely say this can't be so.

      Once again, light can be shed on this when one reads the older Mesopotamian texts(the Atra Hasis, the Enuma Elish, etc.).  Man was created as the result of a group decision by Anunnaki Gods.  The similarities are numerous:

      Sumerian:  The A.DEM (or Adamu) was created to "so that he may bear the yoke".
      Biblical:  Adam was created because "there was no Adam to till the land".
      Sumerian:  Man was created from the clay of the Earth.
      Biblical:  Man was created from the dust of the ground.
      Sumerian:  Man was created by "binding upon it, the image of the Gods.
      Biblical:  Man was created in the image and likeness of the Elohim.
      Sumerian:  Man was "given the breath of life".
      Biblical:  The Lord "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".
      Sumerian:  After Man was created he was taken to the "E.DIN" in Mesopotamia.
      Biblical:  Man was placed in the Garden of Eden.

      So my question is:  if the Bible is truly the original word of God, then why do we find these words written over 1000 years earlier by a people who practiced Polytheism?

      replyreport
      1. Make Money profile image69
        Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I find it very interesting that you use this verse onthewriteside, noting US and OUR.

        John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

        Jesus Christ is the Word.

        US and OUR meaning the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

        One of many verses in the Bible that proves the Trinity.

        And yet more proof that the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament and that there is a seamless transition from the Old Testament to the New.

        replyreport
        1. enderw1ggins profile image60
          enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah Mike!!!!! Wooooo!!!

          replyreport
        2. onthewriteside profile image60
          onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Well then based on your argument and considering the conversation of the verse, either we have three separate entities having a discussion (polytheism), or we have a single entity with multiple personalities conferring with himself.  Either way, it doesn't sound too flattering...

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            dennisemattposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            what is unflattering about 3 seperate entites having a converation?

            replyreport
            1. onthewriteside profile image60
              onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Unflattering in the sense that Christianity claims to be a "monotheistic" religion.  Even though you have a father, the son, and the holy ghost, they are still said to be one and the same...

              replyreport
        3. usmanali81 profile image59
          usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this

          "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

          Dear, the English Bibles which you see around were translated from the Greek ones and the Greek words used in the above quotations are

          "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (Hotheos), and the Word was god (Tontheos)."

          Hotheos (Greek word) = Original God = The God (capital G)
          Tontheos (Greek word) = Not Original God rather used for Prophets = A god (small g)

          It clearly exposes that Christian missionaries are hell-bent to deify Christ, by using capital letters here and small letters there, to deceive the unwary masses who think that every letter, every comma and full stop and the capital and small letters were dictated by God (Capital 'G' here!)." 

          Regarding the great myth of TRINITY, the word is not there in the complete range of interpolated Bilbes whether old or new testaments, whether it be English or Greek. How ironic is that, you claim TRINITY and the word is not there in the Bible rather you can find this word in (SURA NISAA) HOLY QUR’ÂN 4:171.

          “O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes in your religion: nor say of Allah anything but the truth. Verily, Christ1 Jesus the son of Mary was no more than a messenger of Allah, and His Word which he bestowed upon Mary, And a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: For your Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.”

          replyreport
          1. enderw1ggins profile image60
            enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Now THAT is an argument. Atheists pay attention to this!

            I'm going to let this one stew up some real controversy for a while.

            Great argument!

            replyreport
            1. Jewels profile image89
              Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              You're saying the Word is Jesus/Christ?.

              Logos is the ancient Greek term for Word, the creative principle as in "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by im, and not one this was made without him"

              Christ Consciousness (note state of consciousness and not something with arms and legs) is equated with the Solar Logos.  It is worth summizing that Christ is an emanation of the solar logos.  Jesus attained the state of consciousness that combinessed with that of Christ, Christ consciousness, as did Buddah, Horus and a few other enlightened dudes.  It is a principle of Life. It is not written words on paper as spoken by the almighty FSM.

              Refer to the Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception, part 2, chapter 5.p.182 for details of Max Heindel's "the God of our Solar System.'

              It's more that Jesus went back into the Word - meaning he attained the state of Christ consciousness that we lost at the fall.  He went back into the Principle of Life with no divisiveness within him.

              And his message, as with those that went before him, was to show everyone they are to do the same.  Jesus, being a man no different to anyone, not born of kings, no-one special, ordinary.

              Portraying Jesus or Jesus/Christ as something outside our level of ability and that this superhuman being is going to carry us all to the gates of heaven without us doing much but believing, is humorous.  I'd find a life as a christian very boring if all they did was tell someone else they needed to be saved.  What about doing something, relieving yourself of boredom and doing some work like free thinking.

              "I take away the sins of the world." = I cleanse myself of the filth of a fallen world that is within me.  I will show you the way.  He did not react to the shearer, knowing he was to be shorn.  I will hold myself, it is my reaction to fear.  Attaining the Consciousness of the Solar Logos, I am able to be in the world but not be of it.  Reacting, fearing the shearer, means I fall prey to the filth of the world.

              In order to attain 'enlightenment' and go back to the unfallen state of Christ Consciousness is to experience (carry) all the sins (emotions) I've experienced in the world, and not respond - not be effected.

              replyreport
              1. usmanali81 profile image59
                usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this

                Jewels,

                It seems that you agree with me that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was not God or he did not claimed divinity but you certainly took this and concluded that spirituality is the main thing. No, not at all.

                What i was trying to say is that these so called words of God (Bibles) do not say anything about Jesus (pbuh) where he claimed divinity, trinity or resurrection. Even John 1:1 does not prove where Jesus claimed divinity or trinity. I pointed out the deception in this very verse. Christian missionaries mistranslate the Greek Bibles and portray their own interpretations in its verses.

                For your kind information the LOGOS means reason / intellect. Take for example the Greek word for Dictionary which is LEXILOGIO which is the combination of 2 words Lexi (word) and Logio (Logos=reason/intellect).

                Let us look at John 1:1 again in THE NEW TESTAMENT, AN AMERICAN TRANSLATION

                "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God and the Word was divine."

                This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, Qur'an itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite"), and the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad (pbuh).

                replyreport
                1. Jewels profile image89
                  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Again there is a misunderstanding.  The Word - is not the written word or spoken word as in the English or French or Arabic language.  It is a principle of creation, or principle of life and it is indeed Divine, like soma.  We use the written texts to try to understand what the Word is.  But alas, because the Christians cut off knowledge to our primordial (ancient) knowledge of knowing what life force is, we nearly lost this knowledge! smile

                  But I can respect that keeping the original ancient texts intact would have been a good move.

                  Could see how you could interpret Logos as reason, it's likely to have been the very first state of consciousness.

                  To say Logos is the ability to speak a language and write it is negating evolution.  Did we all of a sudden appear with the ability to read and write?

                  replyreport
                  1. usmanali81 profile image59
                    usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    Dear,

                    I agree that the Word refers to the principle / order of creation but this order is with God Almighty, Allah and we as humans have not such ability.

                    After that, the LOGOS which you interpreted is according to you. You are giving your own interpretation to the LOGOS=INTELECT=REASON.

                    For REASON, to do anything even speak, you must have knowledge and for knowledge you must have guidlines and religious scriptures specially QUR'AN which serves the same. For instance, you can not become a Doctor unless you go through the proper guidlines / education. We humans, are very weak at getting what is good or what is bad for us. Moreover, the Satan and it's followers also decieve us which overrides our inner conciousness and getting awareness, specially at this very critical juncture when we could not differ between good and evil in a given situation, the GUIDLINES from the Creator Almighty become necessary.

                    Qur'an Ch-2, The Cow, V 29: It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; Moreover His design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge.

                    Similarly, many researchers are of the opinion that human consciousness / soul / spirit comes from an unknown source beyond the neurons in the brain and the molecules and atoms that form them. Wilder Penfield, a famous researcher reached the conclusion that the existence of spirit is an undeniable fact. He said “After years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements [brain and mind (or soul)]. …Because it seems to be certain that it will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain… I am forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be explained on the basis of two fundamental elements. [brain and mind, or body and soul] "

                    Therefore, this word, spirit or soul is the order of God Almighty - Allah and as a doctor suggests prescription for you when you are ill even when you are healthy there are proper guidlines from doctors to follow and lead a healthy life. Similarly, God Almighty - Allah as the ultimate and final Doctor, Engineer and Scientist has given us guidlines / instruction manuals to lead our lives peacefully and the final of these is HOLY QUR'AN still preserved for more than 1400 years in it's origional language.

                    Qur'an Ch 17, The Children of Israel, V 82: We send down (stage by stage) in the Qur'an that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss.

                    Hope, this removes your misconception that a human can get enlightened or become spiritual or become guided only on it's own. This leads to individualism, humanism and praise of self or humanity or human. And for your kind information these ideologies are not the new once which you think that the so called modern and civilized socialist and naturalists invented in the previous century. These false doctrines are the Pagan ones which are imposed by Freemasons. KABBALAH is based on these false doctrines whose roots are from Ancient Greece, Egypt and Asia + Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) the the Satan.

                    For more details about their origins, you can visit

                    http://hubpages.com/hub/FREEMASONS-IN-A-NUTSHELL

                    http://hubpages.com/hub/FREEMASONS-IN-A-NUTSHELL-II

                    http://hubpages.com/hub/FREEMASONS-IN-A-NUTSHELL-III

                    http://hubpages.com/hub/FREEMASONS-IN-A-NUTSHELL-IV

                    replyreport
          2. onthewriteside profile image60
            onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Usman....I don't know why I even bother.  You should "take the bench" for the team before you do any more damage...

            replyreport
            1. enderw1ggins profile image60
              enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              This argument was way better than anything you have offered. This is about the conspiracy man!

              Actually, i think that the Trinity is too foolish of a thought to not be true! Who in their right minds would set themselves up for that one?!!!

              Onthewriteside, you need to take the bench. This is a very good argument.

              replyreport
              1. onthewriteside profile image60
                onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                From the point of conspiracy?  I would most certainly agree.  The church lied and still lies.  Texts just as viable as any in your book are not a part of it but why?  Because they didn't paint the picture of Christ being divine.  I understand that you of faith don't care, but it certainly doesn't fair well for your case.  And it still hasn't addressed the issues as to whether 1)  Jesus fulfilled the OT messianic prophecies, and 2) Whether those closest to him even considered him to be divine in the first place (before the church deified him that is).

                replyreport
                1. mohitmisra profile image60
                  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  I think Christianity took the word trinity from Hindu philosophy but changed it in order to be unique so no one could say you copied this philosophy or its the same philosophy as Hinduism.They also had reincarnation which was abolished later on for the very same reason.

                  replyreport
                  1. usmanali81 profile image59
                    usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    incarnation lol what a rubbish ... imagine a scientist becoming a Tape Recorder instead of writing an instruction manual to guide users(humans). LOL

                    replyreport
  • David Bowman profile image59
    David Bowmanposted 16 years ago

    I second this motion.

    replyreport
  • Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    @ ender - I am just trying to get us back on track here. Theism vs Atheism. My personal favorite creation myth is the Bakuba people's version:

    "The Earth was originally nothing but water and darkness, ruled by the giant Mbombo. This giant, after feeling an intense pain in his stomach one day, vomited up the sun, moon, and stars. The heat and light from the sun evaporated the water covering Earth, creating clouds, and after time, the dry hills emerged from the water. Mbombo vomited once more. Many things were contained in this second vomiting—people (the first man and the first woman), animals (the leopard, the eagle, and the monkey Fumu), trees, the falling star, the anvil, the firmament, the razor, medicine, and lighting. The woman of the waters, Nchienge, lived in the East, and her son, Woto, became the first king of the Bakuba."

    Atheism Rules - this was agreed and decided long ago: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/3586

    replyreport
  • David Bowman profile image59
    David Bowmanposted 16 years ago

    Would this possibly qualify as a contradiction or inaccuracy?

    2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

    2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

    So, was he eighteen or eight when he began to reign?

    Scriptural excerpts from the King James version of the Bible.

    replyreport
    1. enderw1ggins profile image60
      enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Hey alright an argument!

      This is not a contradiction though. The purpose of Textual Criticism is to piece together from manuscripts the most accurate interpretation of the original document. This is an obvious scribal error and yet it wasn't corrected because an older more reliable manuscript has not been discovered.
      What is proven here is that Literary Critics have been faithful to preservation of what is known without doctoring the text.

      replyreport
      1. Inspirepub profile image75
        Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        You can't have it both ways, Ender.

        Either it is literally true in its entirety, or it contains uncorrected scribal errors.

        If it contains errors, then logically it cannot be accepted as literally true in its entirety.

        Jenny

        replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Oh i'm right here!

    replyreport
  • Eric Graudins profile image60
    Eric Graudinsposted 16 years ago

    Here's one of my favourite Monty Python sketches.

    It's very relevant to nearly all of the 465 posts in this thread, and indeed pretty well the entire religious forums.

    I'm disappointed that the brightest religious minds at HubPages have produced something similar to this, given their (probably) hundreds of years of collective study on the topic of religion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ri … ature=fvst

    Your 5 minutes are up smile
    RAmen.
    Eric G.

    replyreport
    1. glendoncaba profile image80
      glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      patience eric, we'll have to run the full gamut of systematic theology in order to exhaust the thread.  We are still battling over the bible.  revelation and inspiration is the opening discourse in most discussions on religion.  Pity we've covered so much ground and we are still on the bible.

      VERY IMPORTANT.  We have to agree on the bible before we can proceed because the bible is the primary source for the rest of the statements that EW will make to support the Christian religion vs atheism.

      replyreport
      1. onthewriteside profile image60
        onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think agreeing on the bible is EVER going to happen...and that's the problem.  It basically comes down to this"  religious folks feel the need to believe in something in order to justify their own goodness.  Non-believers feel that they don't need Sky Fairies to tell them whether or not they are good.

        If you met me on the street one day and got to know me, you would probably say, "wow, he's a nice guy, he must be a Christian".  Whereas if I met you on the street and got to know you, I would probably just say, "wow, he's a really nice guy".  That is unless, of course, you had spent that time forcing religion down my throat, in which case I would say, "Oh crap....another Fundie".

        replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Oh and shame on you Christians...if you can call yourselves that. Where the heck have you been? Are you wannabe's lurking around the religions forums agreeing with each other? I have much more respect for the Atheists, Agnostics and those who fall somewhere in between than you jerks.
    I am embarrassed to be categorized with you ineffective chumps! Pharisees!

    replyreport
    1. Eric Graudins profile image60
      Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      And with that statement I declare the score to be
      Theists 0
      Athiests 4

      Never mind Enders.
      There'll be other battles.
      You've proved yourself to be one of those rare creatures - a Theist with a sense of humour. cool

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Eric,
        The way I see it, the only good argument that has been agreed upon is mine. Not to mention all of the excellent shut downs to those little fires people bring up.
        Ender:535
        Theists: 0
        Atheists: 1 ...pity points!
        Goodnight everybody. Thanks Jenny i still love you.

        replyreport
        1. Eric Graudins profile image60
          Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          As do we all smile

          replyreport
          1. Inspirepub profile image75
            Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Awww, you are all so sweet ... smile

            Jenny

            replyreport
  • Inspirepub profile image75
    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    Well, I am checking out of my hotel and will not have internet access for probably 24 hours.

    I agree with Eric that the standard of debate so far has been rather more Pythonesque than I would expect from an intelligent, articulate, and educated crowd such as this. Lift your game - this is a rare chance to have a real debate!

    As I will not be moderating in anything like real time for the next 24 hours, PLEASE try to stay on topic and say something intelligent when you post.

    Maybe someone could quote/reply this post into the thread at regular intervals to remind everyone to play fair while I am away.

    Have fun ...

    Jenny

    replyreport
  • Sufidreamer profile image86
    Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago

    Let us start with Josephus:

    The passage in the Jewish War states that somebody called Jesus existed. He was non-Christian and lived at a time where he may conceivably have met first hand witnesses.

    However, the parts of the text alluding to a divine nature do not fit the flow of the text, and are believed to be an addition by Eusebius in the 4th Century. The Syriac version supports this idea.

    Most scholars agree that the Josephus source shows the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. A fairly balanced source:

    http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

    However, there is no evidence of divinity within the source - it supports point 1, but not point 2 or 3.

    replyreport
    1. Paraglider profile image92
      Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Nice citation. I'm inclined to agree that there was a historical Jesus. Not least because it is much easier to be believed with exaggerated stories about a real person than with stories about someone no-one has ever known. (E.g. Haile Selassie was a real person in our lifetimes around whom a religion has grown up. That's how it usually works)

      replyreport
      1. Sufidreamer profile image86
        Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Like researching the history behind King Arthur - extremely frustrating. After thousands of books and papers, 'he probably existed' is the only conclusion lol

        As for whether there is any further information about Jesus, outside the NT, I have no answers.

        The Shroud of Turin is still open to debate, the James Ossuary was a forgery. I guess that the only other avenue is to assess the accuracy of the Gospels. I have a feeling that we are about to start going around in circles again big_smile

        replyreport
        1. mohitmisra profile image60
          mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Merlin fascinates me.

          replyreport
        2. glendoncaba profile image80
          glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Like I said earlier we have to agree on the bible or we wont have a proper discussion.  Have u guys heard of the Jesus seminar.  You are making the same mistake, removing the divine aspects in your search for the historical jesus.  Jesus is more that historical, he is God incarnate.  And the Bible is the primary source of that information.

          replyreport
  • David Bowman profile image59
    David Bowmanposted 16 years ago

    I have heard it said that the fact that the gospel authors fabricated the Roman census that supposedly required the people of the region to return to their cities of birth is one reason to believe it plausible that an itinerant preacher of some sort for which the myths were built around may have existed.

    One of my favorite atheists, Christopher Hitchens, describes why in this Youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE

    replyreport
  • Sufidreamer profile image86
    Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago

    Hi CW,

    I don't think that the 'off topic' apology was necessary - you were perfectly entitled to defend your country against such baseless accusations. smile

    It is certainly very interesting to watch how India develops - the British have a notorious history there, but I think that the two countries are now good friends. Most British people that I know have a deep affection for our Indian cousins smile

    .....apart from when you destroy us at Cricket lol

    replyreport
    1. countrywomen profile image62
      countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Well it is not totally "baseless" there is some truth in his statement but it is not the complete picture. I think all countries would come closer due to the economic crisis and that maybe a good thing coming out of this mess. We all need each other at this time. smile

      Btw didn't the English team defeat India recently but then Indians don't need outside influence i.e., pretty capable of self destruction due to fatigue/injuries. big_smile

      replyreport
    2. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      And Indians have a love, hate relationship with the British.Love you because you created the railways and so much otherwise we would have been a hundred and not fifty years behind the west and hate because they conquered us at one time. smile

      replyreport
      1. Paraglider profile image92
        Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        And we gave you bureaucracy which you raised to an art form...

        replyreport
        1. mohitmisra profile image60
          mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I like the British as I feel they are highly evolved and have produced many great minds .Then the way you write , so proper its commendable.

          replyreport
  • profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

    An angle of the word tells Mary she will have a child a virgin birth and name him Emmanuel. (or Jesus depending on which version you read)

    Mary had 4 other children James, Joseph, Simon, Judas"

    Here is my question.  How old were Jesus' brothers?

    replyreport
    1. enderw1ggins profile image60
      enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      If you are getting at the "Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin because Jesus had brothers" argument. The answer is easy. Jesus was the eldest and the Bible doesn't claim that Mary stayed a virgin. If i were Joseph i would have made sure of that.
      This isn't a Bible trivia forum. If you are trying to make a point...just make it. I don't have the time for jive and neither does anybody else here for that matter.

      replyreport
      1. Misha profile image67
        Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Would you talk for yourself please? I personally always have time for Her Majesty smile

        replyreport
        1. countrywomen profile image62
          countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I also look forward to Her Majesty http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6879/bowdowntj8.gif

          http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1165/641460900_e5a910e5c6.jpg

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Please there is no need to do that. big_smile  but I will admit I kinda like it.  http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1165/641460900_e5a910e5c6.jpg I shall do the same for you CWhttp://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6879/bowdowntj8.gif

            replyreport
      2. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        The entire bible is "trivia." 

        We have conclusively proven that atheists are better than theists, and you still have not made a single point. Maybe you should stick to wiping out aliens...........

        Or perhaps another 4 years learning how to apologize might help.

        See you in 2013 lol

        replyreport
        1. enderw1ggins profile image60
          enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Not this theist, pal!

          The "Jesus is a myth' argument is bogus and has no foundation in facts. The four Gospels are either "history" or "bad history". Three of the Gospels, (Matthew, Mark, and John) are written by eyewitnesses. Luke wrote his using eyewitnesses as his source.

          Luke 1:1-4 "Inasmuch as many have been taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you and orderly account..."

          The Gospels bear no resemblance to any literary or spoken myth in writing style or presentation. It is simply a straw-man tactic and will be dismissed because it it false.

          Ok gang i gotta work today but i'll keep dropping by to check on progress.

          replyreport
          1. mohitmisra profile image60
            mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Well lets see an atheist speak words which will defy time.Jesus spoke two thousand years ago and his words still have immense meaning and are simply superb.

            replyreport
      3. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I need proof of the ages of Jesus' brothers.

        -edit-  I would also like proof of the trinity in OT as being part of the NT and the fulfillment of the Christ prophecy.

        replyreport
      4. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I do notice a certain 'angle' here towards the ladies that seems to follow in much Christianity.  wink

        replyreport
    2. Make Money profile image69
      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry sister but Jesus didn't have any siblings.  You are not my sister even though I just called you sister.  That's similar to the relationship Jesus had with James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, not actual brothers.

      Emmanuel means "God with us" in Hebrew.  Jesus was His given name.  So Jesus God with us, if you like.  Both names, Jesus and Emmanuel are mentioned in Matthew 1:21-23.  "21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: 23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."  Matthew is referring to the prophecy of Isaias that states "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." (Isaias 7:14)  The Biblical chronology in the back of a NRSV Bible says that Isaias begins to prophecy 755 years before Jesus Christ.  More proof that the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament and that there is a seamless transition from the Old Testament to the New.

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I would like proof that Mary was a Virgin. By Biblical reasoning.  I can say:

        The Lord came to my mother and told her she would conceive a daughter and name her Sandra. Sandra meaning "goddess of Love".  Since God is Love and it is a woman who is foretold in the NT at the end who will fulfill the rest of the prophecy and conceive yet another child. Who beholds the name only god knows because the lords new name is Jeff, which means piece of God who is the offspring of David.... cause that is his fathers name. Therefore it it is true.

        The prophecy is being fulfilled as we speak.

        replyreport
        1. enderw1ggins profile image60
          enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          It has been established that historical events cannot be observed. There are other ways to skin a cat though. Textual evidence, eyewitness accounts and the like are used.



          When critiqing a specific volume certain rules apply which Paraglider was clear on.

          If you had a time machine you could ask Mary yourself but until then, we'll use Literary Criticism.

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Yet the Devil comes disguised as an angel of light.  The great deceiver. The one more clever than Daniel.

            If Jesus is all knowing then certainly he is more clever than Daniel.  If Jesus is the light of God, then certainly Jesus fits the criteria of being the angle of the Devil.

            Jesus says if you do not hate your mother and father, brothers and sister you cannot enter the kingdom of god.

            Jesus says, if you love the father, obey the commandments. 

            This must be why Christians seem to really "hate' ( I use this loosely because it's not that you hate but just don't fully love).

            John says that God is love, being perfected in love caste out fear.  There is no fear of god. 

            David says, fear the lord.

            David says when you die, you die.

            Jesus says when you die you go to heaven.

            Jesus descends into Hell. But Titus (or the guy on the cross to his right) goes to Heaven.

            Jesus says before Abraham was I am.  Egyptians believed in resurrection, the after life... Horus is the God of Egypt.  Is Jesus really Horus? 

            Jesus say he is the son of David.

            Christians say he is the son of God.

            Is David the Father god of Horus and son of Osiris?

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              dennisemattposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              see why I quit religion? wich really isnt the same thing as believing in a god..but still..what the heck????? its all.."well, that time it was symbollic...amd now that word hell means a different thing from that other hell...you should have read it in hebrew...King James translated it wrong....AAAAAAA

              replyreport
        2. Make Money profile image69
          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry Sandra I do not follow sola scriptura (the Bible alone) because it is not Biblical.  2 Thessalonians 2:14 says "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."  By apostolic tradition that has been handed down to us we know that Mary was a perpetual virgin.  I don't listen to any of the new false prophets.

          No prophecy does not tell us that another child will be conceived.

          The blessed virgin Sandra. lol

          Are you pregnant? smile

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Yes it does.  It say there in Revelation that she will be taken out into the wilderness to give birth to a son and the devil will be trying to kill her but she will be protected.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              dennisemattposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              that is supposed to be smbolic. not Mary, but the church or something....

              replyreport
              1. glendoncaba profile image80
                glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                apocalyptic writings are filled with imagery.  symbols.

                Two women in revelation:
                great whore (revelation 17) = impure religion which includes unity of church and state

                Pure woman (revelation 12) which pictures God's faithful people

                replyreport
            2. Make Money profile image69
              Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              You are talking about Revelation 12

              Revelation 12:5 "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne."

              This is talking about Jesus Christ who has already been "taken up to God, and to his throne."

              Revelation 12:6 "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days."

              In this verse the woman is referring to the church of God that will be taken care of during the three and a half years of tribulation.  You know, the Bride of Christ.  A thousand two hundred sixty days is 42 months at 30 days a month or three and a half years.

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                dennisemattposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                awww, see? and my parents religion says the tribultation's length of time is unknown...no argument with you personally, just why are there sooooo many different interpretations and how's a girl to know wich one is right?

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Because it is just a story. big_smile

                  replyreport
                2. Make Money profile image69
                  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  The Protestant Reformation is the reason for all the different interpretations my dear.  I guess Martin Luther didn't read all the verses in the Bible that says we are to be One Body in Christ.  It does say One Body in Christ many times in the Bible. 

                  Atheism is irrational, illogical and very boring to me.  We have discussed it many times in these forums over the last year.  But you are one of the reasons why I will come back to this thread later.  Thanks.  Lets have some fun with the godless. lol

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    Mike, god is in your head.  The inseparability clause is that it remains in your head and in your heart. Praying for the fulfillment of the Revelation prophesy is a damning situation because god is not external. 

                    It does not literally exist.  What you do with this god in the literal world is a damning force that is "forcing" the outcome just to make it true.

                    It is not real.  Continuing to believe that god is an external source fulfilled by the believers will bring disaster as this I can say is the only "fruit" coming from the belief in a literal existence of god. 

                    -bad fruit, if you will.  It is not god, get it yet?

                    replyreport
                  2. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    And as usual, you can back your statement up with..... nothing.

                    Oh well. At least we are not godless morons any more, just godless. lol

                    Your beliefs are irrational, illogical and extremely boring. But as long as there is a goodly supply of young male children, I am sure that is fine..........

                    Perhaps if you restated your irrational beliefs a little more aggressively? I dunno - might help. wink

                    replyreport
                  3. glendoncaba profile image80
                    glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    Make money:

                    I know there are enough wars among Christians but could we focus on what we agree on as Christians.  Let's not go knocking Matin Luther because it is my view and no doubt the atheist too that the renaissance and reformation was necessary to end the dark ages and strip the church of many many errors.  On the point of Reformation you and I stand at polar opposites.  But lets be ecumenical enough to avoid interdenomiinational sparring here and just defend the cross of Christ.

                    We can get back to unique denominational beliefs later.

                    replyreport
              2. profile image0
                sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                Therefore it already happened, end of story.

                replyreport
              3. onthewriteside profile image60
                onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                What I'm about to propose is pure speculation, but please bear with me as I think it is somewhat interesting.

                In other posts it has been established that errors have been made in the translations of these texts (IE:  the whole 8 month vs 18 month thing discussed earlier).

                If we consider (and yes I know this is stretching it, but just for conversation sake) that perhaps the number 1260 "days" was actually supposed to be rendered 2160 "days", then we can open up another can of worms.

                It has been argued by scholars that "days" in scripture can really be referring to "years".  The number 2160 is well known as the number of years it takes the Sun to move through one zodiacal sign (given that each were divided into 12 equal parts).

                Perhaps what these verses are referring to then is the tribulation lasting until the end of the current Age?  Jesus said he would be with you until the end of the Age (not the end of time like has been errantly translated).  He said something along the lines of "when you see a man bearing water, then you will know", or something like that.  You guys can probably find the exact verse.

                Jesus has been associated with the "fish" symbol...not because he fed a bunch of people with a single fish, but because he was representative of the Age of Pisces.  Other Godheads before him have been associated with the astronomical symbols of their times as well (the Ram, the Bull, and the Lion before that).  Due to the phenomenon known as Precession, which the ancients were familiar with, the next Age to come is that of Aquarius...the water-bearer.  Perhaps then, this is just a reference to the coming enlightenment that is supposed to accompany the new Age of Aquarius?

                I know this is off-topic.  I only offer it here as an interesting aside.  Now back to the point at hand...

                replyreport
                1. Make Money profile image69
                  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  That is interesting onthewriteside but there are just too many instances of a thousand two hundred sixty days or 42 months or three and a half years in the Bible.  Yeah it will be the end of this era, not the end of the world.

                  Revelation 11:3 "And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth."

                  Revelation 12:6 "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days."

                  Daniel 12:11 "And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days,"

                  Note how Daniel says 1290 days.  But in Mark 13 Jesus says he will shorten the days for His elect.

                  Mark 13:20 "And unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect which he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days."

                  Revelation 11:2 "But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months:"

                  Revelation 13:5 "And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies: and power was given to him to do two and forty months."

                  These next few use "a time and times, and half a time", a time meaning a year and times meaning 2 years.

                  Revelation 12:14 "And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."

                  Sandra you might find the above verse interesting.

                  Daniel 7:25 "And he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time."

                  Daniel 12:7 "And I heard the man that was clothed in linen, that stood upon the waters of the river: when he had lifted up his right hand, and his left hand to heaven, and had sworn, by him that liveth for ever, that it should be unto a time, and times, and half a time. And when the scattering of the band of the holy people shall be accomplished, all these things shall be finished."

                  I find these next verses interesting, both Luke and James are talking about the days of Elias but Elias is one of the two witnesses that will prophecy in Jerusalem wearing sack cloth during the days of tribulation from Revelation 11 above. 

                  Luke 4:25 "In truth I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elias in Israel, when heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there was a great famine throughout all the earth."

                  James 5:17 "Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months."

                  I guess we could say that this is more proof that the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament and that there is a seamless transition from the Old Testament to the New.

                  replyreport
          2. profile image0
            sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Not yet, waiting till the prescribed time. lol

            replyreport
            1. Make Money profile image69
              Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              I get it, that's why they call you Her Majesty.  lol lol

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                Oh no, that would be His Majesty. lol

                replyreport
      2. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Dood, you are wrong.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I would listen to Mike over you any day.  At least Mike doesn't believe God is a book. big_smile

          replyreport
          1. enderw1ggins profile image60
            enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this


            If Mike is an old schoolin' traditional Christian then he also believes that Jesus Christ is God's Word made flesh.

            replyreport
        2. Make Money profile image69
          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah I know.  I just corrected my original post from saying "The Biblical chronology in the back of a NRSV Bible figures that Isaias was born more than 2,000 years before Jesus Christ." to "The Biblical chronology in the back of a NRSV Bible says that Isaias begins to prophecy 755 years before Jesus Christ."  Got Isaac mixed with Isaias for a minute.

          replyreport
  • countrywomen profile image62
    countrywomenposted 16 years ago

    Here I am getting conflicting answers: Did Jesus have biological siblings or not? hmm roll

    PS: Sandra, Thanks your Majesty smile

    replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Jesus DID have siblings.

    replyreport
    1. countrywomen profile image62
      countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this



      You mean biological siblings with same father/mother. Or half brothers/sister, cousins, disciples whom he treated as "siblings". I am still not clear. hmm

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        They were half siblings, Joseph was Jesus' step-father.

        replyreport
        1. countrywomen profile image62
          countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I get it that Jesus is supposed to be son of God(father) but were the other siblings born to Joseph and Mary?

          replyreport
          1. enderw1ggins profile image60
            enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. But as i said earlier...no time for Bible trivia. I'm slacking on my work as we speak...I would suggest talking about what Onthewriteside is yakin' on  about, he brings up some good stuff.

            replyreport
            1. countrywomen profile image62
              countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks for elaborating. I am sorry if you were side tracked because of me. I apologize for wasting your time. Have a good day. smile

              replyreport
          2. profile image0
            dennisemattposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            What I was taught was, Jesus was born first. Then, because they were normal human beings,Mary and Joseph had,uhhh relations, and more kids. The whole other "siblings" just means church people, or followers or whatever.

            replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Sandra, i dont want to be rude but every argument you present is just conjecture. While you might say something that is interesting, you are still not following the rules of the debate.

    So far I've heard, "at least i don't believe God is a book?" What does that mean and how does it debunk my statements?

    From now on i will ignore these arguments unless Jenny says i gotta, Paraglider calls me out on fallacy, or somebody explains the error of not following rabbit trails.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I am being completely within the guidelines.  As you have already made it clear that the Bible is the only reliable source of proof of god. 

      So using the bible I am only stating the continuity of the arrangements because you can only use the bible to interpret the bible.

      However I will refrain from saying you believe god is a book.  Obviously you are taking back this statement because you feel that I am making attacks on you for a stated observation based on previous commentary. 

      But please ignore my comments because answering them you are better off ignoring them because to answer them would discredit you whole belief that Jesus is god.

      Though while I am on it I must also point out that just before Jesus' crux he tells his disciples the one who is coming after him has no power over him.  He is the ruler of this world.

      So when a christian says that Jesus is god, this implies that Jesus is the rule of the earth, yet Jesus says that the ruler of the earth is Satan.

      And of course to follow, Jesus dies goes to Hell comes back as the spirit of god who is the ruler of the world... which I could then reason to say that the Spirit of Jesus is the Devil.

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Oooh that stings. You rock!

        replyreport
      2. glendoncaba profile image80
        glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Sandra no wonder you dont believe, your understanding of the bible is ...I dont know what to say.  Just read a basic bible course or you will come across as mocking us with those interpretations.  I'll be happy to recommend online courses to u if you are not being sarcastic to us with those comments. 

        Do you want to learn the bible or do you just want to mock believers?

        anyway, Satan is not absolute ruler of earth.  Within kingdom of grace we need to remember that through disobedience and rebellion man has handed over dominion to satan and we choose life by accepting Christ.  Life Application bible  "Satan's power exists only because God allows him to act."

        cite which text you are using and I will try to suggest a clear meaning.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          No actually I have read the bible quite thoroughly and what you people do with it is so ass back words that literally there isn't anything anyone can say to make you see straight.

          I don't believe in this god.  I believe that you (not as a personal offense like you are some terrible person or something) in the end it would not have been god that created the terrible disaster described in your book, but it will be you and all who ignorantly follow this without looking at the world for what it really is, without knowing what you really are...

          that will create it because you have no idea how capable man is and you cannot grasp the concept of "god" as it is. 

          I suggest reading some other books, maybe go out and look at the stars or something, learn about them do anything but keep you nose in a book while praying for Jesus to come back because even though the thought is sweet you haven't any idea what your doing.



          smile

          replyreport
          1. glendoncaba profile image80
            glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Sandra you have not responded to my fundamental point about satan being ruler.  You made some normative statements about me (as typical believer) which are so wrong.

            Let's focus on the one thing I attempted to clarify.  Your view of satan as ruler of world.  which scripture r u using?

            Believers are busy doing all kinds of things as well as prayng.  My church runs universities, hospitals, and clinics all over the world.  As are atheists as well. 

            Lets stick to the reference you made that I want clarified about ruler of earth. 

            I dont have enderWiggins patience.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              You are a typical believer because you are insisting that I am wrong and you are right.  You are also assuming that I did once believe in your god. 

              I never did and never will.  What I take for truth is something that you will probably never be able to get your head around.  So please stop trying to preach to me about why I do or do not believe.

              The point is I absolutely 100% do not believe in your god nor your satan.

              replyreport
  • onthewriteside profile image60
    onthewritesideposted 16 years ago

    I see we are on to Jeebus now.  Although I will concede that Jesus, as a man, may have existed historically, the idea of him as a true "son of God" is just silly in my mind.  There are many requisites laid forth in the OT that must be met in order for a man to be considered the "messiah", and Jeebus missed on a bunch of them.  The standard Christian answer as to why he missed is that "he is going to do that in the second coming".

    Nowhere in the OT does is say that the messiah will be a "God-incarnate", or have any divinity to him at all. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews.

    Nowhere in the OT does is say the messiah will be born of a virgin.  In fact the word "almah" used to describe Mary doesn't mean virgin at all...it means "young woman".  The RSV translates the word correctly.

    Nowhere in the OT does it say that the messiah must live, die, and then be resurrected.

    It does say:

    The messiah will be from the line of David.  Jeebus was either the son of Joseph, (which would make him of Davidian lineage), or he was the son of God and wasn't from the line of David.  You can't have it both ways.

    The messiah will rebuild the Temple.  The Temple was still standing during Jeebus' lifetime.

    The messiah will re-establish Jewish law as the Law of the land.  Christians just say he will do this the next time around.

    The messiah will save Israel.  Shortly after Jeebus' death, the Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was laid to waste, and the Jews were exiled.  Seems to me that he may have helped along its destruction.  Don't forget...there's the second coming yet...

    The messiah will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government.  I guess he'll do this the second time around too...LOL.

    The messiah will return all exiles to their homeland.  Once again, I guess we'll have to wait until the second coming for this one too.

    replyreport
    1. Make Money profile image69
      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Wrong again bubba.  I'm sure there are more verses in the Old Testament besides Isaias 7:14 that says the Messiah will be born of a virgin but this will do to start.

      Isaias 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel."

      Emmanuel means "God with us" in Hebrew.

      So "God-incarnate" too.

      And bubba if you do not stop calling my Lord and Saviour Jeebus then I will find out the name of that character in that cartoon called the Family Guy that you look so much like and start to call you that. lol

      Does anyone know what that character's name is?

      replyreport
      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        LOL - Jeebus seems a reasonable word. I would have gone with., "imaginary character culled from pagan religions to fool the ignorant," so I think you should take it where you can get it Make Money. lol

        replyreport
      2. onthewriteside profile image60
        onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Again...the term used in Isaiah is almah.  It does not mean virgin, it means young woman.  Check the RSV for the proper translation.

        http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv … te=2608974

        And I'll call your Sky Fairy anything I want!

        And yes I know...it's a terrible picture of me....

        replyreport
        1. Make Money profile image69
          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Actually Almah means "a girl who has reached puberty and is marriageable" in Hebrew.

          So if that's the case then Isaias 7:14 could read "Behold "a girl who has reached puberty and is marriageable" shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel."

          Thanks Peter Griffen, we can see that we have come to the same conclusion.  That the Old Testament does say that the Messiah will be born of a virgin that will be "God-incarnate".

          More proof that the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament and that there is a seamless transition from the Old Testament to the New.

          replyreport
          1. onthewriteside profile image60
            onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            First off...I have been told already by the OP that Wikipedia is not a valid source.

            Secondly, even if that is the accepted definition, I still don't see the word virgin in there anywhere.  Almah can mean any young woman, from the time of birth up until the time she has her first child.  This is not to say she was necessarily a virgin, just that she has yet to have a child.  The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah...and I'm sure if the author of Isaiah wanted the mother of the messiah to be a virgin, he would have used that word instead.

            replyreport
            1. enderw1ggins profile image60
              enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              This word does mean virgin. Read it in context.

              replyreport
              1. onthewriteside profile image60
                onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                The RSV has translated it as "young woman"...a source which you have said is a credible one and you have even quoted it.  Just using your tools...

                And I thought we all agreed that using "context" as an argument was not valid when it comes to quoting scripture?  Wasn't that established by the moderator?

                Even if I took it in context, the surrounding verses have no relevance to the birth of a virgin.

                replyreport
            2. Make Money profile image69
              Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Oh sorry, no more wikipedia then.

              Okay here's a couple of quotes from A Messianic Jewish Perspective

              "In the few verses where almah appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a "young, presently married woman." It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste."

              "The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet."

              replyreport
      3. profile image0
        dennisemattposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Peter Griffen get it right, NOT BUBBA....

        replyreport
        1. Make Money profile image69
          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Peter Griffen.  Thank you.  Okay not bubba or onthewriteside but Peter Griffen.  lol

          Catch you on the flip side.

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            dennisemattposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            ha ha. of course YOUR on the write side!!! but the family guy, guy is Peter.  smile He is one of my heroes btw...

            replyreport
    2. Make Money profile image69
      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Resurrection is mentioned 5 times in the Old Testament.

      Okay 3 of those times are from 2 Machabees which is not in the King James or other Protestant Bibles.  But it is interesting to note that all 7 books that the Protestants call Apocrypha were found in the dead sea scrolls and they were also in the 1611 version of the King James Bible, the two Machabees books as well.   

      One instance that mentions resurrection is in Sophonias 3 (Zephaniah 3 in the KJB) which is very interesting because it is a prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles, and of the poor of Israel: God shall be with them and the Jews shall be converted at last.

      Isaias 53:5 which is in the Old Testament says "But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed."

      More proof that the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament and that there is a seamless transition from the Old Testament to the New.

      replyreport
      1. onthewriteside profile image60
        onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the link.

        All 5 of those instances refer to the "resurrection" as being born-again in heaven with the Lord.  This is just part of the whole belief system in general: "Do what God says, and you will live eternally in the kingdom of heaven".  They say nothing of any particular person specifically having that honor.

        Sophonias (or rather Zephaniah) has a whole 3 chapters in the OT, and again, refers to his own "resurrection" to heaven.

        Apocrypha or not, the dead sea scrolls were still written at least a 100 years after Jesus, but as such, I would consider them to be much more reliable than the NT per say.  And you would be hard-pressed to find anything in the dead sea scrolls that says that Jesus was the son of God.

        As far as Isaiah goes...I've already said that you can't talk in the past tense about a guy that wasn't supposed to be around until way in your future.  Prophecy doesn't work that way.  The prophets said thing s like, "this WILL come to pass, or he WILL do this.  They don't say, "But he WAS wounded for our iniquities, he WAS bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace WAS upon him, and by his bruises we are healed."

        replyreport
        1. Make Money profile image69
          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Well I don't know.  This site says "The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D."
          http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

          replyreport
    3. Make Money profile image69
      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Yes we can because Jesus is both from the line of David threw Joseph as well as Mary and Jesus is also the Son of God. 

      Where in the Bible does it say that the Messiah will rebuild the Temple?

      The Third Temple will be rebuilt, the man of sin will sit in it as if he were God then Jesus Christ will return to kill him with the spirit of His mouth. (2 Thessalonians 2)

      The new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven.
      Revelation 21:2 "And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

      See also Revelation 3:12 for the new Jerusalem that will come down out of heaven.

      Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus the Messiah will re-establish Jewish law?

      Jesus Christ' death and resurrection was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law.  For Christians the New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant.  The Ten Commandments still stands.
      Galatians 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

      The Abrahamic Covenant is not revoked.
      Galatians 3:29 "And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise."

      Jesus Christ the Messiah has already saved Israel but most of them didn't recognize Him.  But during the time of tribulations God will send two witnesses, Elias (Elijah) and Henoch to Jerusalem for the conversion of the Jews. (Malachias 4, Romans chapters 9, 10 and 11 and Revelation 11)

      Yes Mark 13:2 says "And Jesus answering, said to him: Seest thou all these great buildings? There shall not be left a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down."

      Again see Revelation 3:12 and Revelation 21:2 for the new Jerusalem that will come down out of heaven.

      Not sure about this one.

      replyreport
      1. onthewriteside profile image60
        onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I'd admired your persistence.  Sorry it took you so long to find some references.

        If Jesus is the son of God, then he can not be of the lineage of Joseph.  It is a very-well known fact in Jewish law that an "adopted" son has no claim to the father's heritage.  This is obviously true from a genetic stand-point as well.

        As for Mary being descended from David, that is only stated in the NT and we can't (as of yet in this debate) consider that  the truth.




        See Jeremiah 33.  The whole chapter talks about the Temple and the Law.



        Not relevant as you are quoting the NT to prove the NT is correct.



        So?  What does this have to do with Jesus?  Anyway...not relevant as again you are quoting the NT to prove the NT.


        Again, you can't quote your source to prove your source is correct.




        See above...Jeremiah 33.



        And we are supposed to believe that why?  Because the NT says so?


        A beautiful way to live...and I try to practice this every day...but because it socially makes sense for rational human beings to try to get along in such a fashion...not because it was "divinely ordained".


        Again...my original statement was that Jesus did not fulfill the pre-requisites for being the messiah as stated in the OT.  You can't use NT scripture to try to show that my statement isn't true.



        Once again....NT quotes...unaccepatable in this argument.




        Same thing.  I'm not arguing NT with you.  If you can't show that Jesus was the messiah of the OT, like I stated before, than the NT is MOOT.

        replyreport
        1. Make Money profile image69
          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I've been meaning to reply to this for a while.  Jeremias 33 is another Old Testament prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ.  I hold fast to my other replies to your original comments which are on Page 33.

          replyreport
          1. enderw1ggins profile image60
            enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Dood, you and glendoncaba are schoolin the prophecy zone to the bone!

            replyreport
            1. Make Money profile image69
              Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Yeah but they are saying prophecies are not allowed in this thread.  I'm just closing up some loose ends.

              replyreport
  • profile image52
    pradeep_uocposted 16 years ago

    The modern science is based on logic.

    In other branches of science we dilute logic, because the real life or the things we come across here are not ideal to use pure logic. For example you can not find a "perfect gas" in the universe. We can not measure anything beyond a perceptible precision.

    Mathematics is most logical of all sciences.

    Here is the approach all branches of Mathematics adopt:
    Choose a few AXIOMS, which are self evident facts and do not need a proof. Then assuming that the the axioms are true, derive other facts.

    For example geometry is based on 5 basic axioms. One of them is : One and only one straight line can pass through any two given points. Other 4 axioms are also so simple, self-evident and elementary. The whole theory of geometry evolves from these 5 axioms.

    In 1929, an Austrian Mathematician proved a very strong result.
    He proved that from a given axiom system all theorems on a particular domain can not be proved or disproved. So some propositions will remain undecidable - one can not determine if they are true or not.

    This is the limitation of logic. So we should not expect to prove or disprove everything using logic.

    So it is NOT WISE to try to prove ultimate truths (like existence or non-existence of God) using logic.

    So my friends you don't have a weapon (logic) strong enough to dig into such things. Better, go on doing good things. If there is God, He will surely reward you. Don't waste your time thinking about Him and/or praying Him too much. If you wish to
    get his favour do good to your fellow humans.

    replyreport
    1. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      This universe is build on mathematics we humans still don't understand.

      replyreport
      1. Jewels profile image89
        Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Or is it music.  It is not clear whether mathematics emanated from music.

        replyreport
        1. mohitmisra profile image60
          mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Music does have structure like mathematics and they would be connected.

          replyreport
          1. Jewels profile image89
            Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            They are connected.

            replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    I will only ignore you because i'm working, Sandra.

    replyreport
  • marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 16 years ago

    I simply do not understand why so many believe there is no God or Creator simply because they don't believe in the religious God. Just because one doesn't agree with religion doesn't mean one can't agree with a creator. I have an excellent debate on the hub I wrote. http://hubpages.com/hub/GOD-LOGIC

    replyreport
  • Sufidreamer profile image86
    Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      ZOMG!  Awesome.  Now that is the kinda preacher I like. big_smile

      replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    OK enough about punk rawk! Oi! We do need to get back on track.

    Sufidreamer,
    You have proven that Priests are METAAAAALLL! A fine contribution indeed. Atheists refute that.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      No but some theist might. lol

      replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Prophecy can be deemed fact if it comes true. There is a way to test it so verifiable prophecy is an argument whether you choose to accept or not is subjective.
    Obviously taken into account vague prophecies.
    In the Bible there are very specific Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. I'm just taking a little break from work so, Christians will you argue this one?

    replyreport
    1. Paraglider profile image92
      Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Well, it can be deemed fact or it can be deemed coincidence. And again it comes down to how specific the prophesy was, and how probable the outcome was even without the prophesy.

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly.

        replyreport
    2. glendoncaba profile image80
      glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Some of the Messianic prophecies:

      JESUS’ FINAL DAYS
      Psalm 41:9 Jesus would be betrayed by a close friend.
      Zechariah 11:12 Jesus would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver.
      Isaiah 50:6 Jesus’ back would be smitten and his face spit upon.
      Psalm 22:16 Jesus’ hands and feet would be pierced. He would be crucified.
      Psalm 16:11 Jesus would be resurrected from the dead.

      replyreport
      1. earnestshub profile image69
        earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        As were so many before him starting with the son of Ra.
        How can you avoid the history as stated in the Zeitgeist movie?
        Every point that is bought up against religiosity is ignored. Mark and others have not had answers that relate to the question being asked!

        replyreport
  • glendoncaba profile image80
    glendoncabaposted 16 years ago

    Brothers and sisters and children of one God all:

    My poor body just slept for 5 hours in middle of day to make up for lost sleep on this forum.  I havent read all the posts yet by great wiggins nor thunder from Mark, but I'll quickly summarise arguments I am prepared to defend next week.  But no more sleep loss:

    Why is the bible divine?
    The primary problem with modern man and the bible is that we live in the age of reason so everything must be proven.  The rejection and distrust of the church (and consequently the bible)is a problem the church has helped to bring on itself by harsh treatment of those who had a different understanding of world, of God and nature e.g. Galileo was brought before Inquisition for holding the Copernican Theory that the earth revolved around the sun instead of earth being the centre of the system. 
    The centuries of renaissance and enlightenment prompted man into discoveries and new philosophies that questioned the assumptions of the church.  The battle between church and science and reason continues into the 21st century. 
    True science is in harmony with bible which is the revealed will of God because there are five reasons the bible is the divine infallible word of God.

    I.    The bible is the divine divinely inspired word of God because of its attested historicity.
    II.    The bible is the divinely inspired word of God because of the evidence of fulfilled prophecy.
    III.    The bible is the divinely inspire word of God because it’s teaching on diet and healthy lifestyle have been corroborated by scientific research.
    IV.    The bible is the divinely inspired word of God because of its effect to change lives.
    V.    The bible is the divinely inspired word of God because it the story of Jesus the Saviour.

    replyreport
    1. onthewriteside profile image60
      onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Just because some of the places in the bible have been shown to actually exist, that does not mean that the rest of the text is automatically true.  And the fact that people wrote about actual places that they knew about most certainly does not imply the necessity of any divinity in order to do so.



      We've already shown that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies of the OT.



      What?  There is no health benefit to staying away from meat on Fridays.  People were and are perfectly capable of figuring out for themselves what foods might be harmful.  No divinity necessary again.



      The music of the Beattles changed lives too...I don't think they were Gods (well maybe john lennon was!  hehe!)



      A lot of books mention Gods...does that make them divinely inspired too?

      replyreport
    2. enderw1ggins profile image60
      enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Let me clarify a little. These are all good reasons why Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, although proofs have not been provided to substantiate the evidence thus far in the debate.
      We have established the historical accuracy and literary coherence all tested through the science of literary criticism.
      Next, we have established that Jesus Christ, spoken of in the Gospels, is in fact a historical figure.
      Now we should work on. "Who Jesus said He is"
      What can we know about the truth claims made by Jesus Christ about Himself?
      C.S. Lewis claims that either Jesus was who he said He was or He was a madman not worthy of the title "good teacher". Those who do not believe He is God, cannot claim that he was a good teacher, prophet, or nice guy with surfer hair. The Gospels portray Jesus as offensive.

      replyreport
  • Sufidreamer profile image86
    Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago

    Dude - you have skipped ahead a little. We are still on prophecy smile

    Point I: We have established that the NT, at least, is a good historical source. Not enough to make the assumption that the Bible is completely true and is the word of God.

    Point II: Fulfilled Propechy - we are still working on that one. If you have any good examples, with citations, then that would be very useful.

    Point III: The Ancient Greeks also knew about healthy diet and lifestyle - they did not claim to be divine. Not a very strong argument.

    Point IV: So can philosophy and every other religion. Not a bad thing, but not enough to prove divinity.

    Point V: Again, we are still working on that one. If you have any information, that would be great.

    So, if you can help to provide evidence for points II and V, that would help the debate - Ender is fighting a lone battle at the moment smile

    EDIT: onthewriteside - crossed posts! big_smile

    replyreport
  • onthewriteside profile image60
    onthewritesideposted 16 years ago

    LOL Sufi!

    replyreport
  • Sufidreamer profile image86
    Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago

    Pretty much the same points, though!

    EDIT: Come on Christians - some of you must be able to dig out some good prophecies. You are letting the atheists walk to first base. smile

    replyreport
    1. Eaglekiwi profile image74
      Eaglekiwiposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      They walk the plank everytime they open their mouths surfi,lol sorry kinda comes under boring to me.
      Lacks the fire and passion of a real encounter ,and is stuffy and heavy with theology...
      Christianity and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ has absolutely nothing to with Intellectul(ism).
      And thats all Ive got to say about that..smile

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Theology and doctrine are key to a relationship with Christ. Without it you cannot define much less have any reason to believe. You fall under the wishful thinking category. Jesus, used theology to prove that He was God.
        "Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." I Timothy 4:13-16
        Statements like the one you made are unbiblical.

        replyreport
  • Sufidreamer profile image86
    Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago

    A terrorist, in fact - causing dissent against the Roman rulers big_smile

    replyreport
    1. enderw1ggins profile image60
      enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      A real meanie!

      replyreport
    2. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I would refute the reference to Jesus as a terrorist. Radical, and revolutionary, yes, but "terrorist"? His ministry was about doing good, not bringing terror.
      Poor choice of words IMO.

      replyreport
      1. enderw1ggins profile image60
        enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry you are wrong buddy.

        replyreport
        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, you agree He was a terrorist?

          replyreport
          1. enderw1ggins profile image60
            enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Either Jesus was who He said He was or He was a madman...not worthy of any honor.

            replyreport
            1. onthewriteside profile image60
              onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              I would have to agree...terrorist is a little harsh.  He was certainly a radical Jew though...still doesn't make him the son of God...

              replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Isa 52:13-53:9
    13 Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
    14 As many were astonished at him - his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men - 
    15 so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand.
    53 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
    2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
    3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
    4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
    5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
    7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
    8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
    9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
    RSV
    I dare you to find another man who can claim this as specifically as Jesus Christ.
    I will expound on every verse from Isiah and parallel it with the life of Jesus in a little bit...still working!

    replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Oh and the Fundie, Jeebus and Babble talk is crappy. You sound like a KKK member.

    replyreport
  • Sufidreamer profile image86
    Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago

    Sandra: I have a couple of friends who keep trying to persuade me to become an Orthodox priest. It was very tempting - get paid to sit and drink Ouzo all day.

    Then I realised that I already do that big_smile

    EagleKiwi: lol - there is that. Mind you, sometimes it is nice to engage in intellectual debate. It beats shouting at Kostas the Goat Herder in the local taverna.

    aka: I was trying to make the point (pretty badly) that he was a terrorist to the Romans - the definition of terrorist as somebody who tries to disrupt or destabilise a political system. It does not necessarily imply violent acts.

    I apologise if the choice of words caused offence and am quite happy to use other words - not worth falling out about. smile

    replyreport
    1. Eaglekiwi profile image74
      Eaglekiwiposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely surfi ,you enjoy ,your sense of humor will be a breathe of fresh air no matter where you place your glass,lol
      Just not for me
      I need food and feelin thristy myself ,later gators smile

      replyreport
    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      No kiddin Sufi; I was being recruited to Orthodoxed preaching too but declined for one reason...

      Same as you put it, Jesus was a terrorist (bad choice of words) but I couldn't get over the irony of his position being to destroy the church/politics becoming the only thing left about his ministry... it's always about the doctrines and not about the freedoms. sad

      replyreport
    3. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      NP about "falling out". But further on the point, Jesus never tried to destabilize the Roman rule. Though He rebuked the Jews for the way they led the people etc. His mission was never political. He made that quite clear often. His business was about the Kingdom of Heaven, not one here. It was the Jews who accused Him (falsely) of insurrection against Rome, by saying He was another king, etc.

      replyreport
      1. Sufidreamer profile image86
        Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Quite happy to call him Radical! 2am here, and just finished work, so I am making less sense than usual.

        For you and Ender, I found an interesting article:

        http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … tml?cat=34

        Not saying that I agree, just that it is interesting. smile

        Don't forget, Jenny will be back tomorrow with her rod of smiting. She will beat both believer and unbeliever alike if the thread is a mess big_smile

        Ender has thrown down the gauntlet - does this prophecy herald the coming of Jesus?

        replyreport
        1. onthewriteside profile image60
          onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Considering these verses refer to someone in the past tense, and they were written before the birth of Jesus, I can't see how they could be referring to him at all.

          replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Sorry i was refuting that Jesus ministry was about doing good. He said Himself, "for I did not come to bring peace but the sword." Thats what i was getting at.

    So lets get to the gauntlet I laid down.

    replyreport
    1. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      The sword here means to cut of ones ignorance.

      replyreport
  • Eric Graudins profile image60
    Eric Graudinsposted 16 years ago

    And now a word from your court Jester, and self appointed Statistician.

    This could well be the most popular thread EVER in the religious forums. Take a bow Enders.

    It has 612 posts after only 3 days.

    This blows away all the competition in the religious forums.
    Consider these other popular threads:

    Islam - 611 posts after 4 months
    Word of God - 694 posts after 4 weeks

    Even Mark Knowles' 16 month old thread about Athiests Rule  only has 1780 posts.
    If you really try, I'm sure that you could easily surpass this and still not have your ground rules for debate settled.

    So keep going guys and girls.

    Only 30 or so posts to go and you'll reach 657, the same number as the classic time wasting thread in the Sandpit titled "Last To Post is the Winner".

    I reckon that we could then have a poll, asking the general hub pages population which thread makes the greatest overall contribution to humanity - "Last To Post" or this one.

    My money will be on "Last To Post" to win. cool
    Cheers, Eric G.

    replyreport
    1. onthewriteside profile image60
      onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      LOL Eric!  I was amazed myself!  I think it has to do with the excellent monitoring going on.  Nonetheless, I have been drawn back to the debate on a daily basis.  It is by far one of the best I've seen.  Kudos to Enders and his rules of engagement...

      replyreport
  • enderw1ggins profile image60
    enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago

    Yeah Eric! i really love seeing your face 'round here!

    replyreport
  • profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

      they did have a lot of opium around.
    not human or just ugly
    if he was/is really Satan, I could definitely understand.
      We need evidence of this arm.  From my understanding they like to cut off peoples arms and such so there just might be a detached arm lurking around.
    ??? dry grounds produce...
    sounds like Satan to me... the bad god.
    I love him.  I love my enemies too. big_smile
    was he a zebra?
    how unfair we really are.
    Jesus was said to have a voice of a lion.
    The jews viewed him as Satan.
    You do realize that Satan never killed anyone right? 


    Jesus doesn't even fill the shoe, Satan does.  But then again it could be an alien.  They did have a lot depictions of UFO's.  Who knows?

    replyreport
    • Post a Reply
    jump to first post
     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

     Necessary
     Features
     Marketing
     Statistics

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)