| Author | Message | ||
     jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 482 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
I suggest that the RCC discussion goes to the Catholic threads and the discussion on this thread returns to the original topic. | ||
| searchlight86 Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 86 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to, extremely powerful and unparalled documentary evidence exists for the NT, as has been shown in posts above. NT authors record multiple eyewitness accounts (the strongest form of legal evidence) to the identity of Jesus Christ as Creator, Savior, and coming Redeemer (i.e. God), including His human incarnation/birth, miracles, physical death and resurrection, and ascension, in the context of fulfilled OT prophecy. These accounts also state there were hundreds of other eyewitnesses to the events, which could be authenticated at the time they were written. Multiple 'secular' sources referring to Jesus Christ have also been shown, non-conflicting with the Bible accounts. There were also many thousands of extremely hostile opponents to Christ at the time, passionately devoted to disproving His identity as God and Messiah, and of His bodily resurrection. This should have been a simple thing for the powerful political and religous elite of the day to perform, but they were unable to do so. Why? There are also the changed lives of the apostles and many others, who went from (e.g.) fishermen, tax collectors, and vicious skeptics/opponents of Christ, to change the world, and who endured tortorous deaths to support the truth of their testimonies. Considering its amazing and detailed claims, Christiainity would have been disproven and defunct from its inception, if it was not true. The evidence is all there. Why not humble yourself, stop rejecting God's unspeakable gift, and believe it? "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Romans 5:6-10) | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 57 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
The RCC as a whole teaches WORKS, self performance based salvation. This is totally contrary to scripture. The scriptures emphatically state is not by works but by faith in Gods grace(free gift) that brings one to salvation and relationship with God. The Roman Catholic Church has too many non Biblical legalistic man made rules that change at their own whim. This list is extremely long. The problem is this wrong theology causes many to "throw out the baby with the bath water" and put away God. These wrong doctrines have nothing to do with God. They elevate too many distractions above Jesus , like Mary and so many other do's and donts. They put allegiance to the church above allegiance to God - Jesus Christ. The shame is how many people are turned away from the one and true God by their errors uncovered. Anything that is not BIBLICAL is not Christianity. For the most part the RCC is not Christian but their own cult form. Jesus did not preach DENOMINATION. If anything Jesus Christ is against denominations. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 328 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.22 |
The evidence is all there. Why not humble yourself, stop rejecting God's unspeakable gift, and believe it? Because I tried it for 30 years and it doesn't work. I can't make it something its not. You believe what you will, I cannot in good conscience say I can believe that Jesus is a real god anymore than I can say Zeus is. The supernatural only exists in the imaginations of people ... that's why. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 484 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
The non existence of God only exists in that lock box of the unbelieving mind of yours. There is no imagining God. God is real. God reveals himself to us many ways everyday. Because you have been spiritually dead to God for all of you life is no fault of the rest of the world. Your broad sweeping attacks on the believers of God that we are all delusional is uncalled for, uncivil, rude, intolerant, bigoted and just downright insulting. Obviously you were never taught manners or respect for other humans on the planet displayed by your bigoted arrogance. Your not going to make anyone stop believing in God. Why would we? We'd only end up clueless and miserable like you. | ||
| searchlight86 Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 88 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to, I understand your position, although my experience as you know has been the opposite. The following is just a question out of pure curiosity, not a 'suggestion'. If you were able to genuinely believe Genesis 1:1, i.e. that there was a real, intelligent Creator (or that there could be), would you be able to believe the rest? In other words, how much of your current belief is founded on the belief there is no Creator (faith in general evolution et. al.), vs. your personal 'dead' experience with what you believe was Christianity? A difficult question to answer I think, but if you don't mind taking a shot at it. Over coffee. Thanks. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 334 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.34 |
s, Let me break your questions out like this: 1. If I could believe there was a creator would I then default to belief in the god of the Bible? (Is that a reasonable rewording?) 2. Do you base your atheism on your personal experience with Christianity or a more general disbelief in a Creator? I would answer by saying that my unbelief stems from experiential evidence that the supernatural does not exist either inside or outside of Christianity. My personal experience as a practicing Christian is supplemented by my a comparative study of world religions and beliefs. I see no reason how anyone could honestly default to belief in any particular god of human history or another if they were to somehow come to the conclusion that a god must indeed exist. It is more likely that if a supreme pan-dimensional all-powerful being were to exist the likelihood of our being able to comprehend it is seriously in question. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 58 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
trainedobserver, What you observe, think about, meditate about and concentrate on you become sensitive to. What you do not observe,do not think about, do not meditate about and do not concentrate on you become hardened to and your perception is lost. It's not out of sight out of mind. It's both... Out of sight out of mind out of your thinking, and experience and sensitivity, causing a hardness in your ability, sensitivity and understanding and capabilities.. I know people that were in cults for 40 years then woke up to its ridiculousness. I know people who were atheists for 50 years and then found God to be real. You do not know everything. Especially you have not observed everything. You do not know all things, have all power, and have not been everywhere. For instance there are over 70,000 volumes in the library of Congress you haven't read 100 of them. You do not understand all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and all the sciences just as you do not understand the spiritual laws. Jesus explained it this way. "Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He replied to them by saying, The kingdom of God does not come with signs to be observed or with visible display, Nor will people say, Look! Here [it is]! or, See, [it is] there! For behold, the kingdom of God is within you [in your hearts, your spirit] and among you [surrounding you]." Lk 17:20-21 There are spiritual laws that govern the universe just as there are physical laws that govern them you do not know those also. Sowing and reaping is a spiritual law just as it is a physical law. What ever you plant you will reap back a harvest when meeting the right governing laws and conditions. Experiential evidence is a great deceiver. I and hundreds of people I have been with have experienced the supernatural. Things that defied all the physical laws of nature. I have seen the supernatural. I did not have to see it to know and perceive that it exists. Your perception is limited by you and your lack of knowledge. Your lack of knowledge and practice of spiritual law limits your belief and only amplifies your unbelief. Your limited understanding along with your limited capabilities, and limited perception leave you lacking. It hinders your knowledge. Experience is not the best teacher. Trial and error is not the best way. Some people try any ill to find and cure and wind up dead. This is not the best way. There is a better way and a much better way then the small, your small limited amount you call your experience. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 335 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.37 |
Well I can assure you this much, "the better way" is not religious faith. Especially accepting things as true (like things in the Bible) as a matter of religious faith because it leads to all sorts of problems. Aren't you the one who has said before that they believe that people are being raised from the dead by people like Andrew Womack(spel) and other evangelists? Or do I have you confused with someone else? | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 258 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
"Experience is not the best teacher." That is wrong in every case I can imagine in the real world. Did somebody explain to Micheal Jordan how to do a reverse dunk or did he try and try and try and try until he was the best in the world? Did Tiger Woods just have faith that if he whacked the ball with his eyes closed while reciting a hail mary that the ball would go in the hole, or did he practice every day of his life? Michelangelo was a religious man, but he also had to work study and practice every day of his life to learn what he knew. He did time as an apprentice. God didn't lend him a divine hand as a reward for his faith. Experience is not only the best teacher - it is the only teacher. At least in matters that can be backed up by actions. It is easy to make claims that can never be tested. To expect people that their invisible faith to an invisible god will lead to mystical rewards in the afterlife seems to be asking a lot. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 336 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.37 |
Experience is not only the best teacher - it is the only teacher. You are 100% correct. It has always been true that the most useful, trustworthy, and productive teaching comes through direct and repeated experience. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 59 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
TO AND IHS, Tiger, Jordan, and even Michelangelo were ALL TAUGHT by a teacher from the start. They then practiced those lessons and fundamentals of what their coach and teachers showed them. They had a teacher to FIRST show them the RIGHT way to do them. You don't sink puts and get out of hazards like Tiger, or make moves like Michael with NO TEACHER to show them the RIGHT FUNDAMENTALS and foundational RIGHT ways to do them. Tiger was a fair golfer until he kept on going with instructors past what his father(also his teacher coach) could show him. He had some raw possibility, but he developed a skill from learning from his teacher watching videos of himself and other golfers etc. . Jordan was no superstar in college. Michelangelo didn't start out on the Sistine Chapel. Experience did not make them great. The right foundation teachers and following the correct rules of each art and sport did. The classroom shows you the fundamentals to correctly practice them. To sit and take a computer apart and say experience will show you how it works and to design it better is ludicrous foolish thinking. Those at MIT, UCLA, U of I etcl know better. There are rules to life and if you violate them you pay the consequences. There is a spiritual realm and everything is run by spiritual rules. The physical realm has them also. None of you have the knowledge, OR EVEN THE EXPERIENCE TO make the mistakes you are making thinking your MI NUTE amount of knowledge and experience is enough to make such a life and death decision. Your experience is so small minded and knowledge so limited no wonder you believe what you believe. Go and look outside your small world you call experience. | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 261 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
"Tiger, Jordan, and even Michelangelo were ALL TAUGHT by a teacher from the start. " Of course. But the teacher did not exist solely as thirdhand description in a book. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 464 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
" Your experience is so small minded and knowledge so limited no wonder you believe what you believe." How can you possibly knon what our life experiences are? May I ask how old you are? Thank you. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 506 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
trsinheaven: don't answer bw's rude question. If he had manners he would say "I am ______ years old. How old are you?" That is how someone with manners would ask such a question. Even then the other person is not obligated to answer a nosey question like that. What difference does someone's age have to do with what they say? Why? Because you are going to make a preposterous judgement from whatever the answer is to try to win points. That's called sidetracking. Young or old, rich or poor, male or female, black, white or brown we are all loved the same in God's eyes. It's nobody's business who we are, how old we are or our skin color. On factnet we are ageless, nameless and sexless. We're here to discuss why the cult of atheism denies Jesus. Stay on topic please. | ||
| searchlight86 Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 89 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to, thank you for your candid answer. I understand the foundation of your unbelief in the supernatural et. al. is your ~30 year experience was dead. I also experienced completely dead religion (RCC not that it makes a difference) for many years, but for ~30+ years now have a completely different (living) experience, which I know you would construe as my imagination. For you and others here who seem to have a similar story, are there any reasons you know of that could explain your dead experience other than unreality of God? Please understand my good and humble intent in asking the following question, as I am not suggesting anything and am no spiritual prima donna. Biblical examples I know that can put an impenetrable wall between us and God are spiritual hardness of heart (most commonly pride); choice of sinful lifestyles (e.g. various 'unbiblical' sexual ones); love of/lust for the temporal things of this present world over the things of God; or a shallow parody of 'Christianity' (e.g. an emotional experience followed by playing works-based 'churchianity' et. al. or just going along with religion for family/cultural reasons); or never deeply and completely (as much as humanly possible that is) turning over the rule of one's life from self to following God alone, by faith. Note carefully, I am asking these questions for self examination of any willing (and I hope everyone will honestly do so!), not for posting on FACTnet unless you truly feel good about doing so. I am not here to condemn anyone's character or lifestyle, but know these factors can insidiously blind one to God completely so present them if they may be of value. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 468 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
Franklin, grow up. I'm happy to say that I am 54 years old next week. I only ask age because for someone to say "" Your experience is so small minded and knowledge so limited no wonder you believe what you believe" it would be nice to know that they at least have some years under their belt to make such a statement. Don't you agree? I don't think it is a rude statement at all, especially since I know that TIH is a guy, goofy. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 510 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
I don't agree. Out of the mouth of babes come many truths some adults can not comprehend. A higher age number does not equate to higher wisdom. Experience in years only equates to wisdom if one learns from that experience. The Holy Spirit, our teacher, makes sure of that. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 262 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
Oscar Wilde Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes. http://www.wisdomquotes.com/000402.html | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 337 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.39 |
I really am tired of justifying my Christian experience to you folks. You can take it or you can leave it ok? I've lead an examined life. As impossible as it may seem to you ... a person can be a genuine Christian and come out of it. The problem is I examined things too closely and expected the same integrity from god, my leaders, teachers, and peers as I thought the scriptures were demanding of me. I've seen more supposedly "spiritually alive" religion than I can too. I've seen alleged exorcisms, prophecies, tongues with interpretation, words of knowledge, and so forth and so on. It always turns out to be fake, pretend, or delusional. Without fail. The only 'real' spirituality I've seen was spontaneous charity from people within the church and some of that was terribly misguided. The preponderance of evidence is that the supernatural world with its gods, goddesses, angels, and demons are fictional. I cannot avoid it. I have no rational approach to isolating one god within the supernatural world and arbitrarily declaring it real and all others fictional. (Message edited by TrainedObserver on August 30, 2007) | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 514 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
"The preponderance of evidence is that" What evidence is that? You have none! Sounds like your whole experience was putting faith in man and not God. A lot of Christians do that. The result is the same. Just having a learning lesson from the flaws of humans. Not having a Christian experience with God. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 340 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.41 |
What evidence is that? That would be any and ever instance where supernatural claims have been investigated. They have proven to be false. Is there even one supernatural claim that has been verified? I've never seen it. I'd love to. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 517 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
"They have proven to be false." And where is your source for that claim? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 344 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.48 |
Here is just one. The investigations of James Randi into the supernatural have proven to be show them to be just as I stated. http://www.randi.org/ To my knowledge there are no documented cases of supernatural claims having been verified. If there are any I would welcome them being brought to my attention. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 345 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.48 |
Here is just one. The investigations of James Randi into the supernatural have shown those claims to be just as I stated, groundless and often dishonest. http://www.randi.org/ To my knowledge there are no documented cases of supernatural claims having been verified. If there are any I would welcome them being brought to my attention. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 519 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
James Randi won the Richard Dawkins Award in 2003 Uh, can you find us a more unbiased source than someone who is the darling of your Atheist Pope? | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 268 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
I've seen Benny Hinn cure paralyzed folks by whacking them with his jacket in the name of Jesus. Perhaps Franklin assumes you should be familiar with these clear cut cases of divine intervention. This type of sterling credibility puts so called research nad psuedo scientists like Richard Dawkins to shame. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 521 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Benny Hinn is a charlatan. But Christ died on the cross. And after three days rose from the dead. Then he ascended into heaven to be with the Father. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 477 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
Pure, mysticism. | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 270 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
Franklin "Benny Hinn is a charlatan. " And where is your source for that claim? } | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 524 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Pure atheist one dimensional soulless poison. soulless having no soul or no greatness or warmth of mind or feeling | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 346 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.50 |
But Christ died on the cross. And after three days rose from the dead. Then he ascended into heaven to be with the Father. That type of evidence is called hearsay and it is an unfortunate but inescapable reality that hearsay is useless in determining the truth of any matter. | ||
| loverofchrist Intermediate Member Username: loverofchrist Post Number: 268 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 24.117.99.166 |
That is not accurate. Read Simon Greenleaf's "Testimony of the Evangelist." Simon Greenleaf wrote "the Bible" on evidence. http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 526 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Hearsay only to the deaf, dumb and blind. 92% of the world believes in God. So we are all fools????????? Only atheists hold the truth????????? Now, I don't think so. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 349 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.2 |
Hearsay only to the deaf, dumb and blind. 92% of the world believes in God. I can't make sense of what you are saying. First, hearsay is the same no matter what handicaps an individual might possess and second the number of people holding a belief is no indication of its truthfulness. Things just simply don't work that way. For example, during the 1948 election the Chicago Tribune printed erroneously that Dewy had won. Many people read this and believed it however their belief had no effect on the reality of the situation and Truman remained the winner. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 60 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
trained observer, Go and see Joan Hunter at one of her seminars. You will see people healed right in front of your own eyes from just a few feet away. She is the daughter of Charles and Francis Hunter who for years traveled with a verification team of medical doctors and cameramen praying one at a time for countless amount of people in need of physical healing with miraculous results. They are still alive at 91 years old and have countless dvd's showing miracle after miracle right on camera. If you travel to Houston you can attend one of their seminars and see for yourself. Their daughter Joan travels the globe and does the same thing. You MUST attend one of her sessions to see for yourself the power of God heal those with every sort of problem. Don't blab about something you haven't taken the time to see for yourself. Unless you go and see Joan or Charles and Francis Hunter you are just as much the fake charlatan you claim others to be. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 350 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.4 |
Greenleaf attempts to use the Bible to prove the truthfulness of itself and that is something that just doesn't work. He also assumes a great deal about the anonymous authors of the gospels that he couldn't know. I don't see how this article changes the nature of accounts. (Message edited by TrainedObserver on August 30, 2007) | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 351 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.4 |
I'll believe the Hunter's aren't phonies when I see the documentation verifying healings. I learned some time ago that when you say something its unverifiable baloney stuff. Remember your Womach raised his son from the dead nonsense? It's all a pack of lies. Get real. Its a show and a scam. Just like Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn, and the rest of them. | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 271 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
I'm still waiting the sheaf of documents Franklin is surely going to produce to back up this claim - "On the other point I am certain that it could proved that the majority of sexual attacks on children in the world are done by atheist pedophiles. To an atheist there is no God, no God's laws, no retribution ...... children are fair game to an atheist pedophile." | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 529 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Are you claiming that no atheist has ever sexually molested a child? | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 272 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
Is that what I wrote? What is the highest grade you attended in school Frank? Is it your comprehension or your honesty that is lacking? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 352 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.4 |
This thread has turned idiotic. Why are disruptive posters allowed to carry on with asinine postings like this? What worthless garbage. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 531 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Neither is lacking. Answer the question! | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 481 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
Lots of people have molested children, dope. Will you give me one single shred of evidence that someone molested a child because they were atheist? I know for sure I can find multiple cases where adults have murdered children or tortured them BECAUSE they thought the devil was in them. Last time I looked, atheism rejects the idea that there is a devil. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 533 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Atheist Joseph Stain didn't mass murder at least 30 million people, many of them children, because he thought the devil was in them. Why is it a current theme of atheist propaganda that some priest's molest children because they are Catholic? Read t.o.'s comments above trying to connect the cause of some priest's pedophilia to the fact that they are Catholic. Anyone who molests children does not believe in God. Period. That does not mean that all atheists are child molesters. But some are. Just like those who claim to be Christians or Jews are not all child molesters. But some are. But most definitely anyone who molests or tortures children is not listening to God. But to satan. I say that anyone who molests and tortures a child is telling the world "I don't believe in God!" | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 485 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
I thought you just got through telling me that the "god code" is written into everyone, whether they know it or not. What does whether or not they claim to believe in god or not have to do with it. Isn't it just a matter of not knowing right from wrong? Maybe being twisted and sick? | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 537 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Humans throughout the ages have smothered their souls with their pride. greed and lust, all that separates us from God. All have God's laws burned into our hearts. But when one wishes to disobey those laws then they throw a covering, over their heart, smothering their soul. They disconnect from God. They turn their back on God. But the conscience is still operative. Can't quiet the conscience. We know right from wrong from God's laws. Those who break God's laws are twisted and sick. Some more than others. The Holy Spirit is the healer for this spiritual separation and sickness. | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 274 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.197.149.229 |
Franklin "Anyone who molests children does not believe in God. Period" "I say that anyone who molests and tortures a child is telling the world "I don't believe in God!"" Do you believe this guy? The catholic church deliberately shuffled known pedophiles (which seem to be in good supply there) from parish to parish and even into foreign countries to protect them from legal prosecution . Everyone knows this. This type of rationalization is the exact same one used by Muslims toexplain away suicide bombings! Exactly the same! Oh, they couldn't be Muslims because Muslims wouldn't do such a thing. I suppose all these child rapists suddenly converted to atheism just before they did the deed huh? I don't think so. Many of them died of old age still in the church without ever renouncing their religion, their god, or ever having paid for what they did. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 270 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
what happened to jesus? | ||
| searchlight86 Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 94 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
Jesus Christ is alive and well, and coming again soon to clean up this 'present evil world' (Gal. 1:4). "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." (Rev. 1:7). "The final task of the historian is to gather up the evidence and to describe that event in such a manner that it is shown to lie within the structure of human life and to be intelligible in that context. Further, it must be described in such a manner that emergence of the primitive church is also intelligible on the basis of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. For any historical reconstruction which leaves an unbridgeable gulf between the faith of the primitive church and the historical Jesus must be both inadequate and uncritical: inadequate, because it leaves the origin of the church unexplained; and uncritical, because a critical sifting of the evidence of the New Testament points towards the life and death of Jesus as the ground of primitive Christian faith, and points in no other direction." E. Hoskyns and N. Davey, "The Riddle of the New Testament" (London: Faber & Faber, 1958) p. 170. | ||
| egk Member Username: egk Post Number: 67 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.211.139.188 |
TO, This thread has turned idiotic. Why are disruptive posters allowed to carry on with asinine postings like this? What worthless garbage. I hope to reply to you as time permits, I hope you don't abandon the thread because of the Jeff_Franklin posts. I try to ignore those posts which are impossible to dialog with. For example, TIS posted that the RCC teaches a salvation by works, which is not RCC teaching. From previous exchanges with him, I see that dialog is not possible, so I let it pass. EGK | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 272 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
SL, i still do not see how these texts could be described as historically accurate when most of the book was written in a style that is not meant to be taken literally. if i were to write a poem or an allegory, you would not even consider interpreting it literally. if there are names of people and places in these texts that actually existed it still does not make them historically accurate in all cases. the claims that are made by the new testament texts are backed up nowhere else. do you think it impossible for a new religion to come on the scene and take hold the way it did? why do you think that the resurrection had to be true for the message to be believable? look at all of the people that believe ron l hubbard and joseph smith. not to mention the countless fringe groups, some with bizarre beliefs. christianity is only special in that it got used to obtain power rather than set people free. christianity was not the first religion nor will it be the last. it is only special because it claims to be. the so called historical proof for the resurrection is still waning in my view. | ||
| searchlight86 Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 98 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
Religions/cults founded by Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, and a host of others aren't dependent on the 'founder' coming back from the dead. Genuine Christianity was, however, and without this the phenomenon itself would be just as dead before it began, completely inexplicable. Luke was a Greek, educated in the Greek schools, prepared for the medical practice which was held in high regard as a profession, and among the Greeks had attained to a place of eminence among the nations of the world. Greek doctors of medicine were in attendance upon many of the royal families of other nations. The Greeks were by nature and training, a race of creative thinkers who pursued their studies in a scientific manner. Their sense of what really constituted scientific accuracy and method in the recording of history was well developed. The writings of Luke, both his Gospel and The Acts, demonstrates Luke's training as an historian. He writes his Gospel to a Gentile friend, Theophilus. The name means "a god-lover," or "god-beloved," and may have been given him when he became a Christian. The words "most excellent" according to Ramsay, were a title like "Your Excellency," and show that he held office...Luke wrote the Gospel for Theophilus to use as a standard whereby to judge the accuracy of the many inspired accounts of our Lord's life which were written in the first century. The facts he records were most surely believed by the first century church. Luke arranges the facts of our Lord's life in historical order as they occurred. The other Gospels do not claim to do that. The arrangement of events was dictated by the purpose which each author had in writing his account. The sources of Luke's information were oral and written, from eye-witnesses of the events recorded. He as a trained historian would carefully check over these accounts, investigating and verifying every fact. And this is what he has reference to when he uses the words "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." The words "having had perfect understanding" are literally, "having closely traced." The verb means "to follow along a thing in the mind." The word was used for the investigation of symptoms. Thus it speaks of a careful investigation of all sources, oral and written, which purport to be accounts of our Lord's life. | ||
| searchlight86 Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 99 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
Luke had the historian's mind, a thing native to the educated Greek. Herodotus, the father of Greek history, exhibited the Greek determination to get at the truth no matter how much work it required, when he travelled to central Africa to verify the account of the annual rise and fall of the Nile River. In those days this was a long and difficult journey. Sir William Ramsey said, "I regard Luke as the greatest historian who has ever lived, save only Thucydides." Thus we have no doubt but that Luke made a personal investigation of all the facts he had recorded. He interviewed every witness, visited every locality. If Mary was still alive, he, a doctor of medicine investigated the story of the virgin birth by hearing it from Mary's own lips. And as Professor John A. Scott, a great Greek scholar has said, "You could not fool Doctor Luke." But Luke was not dependent alone upon his personal investigations for the accuracy of his record. He says that he closely traced all things from above. The words "from above" are from a Greek word translated "from the very first," in the Authorized Version. The word occurs in John 3:31; 19:11; James 1:17; 3:15, 17, and is in every instance translated "from above." It is used often in contrast to a word which means "from beneath." Paul had doubtless heard the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper from the eleven, but he also had it by revelation from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23). He had received his gospel by direct revelation in Arabia, and this was his check upon the gospel he heard at Jerusalem from the apostles. So Luke claims to have closely investigated the facts he had received, and to have done so through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which fact guarantees the absolute accuracy of the record (Luke 1:1-4)." Kenneth S. Wuest, "Word Studies In The Greek New Testament" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1979) pp. 52-54. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 276 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
doesn't lukes gospel account of who witnessed the resurrection contradict paul's account? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 353 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.6 |
egk, I won't. I haven't forgotten the Horus business either, I found a reference in Jung's Man and His Symbols the other day I marked to look at later. As I get more time to look into this I'll write something up and either retract or support ...whatever it turns out to be. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 101 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
fof, help me out here. How does it contradict? | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 61 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
Trainedobserver, ihs, bw2 trained..-call Wommacks ministry 719-635-2111 Wommacks son being toe tagged and in the morgue and coming back to life is an incontrovertible documented fact. They are currently putting together the proof that was all documented in the hospital. NOW! GO and see Joan Hunter at one of her seminars. You will see people healed right in front of your own eyes from just a few feet away. She is the daughter of Charles and Francis Hunter who for years traveled with a verification team of medical doctors and cameramen praying one at a time for countless amount of people in need of physical healing with miraculous results. They are still alive at 91 years old and have countless dvd's showing miracle after miracle right on camera. If you travel to Houston you can attend one of their seminars and see for yourself. Their daughter Joan travels the globe and does the same thing. You MUST attend one of her sessions to see for yourself the power of God heal those with every sort of problem. Don't continue to blab like a drip of annoying water about something you haven't even taken the time to see for yourself. Unless you go and see Joan or Charles and Francis Hunter you are just as much the fake charlatan and liar you claim others to be. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 490 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
Trins. Have you seen Joan or Charles and Francis Hunter in person? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 357 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.12 |
Well you see ... I did contact the Wommacks ministry. They refuse to verify the rising son story nor will they give out the name of hospital or doctors involved. So you need to get your story straight. It is nothing but a load of crap. (Message edited by TrainedObserver on August 31, 2007) | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 155 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
I looked over the Wommack ministry website. No mention of those great miracles. There were other miracles you can find out about if you are willing to purchace a dvd, excuse me, get for a donation. For a minimum donation, they were giving a lot of other stuff too and they make it very easy for you to give them a cash donation with no strings attached. I'm not surprised they wouldn't give the name of a hospital or doctor, this looks like flim-flam, plain and simple. "You will see people healed right in front of your own eyes from just a few feet away." I think Harry Houdini was probably the most famous illusionist. At least he didn't pretend it was real magic. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 62 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
bw2- YES I have seen both Charles and Francis Hunter and Joan Hunter and been within five feet of seeing people healed too numerous to count from people with chronic continuous terrible pain and problems walking, sitting, bending etc. with ruptured discs, torn cartilage, torn maniscus in knees, numerous damaged hearts and heart disease(come back with doctors medical reports of total healthy heart after two days), scoliosis, blind eyes, deaf ears and more too many to mention here. These people were documented healed by their doctors. The ones in pain were instantly healed and no longer had pain, and now had full mobility. I saw a child deaf from birth instantly healed and his parents overcome with joy. They have these on dvd. They have one guy whose shoulder and hip was blown up in VietNam unable to raise his arm, to bend over, walk up hill, or use the leg on the side of missing hip instantly healed and able to walk up two steps at a time. His wife was in tears and she was healed of disc back pain instantly. They are currently putting together the proof that was all documented in the hospital. ba2 I said they are working on getting all the documentation on their website about his sons miracle. What does working on it MEAN? It will be on as soon as they get all the documentation, write it up, and their webperson is able to finish loading it in. The other two below they will give you for free for calling them and asking for it! They suggest an offering to cover the cost of the video and shipping it, but won't let that stand in your way if you can't afford it they will send it free. 719-635-1111 Niki Ochenski: The Story Of A Miracle - Video This 50-minute video is a testimony of Niki Ochenski's miraculous healing. This video impacted Andrew more than the actual healing, and he was there at the healing! This video will be a classic that you will go back and view many times, as well as share with other people. Stillborn: The Krow Family Miracle - Video This 30-minute video is the testimony of the miraculous birth of Don & Wendy Krow's daughter, Vita Michelle. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 279 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
1cor.15:3-8 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. luke 24:10 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. so you can see that paul's account differs greatly from luke's. paul never even mentions the women. the one's who were first to see him. that takes some credibility from the one (luke) who is said to have traveled with paul. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 106 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
fof, Here is a summary of the resurrection account in chronological order. As expected with genuine eyewitness accounts (I have seen this in jury trials myself), different witnesses naturally focus on different people and events. There are lots of miracles in here, but not a single conflict in prepositional logic among the accounts. Therefore, there is no logical or historical reason to consider these accounts as invalid (barring devotion to the naturalistic ‘religious’ assumption that miracles are impossible). If the accounts matched exactly, this would make their independence suspect, and they would be much less credible from a legal perspective. Check it out: * Roman soldiers are guarding the tomb with Jesus’ body inside (Matt. 27:62-66). * The women who witnessed the burial are going to the grave with spices and ointments (Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1) * There is an earthquake, and an angel rolls back the huge grave stone (to reveal the empty tomb), and the terrified Roman guards leave (Matt. 28:2-4) * The women arrive and find the tomb unguarded and the tombstone rolled away (Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2) * The women enter the tomb are extremely perplexed to find the body missing (Luke 24:3). * The women encounter two angels, and are terrified (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4-5). The angels tell them not to be afraid, and inform them they know they seek Jesus, which was crucified. The angels also tell them He is risen, show them the empty tomb, and remind them He predicted He would be crucified and rise again the third day. The women then remember His words (Matt. 28:5-6, Mark 16:6, Luke 24:5-8). * The angels instruct the women to go tell Christ’s disciples He is risen from the dead, and that they would see Him in Galilee. The terrified but joyful women leave quickly and run to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:7-8, Mark 16:7-8). * The women tell the disciples, and the disciples don’t believe them. However, John and Peter run to the tomb to investigate. John and Peter inspect the empty tomb and linen burial clothes still there carefully. John believes, and Peter wonders what has happened, and they both return to their own homes (Luke 24:9-12, John 20:3-10). * Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb alone, weeping. Jesus appears and talks to her as she stands outside, and she recognizes Him. Jesus instructs her to tell the disciples he will be returning to the Father (John 20:11-17, Mark 16:9). * Jesus Christ goes and greets the other women as well, and instructs them to tell the disciples to meet Him in Galilee (Matt. 28:9-10). * Some of the guards who abandoned the tomb report to the chief priests what happened. The religious leaders devise a plan, give the soldiers a huge payoff to claim Christ’s disciples stole his body during the night while the guards slept, and tell the soldiers they will cover for them if word gets back to the governor. The soldiers take the payoff and do as agreed (Matt. 28:11-15). * Mary Magdalene goes and tells the grieving disciples she has seen Christ alive, and tells them what Christ told her to say, but they still don’t believe it (Mark 16:10-11, John 20:18). | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 108 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
* Jesus Christ appears to Peter (Luke 24:34, I Cor. 15:5). * Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple and walks with them from Jerusalem to Emmaus (~7 miles), but they do not recognize Him. They lament that it is the third day since His death (knowing His prediction), and consistently state what the women, Peter and John had already reported (Mark 16:12, Luke 24:13-24). Jesus reveals His identity to them and rebukes them for being slow to believe what the prophets predicted about the Messiah, and shows them in all the Old Testament Scriptures the things about Himself. As he sits and prepares to eat with them, they recognize Him and He vanishes. (Luke 24:25-32). * Even though night is falling, these two immediately return to Jerusalem to find and tell the eleven disciples everything that happened on the road, that the Lord is indeed risen, and that they recognized Him. The disciples don’t believe these two either (Luke 24:33-35, Mark 16:13). * As these two are still talking, Jesus Himself appears to the disciples and greets them. They are terrified and think they have seen a ghost. He shows them his hands, side and feet and tells them a ghost doesn’t have flesh and bones. He eats in front of them, and they finally believe and are overjoyed. He explains to them how the Old Testament prophecies must be fulfilled, as He told them before, and so the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead the third day (Luke 24:36-46). * Jesus provides additional physical evidence of His identity and crucifixion to Thomas while he is with the other disciples, and Thomas believes (John 20:24-29, I Cor. 15:5). * Jesus appears to the disciples again at the Lake of Tiberias, performs a miracle, and eats with them (John 21:1-14). * Jesus appears to more than five hundred people at once, most of which were still alive and could verify this when Paul wrote (I Cor. 15:6). * Jesus appears to James (I Cor. 15:7). * Jesus appears and speaks with many other disciples over a forty day period, showing Himself alive with many infallible proofs (Matt. 28:16-17, I Cor. 15:7, Acts 1:3-4), and commissions them to be witnesses to the rest of the world (Matt. 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:47-48, Acts 1:6-8,10:42). * While this large group watches, Jesus ascends into Heaven (Mark 16:19, Luke 24:50-51, Acts 1:9-11), and angels testify to them that He shall return in like manner (Acts 1:9-11). | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 362 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.15 |
and a host of others aren't dependent on the 'founder' coming back from the dead. Saying something like this would only make sense if people were actually coming back from the dead or there were some genuine routine display of the supernatural but they don't and there isn't. You speak as though the resurrection or the supernatural were some sort of established fact universally recognized ... it is not. Christianity's "story" is no more convincing than any other "supernatural" world-view. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 156 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
Trs, you said and asked (referring to Wommack’s ministry), “...they are working on getting all the documentation on their website about his sons miracle. What does working on it MEAN?...” Simple, it means they are assembling another package to sell! Maybe they ask for a donation but how often will they send the package to someone without the minimum donation? When a donation amount is suggested, it is commonly understood that you give the minimum. Anyone who claims they either do miracles or have the proof that miracles are being done, is clearly nothing more than a flim-flam artist. Some are better at it than others. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. People can easily be persuaded to accept the most inferior ideas - attributed to H. L. Mencken. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 64 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
ba2, You refuse to face the facts and you just come back with no facts to refute your ridiculous same lame line "Anyone who claims they either do miracles or have the proof that miracles are being done, is clearly nothing more than a flim-flam artist." I told you I personally have seen both Charles and Francis Hunter and Joan Hunter and been within five feet of seeing people which the best doctors could not fix get healed. They are too numerous to count from people with chronic continuous terrible pain and problems walking, sitting, bending etc. with ruptured discs, torn cartilage, torn maniscus in knees, numerous damaged hearts and heart disease(come back with doctors medical reports of total healthy heart after two days), scoliosis, blind eyes, deaf ears and more too many to mention here. These people were documented healed by their doctors. The ones in pain were instantly healed and no longer had pain, and now had full mobility. I saw a child deaf from birth instantly healed and his parents overcome with joy. They have these on dvd. They have one guy whose shoulder and hip was blown up in VietNam unable to raise his arm, to bend over, walk up hill, or use the leg on the side of missing hip instantly healed and able to walk up two steps at a time. His wife was in tears and she was healed of disc back pain instantly. I have asked and received for free the documentaries showing reporting on the miracles that were done. Call 719-635-1111 press #2 or go to awmi.net and they will send you any cd dvd for FREE!. Andrew says on his tv program daily that if you could not afford a donation or would not pay it you can still have his product free. You are either a fool, deaf, dumb, blind, or so shallow and full of hatred for God that you continue with your blind lame generalization that everyone is wrong not you. You do this to try and discredit the truth and you do it poorly. God still heals and performs miracles daily in spite of your limited experience. You definitely are in need of a miracle. There are always people even displayed in the Bible that refused to believe or acknowledge the miracles they witnessed themselves. These are very sad small minded people living in denial. There is a realm a spiritual realm beyond yourself, and it has spriritual rules and laws that govern it. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 158 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
I will say it again: "Anyone who claims they either do miracles or have the proof that miracles are being done, is clearly nothing more than a flim-flam artist." So, they sent you something for free, did they? I suppose they occasionally have to do that for fear of being challenged as a non-profit organization, but they are getting quite a bit of advertising from you, now aren’t they? Every illusionist who has been put up to scientific scrutiny has been found to be a fake. These people seem to be pretty good at their sleazy craft. Send them all your money, fine with me. Just don’t ask me to follow your brand of screwy fundamentalism. Matthew 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. You, more than anyone here at fatnet cause me to question my reasons for being a Christian. This is something no atheist has ever been able to do. You have caused me to spend numerous hours looking up some of your lame claims, only to have you ignore my responses. Talk about being in denial! You certainly are not interested in truth, only your own misguided intrepretations. One should not try to defend their faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 114 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to, if coming back from the dead were routine, than the predicted resurrection of Christ wouldn't be considered a miracle and wouldn't be a significant factor to confirm His identity, or have any particular spiritual meaning would it? If one confines all reality to that which is routine and in one's personal experience, does this not reduce mankind to the state of animals without any demonstrated spiritual consciousness (which possibly is what you essentially believe as a result of general evolution, is this true?)? The concepts of right and wrong are universal among mankind, but there is no evidence of any moral judgment in the animal world. Although specific beliefs of what is ethical vary, all people possess a conscience. Since a conscience cannot uniquely evolve out of nothing and there is no evidence it evolved from animals, man’s conscience must have been intelligently and specially created by an ethical being with concepts of right and wrong. Only man shows any inclination to recognize or worship spiritual beings, and this practice is nearly universal. Even the most ‘primitive’ tribes of men practice some form of religion, and even the most ‘advanced’ animals do not. Since religion is completely unique to mankind with not even a trace elsewhere, mankind could not have evolved from other beings, but must have been specially created. How can you rationally explain these things without a spiritual source? In this larger context, the pure naturalist position conflicts with experience. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 66 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
ba2, You are proven wrong again. Andrew Wommack ministries GIVES AWAY every teaching he has FOR FREE! GET IT! FREE! NO CHARGE! NO COST TO YOU! You just go to his website and download them. Every teaching he has ever done you can download and copy FOR FREE on his website. He gives them away free! Show me some worldly organization that does that? The ministry does remind those that are ministered that they can give something to help defray the cost of their ministry, tv time, missionary work, Bible college etc.-BUT NO ONE HAS TO. Sowing and reaping is a universal principle. THEY DO NOT DEMAND ANYTHING FROM ANYONE! This flies in your face and All the infomercials you see which charge hundreds of dollars for their self help stuff. You just lie and make facecious statements without showing any facts. You just throw out FALSE ACCUSATIONS and speak about things you have NO knowledge about and don't even take the time to find out. Andrew Wommack ministries GIVES AWAY every teaching he has FOR FREE! No charge to you! So stop making up your lies! Just go to the home page scroll down and on click on the right side "free mp3 downloads, free audio teaching" then click on any teaching title and how to download mp3 and you can copy to your computer or disk. FREE! FREE! FREE! All his information and teachings for FREE! http://www.awmi.net Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please God):Hebrews 11:6. You are like the people the scriptures speak about that "having a form of godliness (religion) but denying its power."2 Timothy 5 You display a form of religion yet deny the power of God. These people will hate everything that is good. They will be sneaky, reckless, and puffed up with pride. Instead of loving God, they will love pleasure. Even though they make a show of being religious. "With God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE" "NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD" Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works(miracles), which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. Matthew 13:58 Their unbelief hinders Jesus. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. John 14:12 Jesus said: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. Talking about miracles every Christian is called to do all that Jesus did and greater works than Jesus did. "according to the power that lives within you ... the same power that raised Jesus from the dead" Romans 8:11 | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 366 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.26 |
s, ...The concepts of right and wrong are universal among mankind, but there is no evidence of any moral judgment in the animal world. ...Only man shows any inclination to recognize or worship spiritual beings It is due to our ability for abstract thought, an adaptive capability that enables us to imagine things that do not yet exist and manufacture them whether that is a practical tool, an imaginative story, or the ability to imagine ourselves in someone else's shoes (empathy). These things aren't magical or dependent on the supernatural for existence. The fact that the human imagination works independent of our reason explains stories and hence beliefs that have no basis in fact. One advantage modern man has over primitive tribes is the benefit of recorded history and a larger collective experience. This collective experience has proven the superiority of reason and critical thinking to the unchecked imaginings of primitive superstition. We benefit from the philosophies and musings of countless cultures and ages. Great thinkers have explored and found the logical fallacies before us, we should avail ourselves of their wisdom rather than trusting untrustworthy human imagination, superstition, and fear. It comes down to a question of reality vs. illusion. Reality, no matter how unpleasant or disappointing, is still preferable to living a life full of 'make-believe', not matter how pleasant or reassuring that might seem to be. How can you rationally explain these things without a spiritual source? In this larger context, the pure naturalist position conflicts with experience. You are arguing from a position of personal incredulity which carries no weight whatsoever. Because you cannot explain something does not mean it defaults to a 'supernatural' explanation as being the best one. There is simply no good reason to assume that. To the contrary all of the points you brought up are explained by nature, natural process, and their consequences as I pointed out. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 163 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
Trs, you want to belief in magic, go right ahead. Anyone who promotes that stuff as being real is nothing more than a huckster with an ulterior motive. Use your God given brain for what it was created for – think! | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 67 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
ba2, Magic didn't instantly heal my friends or me. You seem to claim to be a Christian. That words definition includes most of all believing and practicing ALL the teachings of Jesus Crist in the Bible.Jesus said only a doer of Gods word will be blessed in their deeds. One of the greatest commands Jesus gave was the great commission of Mark 16 and later emphasized by the Apostle Paul in 2Cor5 "the ministry of reconciliation". 15And Jesus said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." Praying and laying hands on the sick is part of the great commission. Having miracles following the word preached is part of the great commission. To please God you must have have faith. Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please God):Hebrews 11:6. You deny Gods power. You are just like the people the scriptures speak about that "having a form of godliness (religion) but denying its power."2 Timothy 5 You display a form of religion yet deny the power of God. You make a show of being religious with no proof no power. "With God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE" "NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD" Umbelief hinders faith and the disciples and Jesus. Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works(miracles), which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. Matthew 13:58 Their unbelief hinders Jesus. And Jesus did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. Jesus told us we are to do all the miracles all the works that he did. Jesus said we are to do even GREATER WORKS than he did. Dead religion no signs no wonders no power no miracle working power of God gives no witness does nothing. No power gives no witness of God. Acts 1:8 says "the Holy Spirit will give you power to be a witness" John 14:12 Jesus said: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. There is the power of God and Jesus when we receive the spirit of God. Talking about miracles every Christian is called to do all that Jesus did and greater works than Jesus did. "according to the power that lives within you ... the same power that raised Jesus from the dead" Romans 8:11 | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 164 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
Use your God given brain for what it was created for – think! I can spit out all sorts of verses too. This means nothing. You want to believe in some man’s supernatural healing power, go ahead. There is a sucker born every minute. And the flim-flam artists continue to take the hard earned cash from the gullible. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 368 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.35 |
I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of 'sharing the prophets reward' I believe I would be more afraid of sharing the reward of a scam artist and false prophet than anything. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 70 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
ba2, You seem to call yourself a Christian? Are you a Christian? | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 166 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
trs, Yes, I am a Christian, but not one to your liking, I’m sure. But that has nothing to do with the points made. Incidentally, when I accidentally double post, I generally delete one of them. | ||
| matt_hatter Intermediate Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 417 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 24.214.93.12 |
ba2: You, more than anyone here at fatnet cause me to question my reasons for being a Christian. Thank you ba2, for your comments.  Dreary poster indeed. Observations about trs: Probably a chick with limited education. Works a menial job, or no job at all. Attends a small charismatic church (or church in front of TV) that has limited impact on the community except in her little world. Believes that people who don't agree with her are generally either not saved or are deceived. Finds fulfilment as she thumps every Bible verse she can to feel powerful and impressive on a message board. Unknowingly, adds to the confusion of many who are trying to recover from cultish thinking by continuing to post the same kind of thinking. I could be all wrong, but I never claimed to be a prophet. Like I told you once before, if you truly believed all you post, you would be clearing out hospitals and funeral homes all over America. God does not operate on your whims. Oh. And I would have kept my harsh opinion to myself, but you had to drop the "Are you a Christian?" bomb. It is so trite and manipulative it just doesn't play with some of us. It does give me a glimpse of your mentality however. Don't pull it on me, I will just have to laugh. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 118 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to, I find your explanation of unique human conscience and global spiritual/religous affinity similar to a spiritual version of punctuated equilibrium. No evidence for natural evolution of them vis-a-vis animals, but they sprung out of nowhere because, after all, what other source could there be? In this universe, the law of cause and effect rules, and is the most fundamental law of science. Human conscience and spirituality/religion didn't come from nothing. Just like massive and inexplicable gaps in the fossil record, this observation in the spiritual realm fits much better with special creation than general evolution, since it is what one would (super)naturally expect if there was a Creator, and is not what one would naturally expect if all these irreducibly complex ordered phenomena are simply the result of a big explosion around 20 billion years ago. Although you contend for naturalistic reason and contend atheism is not a religion, this 'just so' incredulity takes much more faith to believe than to believe in an intelligent Creator. And if one can believe in a Creator, then believing Jesus Christ as Savior may still be a stumblingblock, but it would not seem like such abject foolishness to you. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 373 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.46 |
Human conscience and spirituality/religion didn't come from nothing. It came from the human imagination. It has all the hallmarks of every other product of the human imagination. Atheism searchlight ... is the simple lack of something. Lack of belief in god or gods ... aka the supernatural spirit world. Faith isn't a factor. All of that 'it takes more faith" business is transparent diversionary double-talk and quite meaningless. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 120 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
So you think 'conscience' and 'spiritual issues' came purely from imagination, and evolved most recently in men from animals (and earlier from the big explosion)? Does this seem rational to you?? What hallmarks does conscience possess from imagination? There is no euphospeak intended, but this honestly seems like a huge leap of blind faith, smacking of religious devotion to a specific worldview (in this case, atheism). And just to clarify, you believe you don't have faith (loosely belief and trust) in atheism, that you just don't beleive in anything? You actually believe you have the capability of not believing in anything? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 374 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.59 |
"So you think 'conscience' and 'spiritual issues' came purely from imagination, and evolved most recently in men from animals (and earlier from the big explosion)? " I can't see any reason why 'conscience' isn't explainable as a very valuable evolutionary by-product. 'Spiritual issues' like every other concept in your mind is a product of the human imagination and again, I don't see any reason to suspect otherwise. Do you know of a convincing argument that they are not? I haven't seen it. "Does this seem rational to you?? What hallmarks does conscience possess from imagination? There is no euphospeak intended, but this honestly seems like a huge leap of blind faith, smacking of religious devotion to a specific worldview (in this case, atheism). " Once again you're making statement that has no basis in fact nor one you've effectively argued. Yes, it does seem rational to me that a human concept came from the human mind. Our 'conscience' is a cognitive phenomena is by its nature a product of the human mind. That isn't faith it is common sense. "And just to clarify, you believe you don't have faith (loosely belief and trust) in atheism, that you just don't beleive in anything? You actually believe you have the capability of not believing in anything? " I think you are playing it fast and loose with terms like 'faith', 'belief', 'atheism', and 'religion'. Here let me be very clear. 1.I was a Christian for over 30 years. I studied comparative religion and Christian sects as matter of course during those years. I was active in various Protestant churches attending services, teaching, practicing rituals, and observing days. I placed my faith in Christ for my eternal salvation. I say all that to say, I know what being religious is and isn't. I was in a word: religious. 2.At one point I came to the conclusion upon reflection that I no longer could justify a belief in the supernatural. I no longer believed that the 'spirit world' was anything more than a story, a product of the human imagination and a product of superstition. My faith in Christ collapsed as a natural by-product of this. 3.Faced with this I could choose to be honest with myself and others and acknowledge that the preponderance of evidence is against supernaturalism and in favor of naturalism or I could lead some sort of lie of a life. 4.I choose to be honest with myself. I am not a Christian any longer. I no longer see any valid evidence to support a belief in the supernatural. What happened? Accumulation of evidence over time. Reflection. Leading an examined life and a continuing education on the mechanics of reliable and critical thinking. I am forced by my 'conscience' to be honest about it. You can take it or leave it. I am in a word: non-religious. I am not saying that everyone who is a Christian isn't being honest with themselves. I know that many people are utterly convinced because I know that I once was. I know that fear and false loyalties to imaginary beings keep people from recognizing flaws in their thinking that have led to their particular beliefs. I recognize that I could in fact be wrong. That is a possibility. I do however have to acknowledge that the evidence strongly indicates that the supernatural world of Christian theology simply doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of those who have taken a fictional story as a true account. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 122 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to, I truly appreciate your candor, and thank you for the additional information. I am also not saying you (or anyone else) isn't doing their best to be honest to themselves or others (which they certainly should!). What I don't understand is this: You claim to rely solely on personal experience and reason (yes?), but many things in your belief (or non-belief) system (whatever you like) seem very contrary to anyone's personal experience. There are numerous potential examples, but here's a couple from the current exchange just to convey the concept: 1) When is the last time you or anyone you know personally saw complex, irreducible order arising from an explosion, over any period of time? 2) When is the last time you or anyone you know saw any evidence of any animal evolving conscience or religious beliefs? If there is no evidence based on anyone's real experience, why do you believe them? But if you do believe such things, how do you still claim it's purely a result of reason and personal experience and not a religious type belief system, since these likewise also typically include 'faith' in things not personally experienced? I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just trying to get you to see the conceptual inconsistency. Will you not acknowledge there is at least a theoretical problem here? This kind of 'faith'-based occult 'science' (so called) does not possess nearly the same level of credibility or reliability as true science based on the scientific method, which is verifiable via testing and repeatability. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 375 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.59 |
You are making some incorrect assumptions. 1. I don't believe I've ever promoted explosions as the ultimate origin of anything. I'm not going to argue for or against the Big Bang. I'm a Big Bang agnostic. There is evidence that the universe cyclically expands and contracts and there is a great deal of scientific literature out there on the subject. One book aimed at the general audience is "The Collapsing Universe: The Story of the Black Holes by Isaac Asimov, if you wanted to read something on it. I personally do not need, nor expect, to be able to cleaning explain the origin of everything. That isn't the point at all. I personally think anyone thinking that they can has a poor understanding of their own limitations. 2. When have I or anyone else been able to communicate with another species to the level where their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the universe around them were actually understood? It's a unanswerable question. As far as evolution goes, the mechanics of evolution are understood by science and there is a great deal of literature out there that examines it in detail. I'm not going to go through the routine evolution arguments just like I'm not going to argue for the existence of the Big Bang. It wouldn't get either of us anywhere. It would just be a diversion. Besides, I simply have no desire or motivation to do so. What needs to be dealt with is the absence of evidence for the supernatural rather than trying to make the case of "I can't explain it ... so it must be X", where X is a god or gods, aliens, or supernatural forces. Find the evidence _for_ the supernatural ... it isn't in the 'absence' of an alternative explanation. What is unknown today will not necessarily be unknown tomorrow. There is no inconsistency. Science ... and my opinon based on available evidence, can, has, and most likely will change in the future to one degree or another about many subjects. That I have no doubt of. Religion however, will not be accepting any new evidence or changing its opinon about much of anything. That is the fundamental difference. It gets down to this -- My unbelief is the result of the failure of religious and supernatural claims to pass critical examination. PERIOD. It isn't because I read a book, saw a movie, or spoke with someone about the Big Bang or Evolution and was convinced that some scientific explanation was 'better' than the 'supernatural' explanation. It was and continues to be the total and complete failure of religious and supernatural claims to pass critical examination. I hope that helps with an understanding of where I'm coming from ... atheism, as I pointed out previously, is the "lack" of a belief in something. My 'lack' of belief in the supernatural is due to the total failure of supernatural and religious claims. Its a entirely different approach than one you seem to be trying to take with the problem. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 123 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to, Since you seem to think I am taking an unproductive approach, let me try a different one. Since you have been gracious enough to share with me how you approach the situation, I will do the same. My Christian beliefs are also based on experience (including a unique living experience with God compared to my experience with conventional 'religion') and the Bible, but also detailed fulfilled prophecy, history and 'scientific method' (primarily) science (other disciplines too but probably these are primary). Because of many years of study of the Bible and experience, critically examined in the context of these other disciplines where possible, I also believe by faith the Bible accounts I cannot personally verify and/or have not personally experienced. For someone like me, the 'faith' plane doesn't get off the ground and into the air easily, but it eventually became airborne as it was designed to do. Note that the Bible (as well as myself) indicates the primary proof of its veracity is detailed fulfilled prophecy because only a Creator outside of this time-bound universe and not man would be able to predict the future in any meaningful way. I think you fundamentally are doing the same thing, although you seem to not wish to frame it so. I think you have certain experience (different than mine as we know), knowledge of science (although we accept different facets/directions of it), history et. al. Based on all this, you have made certain conclusions and have certain beliefs, just as I have done, and these include interpretations (not direct evidence) you cannot prove, that must be accepted by 'faith'. I am not saying these things for academic reasons, but believe it may be of foundational importance to agree on this if our discussions are to be productive. As long as you (may) perceive your position as 'science' and 'reason' with mine as 'religion' we are talking on different wavelengths yes? You and I both have different 'stories' and interpretations based on actual cold evidence, and the cold evidence alone does not equal the interpretation thereof. I believe the Biblical account/worldview best fits actual evidence, and you believe an atheistic worldview best fits actual evidence. Do you understand what I'm getting at and why this is fundamentally important? Can we approach the discussion from this perspective? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 377 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.59 |
Frame it however you like. The situation is this. I was a Christian. I believed it all, I believed I was experiencing a "unique living experience" as well. However, as my base of experience broadened I had to admit to myself that the supernatural claims of Christianity were false. That is ... they do not work and the world does not work as Christian theology claims that it does. I've already discussed a couple aspects of this in detail. Others are 1, demons are not the cause of disease, physical or mental 2, Prayer does not work 3, Healings do not happen 4, The transformative power of Christ is no greater than any other ideologically motivated personal change. And of course the claims that Christ is unique in birth, life, and death. I could go on and on. It doesn't work and the world doesn't work the way that supernaturalism says that it does. (Message edited by TrainedObserver on September 07, 2007) | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 124 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to, I understand your testimony as you understand mine, but it seems you are missing my point in my previous post. Before getting off on items 1-n again (or my items 1-n, I would start with fulfilled prophecy by the way), I'm trying to see if we can make a logical distinction between absolutely proven facts vs. issues we believe by faith, instead of arrogantly assuming one's position is absolute truth by definition. I am and always have been perfectly willing to examine and/or validate my position from this perspective. Are you? Or if not, why not? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 379 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 76.184.175.139 |
I don't know if I understand what you're getting at. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 380 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 76.184.175.139 |
I guess if you're saying that you want to examine some of these supernatural claims then you should just pick something and go. Please avoid a lot of Bible quotes just post the references and the point you're trying to make. I'm not unfamiliar with the Bible itself. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 126 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
We can move on as you say, but first let me try to give an example of what I was trying to say from the few posts above: searchlight86: When is the last time you or anyone you know saw any evidence of any animal evolving conscience or religious beliefs? trainedobserver: It's a unanswerable question. As far as evolution goes, the mechanics of evolution are understood by science ... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but consistent with your (un)belief system, I assume you do believe animals evolved conscience and religious beliefs, based on "the mechanics of evolution" yes? If so, this is fundamentally an act of faith, since no one has ever personally seen any evidence of this occurring, and you infer it from the worldview of evolutionary atheistic naturalism. This kind of 'faith' is true for numerous other aspects of evolutionary naturalism as well. Most of what we believe, we believe by faith. For example, I've never been to Africa, so I haven't personally experienced that it exists. I believe it exists, however, because I've read about it, seen pictures of it, talked to other people who have been there etc. However, it could theoretically all be a big hoax to deceive me. For that matter, even my senses could theoretically fool me even if I thought I was personally there. Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge you believe certain things by faith based on your worldview? Can you please simply acknowledge this?? It is obvious we all do, and to insist otherwise is illogical. If we truly believed only that which we personally experienced, we would believe very little indeed, and no one acutally does or can do this. Faith alone does not have inherent value, but rather it is the object of faith that is important. For example, true faith in God is well placed, and acts as a channel for God to work in and around us for good, but faith in those who are untrustworthy or unreliable is foolish, providing opportunity for deception and harm. Although our senses strongly tell us otherwise, faith in anyone or anything except God is misplaced, including faith in ourselves, since people have no inherent goodness or true righteousness. This is extremely hard to accept and probably impossible to believe from a natural standpoint, because the combined deception of our flesh, this world, and misleading spirits is so strong in and around us, but it is true nonetheless. It is very important to ensure that we have faith in the very person of God, not faith in our faith (a form of having faith in ourselves, which has become an almost universally popular fallacy). | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 128 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
The Bible is very unique among all the religious books of mankind in that it contains hundreds of specific future prophecies, unlike all others which may contain a few vague forecasts at best. Popular individuals such as Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and Jeane Dixon have also made many predictions, and a small percentage of their prophecies seem to have been fulfilled in a general sense, but most of them completely failed. Since the Bible was over one fourth prophecy when it was written, and since approximately half of these predictions have already been specifically fulfilled with unparalleled 100% accuracy, it is extremely likely that the remaining half of Bible predictions yet to be fulfilled will also come to pass exactly as written. Just as a single example among hundreds, consider the following two Bible excerpts: Daniel 9:24-27 (literal translation) - written in 6th century B.C. 70 sevens are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the King shall be 7 sevens, and 62 sevens: the plaza shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times. And after 62 sevens shall Messiah be violently put to death, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with sudden destruction, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with the majority for 1 seven: and in the middle of the seven he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolator. Nehemiah 2:1-8 (excerpts) - written in 5th century B.C. And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes the king … and I said to the king, why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lies waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire? … If it please the king, and if your servant has found favour in your sight, that you would send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it … Moreover I said to the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over until I come into Judah. And a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace … and for the wall of the city … And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 129 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
The first prophecy in Daniel, written in the 6th century BC, indicates there will be 69 (7 + 62) 'sevens' between the 'going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem' and the coming of 'Messiah the Prince'. The starting date for the prophecy, the 'going forth of the commandment', is also referred to in the second reference above, Nehemiah 2:1-8, and is a date well known in history, since this command was issued by the King of Persia. This date is the 1st of Nisan (a Jewish month), 445 BC, and this was indeed in the 20th year of the reign of Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus. Now let's do a little math, keeping in mind that a year in the Bible always refers to a Jewish year of 360 days (the prophecy was written in Babylon, which also used a 360-day year). 69 'sevens' = 69x7 Jewish years = 483 Jewish years 483 Jewish years = 483x360 days = 173,880 days ... so we need to add 173,880 days to the start date of 1 Nisan, 445 BC and see the end date of the prophecy. 173,880 days = 476 'modern' (365.25 day) years + 21 days 'left over' so we take: 445 BC +1 year (because there is no year 0) + 476 years ... and this comes out to March 14, 32 AD. From this date, add 2 days (because there is no leap year every 400 years and we passed two of them), and add the 21 days we had 'left over'. The result is Sunday, April 6, AD 32, ‘Palm Sunday’, the exact day of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, the only time he officially presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah! Also, that after this time the Messiah would be violently murdered, but not for Himself (it was for us ingrates). This is just one of numerous and specifically fulfilled Bible prophecies, but ask yourself what the odds are of predicting Jesus' offer of Himself of Messiah to Israel around 600 years in advance, to the exact day. There is nothing like this in any other kind of 'scriptures' in any other 'religion', or anywhere else. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 130 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
Note that there are no complex mathematical gymnastics involved, and the events mentioned are well known in secular history. The book of Daniel is one of the most authenticated books of the Old Testament, translated into other languages several hundred years before the birth of Christ, including the Greek Septuagint, so there is absolutely no possibility this prediction was written after the fact. Please reason through this yourself, and explain why this is not evidence of omniscience - don’t just provide some specious argument why it couldn’t possibly be true. If it’s true, then accept it as true whether you accept God or the Bible or not. | ||
| bluewater2 Advanced Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 503 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
It is interesting how things look different if you actually look at a Jewish Bible, which I have on my headboard, and compare it to what you have written. I will pull out only one of your pieces of scripture and compare it to what the Jewish Bible actually says. The Jewish Bible, the original, paints quite a different picture. You quote scripture, which I assume is from the Christian Old Testament as saying, "And after 62 sevens shall Messiah be violently put to death, but not for himself:" The Jewish Bible says, And after those 62 weeks the annointed one will disappear and vanish Quite different than "violently put to death." Another one, although quite subtle on your part, is the placement of a semi-colon, or shall I say the absence of one in this phrase, "that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the King shall be 7 sevens, and 62 sevens: the plaza shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times." In the Jewish Bible there is a colon after the words "seven weeks", or your "7 sevens". Here it is: From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of the anointed leader is seven weeks; and for the next 62 weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress. This is saying that it will take 62 weeks to rebuild the city, not 7 plus 62 for the coming of the messiah. Punctuation really matters. There are so many discrepancies between the way that the Jews interpret and maintain their book and the Christian version of the Jewish Bible, which is there Old Testament. It will always be a problem for Christians that the Jews do not see the same prophecies being fullfilled in the same way that Christians do. Suffice to say, it is their book, they are meticulous record keepers and it would go against sound judgement not to see their book the way that they do. I will spend some more time looking at your math when I can, but I do wonder why you use the Jewish calendar and the modern calendar both. I will have to take a closer look at it. I only bring this up because in order for there to be a reasonable attempt to "reason" through this, it must be important that both parties agree on the interpretation of the scriptures. Not much chance of that, I guess. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 134 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
Indeed the Jews are meticulous record keepers, which is something both Judaism and Christianity depend on. I think we need to agree on the source text, first. What specific problems do you see with the Hebrew used for the KJV in these verses, if any, and secondarily for the KJV translation (although this is probably of much lesser importance, since I didn't depend solely on the English for this analysis)? Please explain. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 381 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.42 |
Let's be clear. You don't think morals and religious beliefs could occur naturally? Is that where you are really trying to go? Just say so. This nonsense about belief and unbelief and who has faith in what are just distractions. Religious faith is the act of believing something without evidence and/or in spite of conflicting evidence. I do not have a religious faith in evolution and I absolutely am not going to argue evolution. Others here can do that if they like. Or ... are you actually wanting to discuss how we come to know things and what knowledge is or is not? Things written and rewritten from allegedly as far back as the 600 B.C. can pretty much be interpreted to fit any theory you care to put up. The incredible amount of literature and the diverse number of interpretations of Biblical prophecy pretty much prove this out. There is no unifying interpretation dictated by the Holy Spirit to the church or the world. So you have a collection of numerous ancient texts written in a languages we don't speak by long dead cultures that was edited and compiled thousands of years after their proposed origins that is seemingly and uncannily self-verifying. What do you want me to say about that? (Message edited by TrainedObserver on September 10, 2007) | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 382 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.31 |
....What do you want me to say about that? What is the most likely and simplest explanation of that apparent phenomenon? Is it going to be a supernatural or a natural and therefore very human explanation that utilizes things that we know and understand (like human history, human behavior, and human motivations) to understand how things like this can occur without resorting to all-knowing invisible entities? If I were to suspend disbelief and accept that the Bible is a self-verifying collection of material written by a supernatural agency why should I assume that it is from a benign supernatural agency that is telling me the truth? "By their fruits"? What if some of the fruit is rotten like genocide, infanticide, and other dubious ethical stances? What then? Trust? Trust who exactly and why? The inconsistent results of religious faith prove that it is an unreliable tool for discerning what is true from what is false. If trusting god to lead one to truth was all that was needed we'd both be on the same page right now. See what I'm saying. | ||
| yaakov2 Intermediate Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 279 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 |
Hello Bluewater It’s been a while since I’ve been on FACTNET. Cults are of lesser importance to me nowadays, so I won’t be a regular poster anymore. Just saw that another xian apologist is posting mistranslations about Daniel again. I wouldn’t have even bothered if he just spoke about his own bible, but he claimed that stupid 360 day year is according to Judaism. The 360 day year is a total fiction and was invented by xian apologists. There are many reasons that we know that Daniel 9 is not about jesus. Here is a good link explaining multiple points about Daniel. Although Hugh is critical of xianity within his essays, his logical points are good. http://www.jdstone.org/cr/pages/sss_dani.html If Xians knew Hebrew, they would never associate the “cut off” messiah with jesus. The Hebrew word used, karet means spiritually off, not killed. So unless you think jesus was a bad man deserving to be spiritually cut off, you don’t want to apply Daniel 9 to him. Keep well, Bluewater. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 383 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 76.184.174.148 |
y2, Thanks for bringing out that point about Daniel 9 which helps illustrate one of mine, namely the disparate interpretations of such things (ancient texts) that exist and that are possible. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 606 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Kind of backfired on you yaakov. In your rush to aid the atheists to diss Christianity you just got reminded that atheists hate and disrespect Judaism just as much. The Torah to them is just as much garbage as the Christian Bible is. I'd think you learn soon enough. If these atheists were in Israel they would be trashing Judaism instead of Christianity. It's all believers in God they hate. I don't know why you are always on the Anti Christian march with the Atheists. Only ones who are Anti Jewish here are the the atheists and the SCers. NOT the Christians. Your belief that Judaism and Atheists have some mutual alliance is ungodly. And I'll bet most Jews would agree. You seem a little confused who your friends are and who ain't your friends. But oh well. It's your life. | ||
| bluewater2 Advanced Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 507 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
Hi Yaakov. First of all, I have alot of respect for the Jewish Bible and the Jew's hard work at trying to keep it intact. It is difficult with so many other religions trying to make it "into their own." Also, I just like you. I care less about whether or not someone shares my beliefs or not than I do how they carry themselves. You carry yourself very well. Be well yourself. Thanks for popping in. | ||
| jeff_franklin Advanced Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 607 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
 Yeah ri i i i i i i ight!  The real bluewater: "Parents (including Jewish parents) who teach their children about God are child abusers." "All revealed religions (including Judaism) are a pox on the planet" SCers: "Jews are the spawn of satan." No difference. Whether it comes from bluewater or the SCers their all examples of hate speech against Jews. Let's keep the facts straight. Hate speech is what you speak is against all believers in God. It's the same as racism. Bigotry is bigotry. Hate speech is hate speech. Change! Learn to be tolerant. Learn to be respectful. GO BE ANGRY AND DISRUPTIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. YOUR NEGATIVE COMMENT CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO THE TOPIC AND IS ONLY BEGGING FOR INTERACTION THAT LOWERS THE LEVEL OF DISCOURSE ON THIS BOARD. (Message edited by admin on September 11, 2007) | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 170 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
Hi Yaakov, I never thought Daniel was ever referring to Jesus; even when I read the KJV, it just plain didn’t make sense. But your link to Hugh Fogelman’s papers gives excellent points which I might be able to bring up when discussing this topic. Fundamentalist Christians are very unyielding on this and they generally will not look at any facts that do not support their viewpoint. I often use a Jewish bible you once recommended to me and I find it much easier to read than the KJV. I don’t understand why the fundamentalists won’t use the Jewish version when reading the OT. Maybe because it doesn’t exactly fit into their interpretation? I once had a minister who made the claim that the KJV was actually more literally accurate than even the original copies. This, of course means that he considered those interpreters to be prophets. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 302 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
this question, "what happened to jesus"? seems to have little evidence one way or another. we know that a man named jesus lived during the time in question. we also know that there were many with that name during that time. the historical evidence of the resurrection seems to be confined to the new testament manuscripts. there are two problems with this. 1. no secular sources, make the claims of eyewitness sightings suspect. 2.as is currently being discussed, the accuracy of the translation of the manuscripts are still in question. 3. the fact that the death burial and resurrection idea is used for centuries before jesus ever came on the scene for the purpose of teaching spiritual truth. even now it is used in initiation rites as symbolic of a willingness to change. baptism is clearly one of these initiation rituals. it does not have to be baptism however. the ritual can be acted out in any manner that conveys the truth of the death and resurrection. (i can provide examples if needed) there is much to be learned from what is written in the bible. the confusion and debate ends when the literal interpretation ends. a literal interpretation cannot be justified in the light of the evidence. the death, burial and resurrection have always been symbolic of a commitment to a new life. despite how this may be acted out, a conversion experience is the purpose. rising to a new life. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 75 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
It makes people even with half a brain ask how you people can be so stupid(the same slang word for ignorant) and still breathe? excuse the translation...lol  The accuracy of the translation of the manuscripts????? What the heck are you JESUS haters talking about. Just more spueing of your hatred, ignorance and lack of Biblical scholarship and knowledge. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts. The ORIGINAL manuscripts are there in black and white print in Hebrew, Aramaic and Hellenistic Greek. Anyone with an understanding of either languages can read them for themselves. It takes no special scholarship. Even one who does not understand these languages can read them although slower, with a dictionary of those languages. Comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings... Here is how the New Testament compares to other ancient writings*: NOTE THE NUMBER OF COPIES Homer Iliad 800 B.C. c. 400 B.C. c. 400 yrs. # of Copies 643 Herodotus History 480-425 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. # OF COPIES 8 Thucydides History 460-400 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,300 yrs. # of Copies 8 Plato 400 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,300 yrs. # of Copies # of Copies 7 Demosthenes 300 B.C. c. A.D. 1100 c. 1,400 yrs. # of Copies 200 Caesar Gallic Wars 100-44 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,000 yrs. # of Copies 10 Tacitus Annals A.D. 100 c. A.D. 1100 c. 1,000 yrs. # of Copies 20 Pliny Secundus Natural History A.D. 61-113 c. A.D. 850 c. Copies-7 New Testament A.D. 50-100 c. A.D.114 (portions) c. A.D. 200 (books)c. A.D. 325 (complete N.T.) c. +50 yrs. c. 100 yrs. c. 225 yrs. # of Copies 5,366 In A.D. 367, Athanasius formally listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list. These lists, however, were not necessary for the majority of Christians. By and large the whole church had recognized and used the same list of books since the first century after Christ. For instance, we know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because: 1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies--over 24,000. 2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time. 3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals (see link at end of this section). When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog'--sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."5 Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity." | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 384 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.49 |
The experts agree to disagree ... Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman From a Booklist review - "The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another." | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 171 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
trained, actually the experts agree that there are no originals. from another poster, “…in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog'--sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't.” I e-mailed that one on to my Greek friend and he said he nearly choked with laughter. So, in Greek, How would you know who bit who? Using that logic, interpretation could really get silly. Even the fundamentalists at my church will admit that there are no original manuscripts in existence. Nothing from the time of Christ. Nothing from any of the apostles’ lifetime. This is the first time I ever heard someone suggest that we have the originals. Even if we had the originals, it is impossible to translate word for word with any true meaning. Change one word or even the punctuation and you can change the entire meaning. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 136 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
yaakov2 and others, the following is from Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament for Heb. karath, translated 'cut off' in the KJV: (2) to kill, to destroy persons, Deut. 20:20, Jer. 11:19. Niph. and Hiph. If you or others (e.g. Ross) persist in twisting and perverting the Holy Scriptures or simply ignore them all together to blindly avoid the obvious and desperately hang on to your own beliefs with your fingernails, it's up to you. But the proof is there for anyone not in complete denial, and willing to receive it. Is this the best objection you've got? I'm still waiting for a straightforward, unbiased, and logical refutation of this amazingly fulfilled prophecy. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 305 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
Is this the best objection you've got? I'm still waiting for a straightforward, unbiased, and logical refutation of this amazingly fulfilled prophecy. again the scholars agree to disagree. if these things wee so cut and dry they would be printed in the NYT. On the tenth of Nisan, according to the Mosaic Law, the lambs to be slaughtered at Passover were chosen. Because of the link of this to the Triumphal Entry, some new interpretations report that the event was not even on Sunday, because Nisan 10 would not be a Sunday if the Crucifixion occurred on Friday the fourteenth. This day in the year of the Passion saw Messiah presented as the sacrificial Lamb. It heralded his impending role as the Suffering Servant of Israel (Isaiah 53, Zechariah 12:10). The first day of any Old Testament feast was always considered a Sabbath regardless of what day it fell on. Passover always begins on Nisan the 14th. If Nisan the 14th was a Saturday, then Preparation Day (Matthew 27:62) was Friday the 13th, or Good Friday. Could this be the origin of Friday the 13th being unlucky? In any event, that would mean that the events of Palm Sunday actually occurred on Monday, being five days before (John 12:1,12). If Nisan the 14th was a Friday, however, then Jesus was actually crucified on Thursday, Preparation Day, with Friday being a special Sabbath, a high holy day (John 19:31), and the events of Palm Sunday would be Nisan the 9th, late in the day, (Mark 11:11), but still Sunday. Thus the days later that week would be Thursday, Preparation Day, Friday a special Sabbath followed by Saturday a regular Sabbath. So either Jesus was crucified on Thursday or the events of Palm Sunday happened on Monday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Sunday | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 306 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
Is this the best objection you've got? I'm still waiting for a straightforward, unbiased, and logical refutation of this amazingly fulfilled prophecy. again the scholars agree to disagree. if these things wee so cut and dry they would be printed in the NYT. On the tenth of Nisan, according to the Mosaic Law, the lambs to be slaughtered at Passover were chosen. Because of the link of this to the Triumphal Entry, some new interpretations report that the event was not even on Sunday, because Nisan 10 would not be a Sunday if the Crucifixion occurred on Friday the fourteenth. This day in the year of the Passion saw Messiah presented as the sacrificial Lamb. It heralded his impending role as the Suffering Servant of Israel (Isaiah 53, Zechariah 12:10). The first day of any Old Testament feast was always considered a Sabbath regardless of what day it fell on. Passover always begins on Nisan the 14th. If Nisan the 14th was a Saturday, then Preparation Day (Matthew 27:62) was Friday the 13th, or Good Friday. Could this be the origin of Friday the 13th being unlucky? In any event, that would mean that the events of Palm Sunday actually occurred on Monday, being five days before (John 12:1,12). If Nisan the 14th was a Friday, however, then Jesus was actually crucified on Thursday, Preparation Day, with Friday being a special Sabbath, a high holy day (John 19:31), and the events of Palm Sunday would be Nisan the 9th, late in the day, (Mark 11:11), but still Sunday. Thus the days later that week would be Thursday, Preparation Day, Friday a special Sabbath followed by Saturday a regular Sabbath. So either Jesus was crucified on Thursday or the events of Palm Sunday happened on Monday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Sunday this is not the best source but it demonstrates that all of the questions have not been answered and probably never will. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 137 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
fof, I wondered if someone was going to bring this up, good job. Even if things were cut and dried, though, they would still not be printed in the NYT, because very few people or organizations are willing to publicize or change their position about something that would largely invalidate their core belief system. The kind of discussions you mention above are the only honest ones I've seen about this prophecy, whereas other Biblically-based ones simply twist and pervert the language any bizarre way they choose just to avoid the obvious (some previous posts cases in point). I could debate the issue you raise (I believe the one I presented most closely aligns with Scripture), but to stay on point, let's say we were to get down to debating over a few days give or take for beginning and end dates of the prophecy. The odds of this prediction being true and fulfilled to the level of granularity of our limited understanding still round to the same. Zero. If people refuse to see supernatural omniscience based on this level of accuracy, then they will still not see it if the prophecy was proven accurate down to the nanosecond, or if one they know were to rise from the dead. "For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:28-31). | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 138 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
to: If I were to suspend disbelief and accept that the Bible is a self-verifying collection of material written by a supernatural agency why should I assume that it is from a benign supernatural agency that is telling me the truth? "By their fruits"? What if some of the fruit is rotten like genocide, infanticide, and other dubious ethical stances? What then? Trust? Trust who exactly and why? The inconsistent results of religious faith prove that it is an unreliable tool for discerning what is true from what is false. If trusting god to lead one to truth was all that was needed we'd both be on the same page right now. See what I'm saying. SL: I do see what you’re saying, and thanks for entertaining the hypothetical discussion. Religious faith in general is worthless, as I made clear in previous posts. One must have the right object of faith for it to be of any value whatsoever, and faith in the wrong object is proactively harmful. The Bible (both OT and NT) presents God as benign, but not an impotent, detached cupcake. I probably am quite familiar with the specific Bible passages you classify as illustrating rotten fruit and dubious ethical stances, but for now I will say this: God, as presented in the Bible, is unimaginably loving and patient with mankind (far beyond what any man would be), but there is a limit. Just as a good doctor will remove a cancer when so advanced it is completely inoperable, so God may proactively act to remove people or kingdoms of men when completely consumed with wickedness and violence, and in such scenarios to do otherwise would be unconscionable. If anything, the more difficult question is how God can be so patient: the book of Habakkuk is of a godly man who had the same questions of God, and wondered why God wasn’t doing anything about evil, but when God showed him the larger perspective, he saw God was righteous, and doing something about the problem in a big way. Many people have mistakenly rejected or neglected the Old Testament on the basis that it speaks about a vindictive God of judgment in contrast to the New Testament God of love manifest in Jesus Christ. This perspective, however, is completely wrong. One day a lawyer asked Jesus: "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:36-40). Both of these commandments were recorded in the OT. The first one in Deut. 6:4-5 is perhaps the most revered of all passages to the Jews: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." The second great commandment is from Lev. 19:18: “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord." This law is buried deep in the Pentateuch, in the unlikely heart of the book of Leviticus. In the New Testament it is even called "the royal law" (James 2:8). Thus, the great underlying theme of the Old Testament is love - love for God and love for others - and this truth is stressed by Christ Himself in the New Testament. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 310 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
I could debate the issue you raise (I believe the one I presented most closely aligns with Scripture), but to stay on point, let's say we were to get down to debating over a few days give or take for beginning and end dates of the prophecy. The odds of this prediction being true and fulfilled to the level of granularity of our limited understanding still round to the same. Zero. i agree that this is not the thread for discussing prophecy. if you would like to continue we should start another thread. it is not however an argument that has been used successfully to prove the supernatural influence of the bible. there are other explanations for this phenomenon. i believe that there is a plausible explanation that does not include the supernatural. it involves an entirely different perspective of religion and a new understanding of what is actually being taught by jesus. this essay shows us that there is indeed other ways of interpreting jesus message. http://www-oxford.op.org/allen/html/acts.htm this shows us that there is scientific rational for reexamining the message of the bible. A brief outline of the theory 1. The universe is a process put in motion by purpose. 2. The development of process occurs in stages. 3. There are seven stages. 4. Each stage develops a new power. S. Powers are cumulative; each one retains the powers developed in the previous stages. 6. Powers are evolved sequentially in what are called kingdoms. this is a theory of the evolution of consciousness by arthur young. keep in mind that this is a theory not an hypothesis. http://mindfire.ca/ i don't want to post a long link, so if anyone is inclined to read more, just scroll down to the title "the reflexive universe". | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 76 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
The accuracy of the translation of the manuscripts????? What the heck are you JESUS haters talking about. Just more spueing of your hatred, ignorance and lack of Biblical scholarship and knowledge. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts. The ORIGINAL manuscripts are there in black and white print in Hebrew, Aramaic and Hellenistic Greek. Anyone with an understanding of either languages can read them for themselves. It takes no special scholarship. Even one who does not understand these languages can read them although slower, with a dictionary of those languages. Comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings... Here is how the New Testament compares to other ancient writings*: NOTE THE NUMBER OF ORIGINAL COPIES the Bible has to translate from along with over 24,000 original documents with scripture compared to only a few for the most ancient books such as 8 for Plato. Homer Iliad 800 B.C. c. 400 B.C. c. 400 yrs. # of Copies 643 Herodotus History 480-425 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. # OF COPIES 8 Thucydides History 460-400 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,300 yrs. # of Copies 8 Plato 400 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,300 yrs. # of Copies # of Copies 7 Demosthenes 300 B.C. c. A.D. 1100 c. 1,400 yrs. # of Copies 200 Caesar Gallic Wars 100-44 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,000 yrs. # of Copies 10 Tacitus Annals A.D. 100 c. A.D. 1100 c. 1,000 yrs. # of Copies 20 Pliny Secundus Natural History A.D. 61-113 c. A.D. 850 c. Copies-7 New Testament A.D. 50-100 c. A.D.114 (portions) c. A.D. 200 (books)c. A.D. 325 (complete N.T.) c. +50 yrs. c. 100 yrs. c. 225 yrs. # of Copies 5,366 In A.D. 367, Athanasius formally listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list. These lists, however, were not necessary for the majority of Christians. By and large the whole church had recognized and used the same list of books since the first century after Christ. For instance, we know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because: 1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies--over 24,000. 2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time. 3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals (see link at end of this section). | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 312 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
TRS, why are you so angry? who said anything about hating jesus? i think you need to read more than one book. you just posted the same material as in an earlier post. without any acknowledgment of where you got it from i might add. did you even look at anything that i posted? if you did maybe we could have discussion. calling us jesus haters (among other things) and posting the same material over and over again hardly tells me you even desire to discuss the subject. attacks and plagiarized spam will only get you ignored by me. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 172 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
good point fof, No one here said anything in any way to suggest they hated Jesus. Well, not lately anyway. I see most posters just questioning the text. This is exactly what we are suppose to do, aren't we? Really though, this is the first time I have ever heard someone suggest that we have the originals. All experts agree, there are no originals in existance. Some here at factnet are experts at cut and paste and just won't read anything which is contrary to their previously learned belief. For the most part I am learning to ignore the spam as well. | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 77 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
fatherofaking There you go again like the rest of you, just your usual way of avoiding the truth by changing the subject. No one is spamming just reiterating and restating the truth you people always ignore and cannot refute. I am not your enemy because I post the truth. In the trite words you can't handle the truth and you can't stand to face the truth. You just come with baseless ignorant accuasations. Avoiding the PROOF that shows the Bible more accurate and relevant than any book of antiquity. For example people act as if the works of Plato are perfect yet only 8 copies of partial books exist. The Bible is over 20,000 times more verified with ORIGINAL TEXTS for an accuracy of translation and your wild accusations are just ignorant fools lies and illogical nonsense. Even the Old Testament has also been remarkably well preserved. Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures. New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18] Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19] Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."[20] This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D. References: Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press), 34. Wallace, Daniel, "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?," Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1991, 157-8. [19]Geisler and Nix, 475. [20]Carson, D.A., The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 56 | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 314 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
let us suppose for just a moment that the biblical texts are completely accurate. we then have to come to terms with those that translate them differently. we also have to come to terms with the fact that the tanach is translated differently than the christian OT. who is correct? why is there any question as to their meaning if they are so reliable? there are no secular eyewitness reports of jesus resurrection. why? over five hundred people saw the resurrected jesus but it was not recorded as a part of history by the same one's who recorded that jesus did in fact live and die the way that the NT texts say he did. why would they record his life but not his resurrection? the simple answer is because it probably never happened. the accuracy of these texts does not make the christian message valid. there are to many unanswered questions to just simply accept that jesus rose from the dead. posting this excerpt by metzger does not clear up the questions surrounding this subject. i would appreciate it if someone could clear this up. i have been studying this issue forever it seems and still run into all of the same old questions. i am a seeker of truth. i am not afraid to change my position if shown that i am wrong. i have done it many times already. i am not however prepared to change my position on something that has no definitive answers. if you could clear up these things for me it would be appreciated. i mean it. it makes me crazy sometimes. i listen to every well documented point made. i check them for myself and make my own assessment on their accuracy. i am not afraid to look at alternative viewpoints. are you? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 386 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.55 |
"One must have the right object of faith for it to be of any value whatsoever " One of the points that I have consistently made over the years. Why god X over god Y or goddess Z? What is required to make a reliable determination? "God, as presented in the Bible, is unimaginably loving and patient with mankind (far beyond what any man would be), but there is a limit. " I don't know what standards we could use that would make the god of the bible appear 'loving and patient' but they wouldn't be any acceptable human standards of modern society. "Just as a good doctor will remove a cancer when so advanced it is completely inoperable, so God may proactively act to remove people or kingdoms of men when ... " What you've done there is dehumanize the people you are talking about. That is wrong and you shouldn't do that. Whenever someone wants to steal or kill from people they have to put them in a position where they cannot 'relate' to the others as fellow human beings. They have to be made “less than” in some manner. In this case the innocent children who were slandered because their parents worshiped 'strange gods' a cancer. That is immoral and unacceptable wouldn't you agree after some reconsideration? | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 78 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
let us suppose for just a moment that the biblical texts are completely accurate. What? Suppose?????????? There is nothing to suppose! They are completely accurate because they are the ORIGINALS. They have been proven 99.5% accurate with over 5,600 original existing texts. Your mother who birthed you is an ORIGINAL. lol The Michael Angelo 'David' and 'Sistine Chapel "Creation" or Da Vinci's Mona Lisa nad Last Supper originals exist. You have just seen proof over hundreds of years how the texts copied from the originals of the 1st century AD and up to the present are 99.5% accurately translated and the small amount of minor variances of only 400 words over all these years are inconsequetial and those are known about and corrected. These rare SMALL inconsequential differences are when language changes and meanings of words change. (Eubonics? - don't get me started). One example is in the King James english translation or Shakespearean english to many uneduated people do not know the meanings of words written from the 16th century english to the dialect of American modern english we have today. Jesus, Peter, John or Paul did not speak in "thees and thous" or even ENGLISH(but John, Paul, George and Ringo did. lol ). The thees and thous and pharses like "suffer me"(meaning to bring to me") aren't used much if at all anymore. The point remains though that the King James translation is the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek of both the Old and New testament books. You can look up every old testament and new testament word from the original texts in any Youngs or Strongs concordance, Vines Dictionary of New Testament greek words and find out the word and its meaning in context. You can go to any Hebrew and Greek scholarly work and look up those words also. It is not hard to do either. The internet even have these references for free. They have been proven to be translated accurately. The King James (especially for scholarly work - although the interliner original Hebrew Greek is best) and Amplified english texts are the best and closest to the original.Some other modern texts are not as accurate but they are not meant to be scholarly works only to express the texts in todays vernacular as close as they can. Greek words and Hebrew words have complete specifif meanings. For example English has only one word for love-Greek has a number of words for specific types of love. A few examples is the One for romantic love, one for the love for a friend, and one for the God type of love - Agape unconditional love etc. Here it takes more english words to explain this. One word in Hebrew can have the meaning that takes a whole phrase to express in English. It is like that in many languages. Greek as used writing the Bible being the most expressively specific. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 317 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
TRS, are you saying that the KJV is more accurate than the tanach? and what about the historicity of the resurrection? no matter how accurate they are it does not prove that jesus rose from the dead. no secular sources no belief. that is only common sense. if i find something in one history book and not in any others i am going to consider the former to probably be inaccurate. do you have any proof of jesus resurrection beyond what the NT says? | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 173 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.208 |
"They have been proven to be translated accurately." Well, not not literally word for word and a simple change of a word here and there can change the whole context. But no point in discussing this with trs, Trs has no interest in discussing anything that is not to trs' perfect intrepretation. How can we discuss anything, trs still thinks we have the originals and won't budge from that point. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 139 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
sl86: "God, as presented in the Bible, is unimaginably loving and patient with mankind (far beyond what any man would be), but there is a limit." to: I don't know what standards we could use that would make the god of the bible appear 'loving and patient' but they wouldn't be any acceptable human standards of modern society. sl86: As the heavens are above the earth, they far exceed acceptable human standards of modern society. A couple of OT examples: "And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [is] not yet full" (Gen. 15:13-16). God waited ~400 years to judge the Amorites, even though they were extremely corrupt for this entire period. Philo, an ancient Phoenician historian,tells us a great deal about the Canaanite culture. Until recently nobody believed him because he described their extreme corruption in such lurid terms that it was difficult to believe that any such society could exist But recently archeologists have produced entire libraries from Canaanite nations which tell us that the situation was even worse than Philo depicted. It was a society which was ravaged by venereal disease. They worshiped sex. And they were completely devoted to the dark arts and occultism. So the Lord forewarned his people to have nothing to do with them when they went into the land, and not to learn from them because they were guilty of 'detestable things'. God knew the Canaanites would not operate on the policy of live and let live, but would propagate their teachings to infect all Israel. As another example, consider God's sending of Jonah to the Assyrians. The Assyrians were widely known for their extreme violence, cruelty, and tortures, yet God warns them to repent (and they do!). As a nation, they eventually turn back to their wickedness, but God does not send judgment upon them for four more generations as a result. In God's own words to Jonah who was unhappy they were spared, "And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and [also] much cattle?" (Jon. 4:11). Even though they were consumed with evil, God cared about the people, their children, and even their cattle, and warned them to turn around! How gracious can you get? How long is long enough for the Creator to wait to judge evil?? Considering the self-centered arrogance and violence of man demonstrated almost constantly throughout world history as well as illustrated right here on FACTnet, it is beyond imagination God hasn't wiped out humanity long ago. God warns and warns people to turn around for long periods of time, and it is only His extreme patience and love that delays His judgment, hoping people will repent and not go to a horrifying eternity without Him. But people are hard-hearted (the root is not an intellectual problem) and will resolutely not turn around, that our gracious and loving God may save them and give them new life in Christ, and all such have no one but themselves to blame when God's righteous judgment finally and inevitably comes. | ||
| searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 140 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
sl86: "Just as a good doctor will remove a cancer when so advanced it is completely inoperable, so God may proactively act to remove people or kingdoms of men when ... " to: What you've done there is dehumanize the people you are talking about. That is wrong and you shouldn't do that. Whenever someone wants to steal or kill from people they have to put them in a position where they cannot 'relate' to the others as fellow human beings. They have to be made “less than” in some manner. In this case the innocent children who were slandered because their parents worshiped 'strange gods' a cancer. That is immoral and unacceptable wouldn't you agree after some reconsideration? sl86: As a human being myself I don’t have the right to dehumanize other human beings, and I completely agree that would be wrong. However, God as Creator does exclusively and fully have the right to use metaphorical terms relating to His righteous judgment of men, and He often does so as I’m sure you’re aware. God is extremely patient and slow to judge His rebellious creation, and refers to it as His “strange work” (Isa. 28:21), but He will do what He must as a last resort: “Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head [there is] no soundness in it; [but] wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. Your country [is] desolate, your cities [are] burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and [it is] desolate, as overthrown by strangers. And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, [and] we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah” (Isa. 1:4-10). | ||
| trsrinheaven Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 79 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
There were at least 500 eyewitnesses in and around Jerusalem who actually saw or talked with Jesus after His Resurrection. Many were actually enemies of Jesus and the faith. Beyond the Bible, there are more than 20 non-Christian sources written between 30 and 130 A.D. that refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure. Twelve mention His death and provide details on how He died. Ten of these refer to His Resurrection,” explains David Balsiger | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 324 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.159.145 |
David Balsiger, vice president of Grizzly Adams Productions and senior producer of The Case for Christ’s Resurrection, http://www.tbn.org/index.php/7.html?nid=207 i am not sure what it is that you are trying to pull by not revealing your sources but it is really dumb to think they can't be found. i wonder if you could get me the source that he used to make such an assertion. i would hope that he documents his sources. i do not intend to watch his documentary or buy his book, so if you don't mind i would like for you to find mr. balsiger's source for me. | ||
| pro610 Senior Member Username: pro610 Post Number: 1087 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 69.204.140.203 |
Part 1 of 3 (or4) Dear brother ba2 said this... “”Well, not not literally word for word and a simple change of a word here and there can change the whole context.”” He is exactly correct and this what has happened. This is also why Christianity IS and NEVER was a religion of a BOOK(the Bible) only(solo Scripture) Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next. God gave His Gospel orally first. The Apostles gave it to others orally first. The Scriptures didn’t come until AT LEAST ten years later, if we believe that an Aramaic version of Matthew was written in the early 40’s. Thus, the first ten years at least saw Christianity spread without any Gospel writings, any Epistles, etc. Later, when these same men of God wrote letters and the narratives of the Gospels, they naturally taught the SAME thing that they taught orally earlier to others. Thus, the oral teachings preceded the written ones, and the written ones did not overturn the oral ones. Nor does it say anywhere that oral teachings are encapsulated completely within the Scriptures. The Bible and the Church cannot be separated. Either both are false or both are true. During the first 1,000 years, almost all Christians didn’t need the Bible. They received all the scriptures through the “Church “(Gospel readings, Epistle readings, OT readings), along with “commentaries” (homilies). Those churches were part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not some disconnected churches of independent or non-Apostolic origin. In fact very few individual churches proposed any canons. The leader among those who did was St. Athanasius, who presented the first New testament canon. It was the knowledge of the Church, and the authority to discern the inspired from the profane, that allowed the Church fathers to put together a canon . | ||
| pro610 Senior Member Username: pro610 Post Number: 1088 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 69.204.140.203 |
Part 2 Trsinheaven Wrote..... “”They are completely accurate because they are the ORIGINALS.”” Dear Friend, You are very much mistaken and need to study Bible History. like it or NOT you have to trust that what ever “originals “ existed were entrusted to the Catholic Church. How do we know what was written and when? How do we know the original Gospels really contained those verses? How do you know some verse were not added later? Simple. You don’t know. You don’t know because the originals are lost. We have shreds (”fragments”) of some older copies, oldest one being early 2nd century. Few lines here and few lined there. The earliest completembibles (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), written in Byzantine-text-type show fantastic variation among each other; the Gospel of Mark is considerably shorter than in modern bibles. And none of the bibles prior to the 15th century contain the famous Comma Johanneum, a well documented and known latter-day addition to 1 John, which is unfortunately still in the KJV. The Bible has been washed and dried so many times, we have no way of knowing what is authentic and what is not. Through textual criticism we can figure out which versions are probably “truer” but without that information safeguarded by the Church form the earliest days in terms of worship (liturgy) and church documents, there is no way of corroborating it from the Bible alone. It always boggles my mind that people are willing to accept the Bible but reject the Church that put it together. We can easily understand the original Scripture because we have 2000 years of clear and consistent historical Scriptural interpretations can be backed up by the writings of the Early Church Fathers and it is the Church that ultimately applies the correct concepts, as they have been understood and used since the beginning, and certainly since the time when the Church put together the Bible. The KJV is particularly riddled with errors because (1) it was tailored for political reasons to Protestant bias; this included necessary alterations in the text on which it is based, (2) its foundation is in Textus Receptus, which is a product of (a) two latter-day Greek sources of Alexandrian-type text (known to contain redactions and changes relative to older versions), (b) a private retro-translations from Latin into (poor) Greek by William Tyndale, (c) sections derived from unreliable Latin Vulgate, and (d) translational errors. Also, KJV is written in archaic English which you may think you understand. Many of the same sounding words words as those in modern English found in KJV are of archaic meaning which is different from the contemporary meaning. Unless you are well versed in Shakespearean English, chances are you will misconstrue may be a verse in KJV simply for that reason alone. | ||
| pro610 Senior Member Username: pro610 Post Number: 1089 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 69.204.140.203 |
Part #3 Luke 1:28 is a classic example where words were purposely changed regarding our Blessed Mother. Luke 1:28 Uses the word “Kecharitomene: to describe Mary,s function,essence and being The original Greek was kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The Protestant Revised Standard Version translates Lk 1:28 as “highly favored daughter.” This is no mere difference of opinion but a conscious effort to distort St. Luke’s original Greek text. Had Mary been no more than “highly favored,” she would have been indistinguishable from Sarah the wife of Abraham, Anna the mother of Samuel, or Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, all of whom were long childless and “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by many Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth. Here is som |
