|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 7, 2023 12:17:43 GMT
No need to overcomplicate it. By true I mean all the truth claims made in the NT are proven to be fact. Better? I guess, but also kind of moot since many of them are already proven to be false. You might as well be asking me if Harry Potter were proven to be true would I join Hogwarts! Many, but Iâll just start with one (so as not to over complicate things). Catholics believe that salvation is by faith AND works (which is supported by scripture). Contrarily, Protestants believe that salvation is by faith ALONE (which is ALSO supported by scripture). Catholics and Protestants are both âChristianâ, yet these two doctrinal differences contradict each other and therefore they cannot both be true. Either one is true and the other is false, or they are both false! So there is at least one Christian claim here which is necessarily false! Another obviously low hanging fruit would be the doctrine of âTrinityâ (which is already logically contradictory), and specifically the doctrine of Jesus (who was tempted by Satan in the desert in Matthew 4:1-11), being âfully man and fully Godâ. While there is some biblical support for this idea, the Bible also rules this possibility out in several other verses. [Numbers 32:19 âGod is NOT a manâŠâ, James 1:13 âFor God cannot be tempted by evilâ, etc]. I could go on to list about a dozen more, but letâs just start here. Salvation is either by faith and works, by faith alone, by works alone, or not at all! God is either not a man, or his is a man (called Jesus, who is fully god and fully man). According to the text, Jesus died at 3pm in the afternoon on Good Friday (Matthew 27:46-50), and rose âvery early in the morningâ the following Sunday (Luke 24:1-3). Friday afternoon to Sunday morning does NOT equal â3 daysâ, it amounts to a day and a half! So the claim that he rose again after the 3rd day is proved false! Begin with the ones I already mentioned. I canât answer a nonsensical hypothetical question which is already refuted. Itâs like asking me to hypothesize that Iâm not really âmeâ, but that Iâm actually Donald Trump, and then wanting to know whether Iâd run for President again as a Democrat. That question literally cannot be answered intelligently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2023 12:24:37 GMT
If we all acted like you do, this would be Filmboards. I don't believe you're unable to discuss things without all the childish insults and personal attacks. You go from "scientific proof" and etymological essays to "everybody hates you" and "faithful jerk" faster than I can say a priori. I'm now convinced you just argue for the sake of argument and that you enjoy blaming others for the stupid bullshit you bring into these discussions. Thanks for the chats. I can passive/aggressive as well as you. " style="max-width:100%;"] So does mean youâre putting me on ignore? I don't put people on ignore. I just ignore them. So for future reference, if you don't get a response from me, rest assured it isn't because I didn't see your post.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 7, 2023 12:43:54 GMT
I can passive/aggressive as well as you. " style="max-width:100%;"] So does mean youâre putting me on ignore? I don't put people on ignore. I just ignore them. So for future reference, if you don't get a response from me, rest assured it isn't because I didn't see your post. Sounds great. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 7, 2023 12:50:46 GMT
Jesus Christ (lame pun intended) I'm not gonna watch an entire 45 minute video. Can you at summarize some of the arguments in the video or tell me a time stamp I should forward to? Youâre not actually interested in the evidence, are you? Otherwise why else would you repeatedly demand evidence and then refuse to entertain it when itâs provided for you in-depth? You donât even need to watch the whole video in one go. No offence but youâve already admitted what Iâd suspected of you from the beginning, namely your rejection of Christianity stems from a personal bias against the possibility of it being true. "Youâre not actually interested in the evidence, are you?" I'm not interested in watching an entire 45 minute video, this isn't very difficult to understand. Especially when I've ALREADY heard the historical arguments for Jesus, for instance did you know there's no actual written accounts about Jesus during the time he allegedly existed? All accounts about him were way after he supposedly died. "Otherwise why else would you repeatedly demand evidence and then refuse to entertain it when itâs provided for you in-depth? You donât even need to watch the whole video in one go." Why not instead of posting a tedious 45 minute video, you either give me some of the arguments from the video or tell me a timestamp to fast forward to like I already asked. I strongly suspect you posted a long video on purpose knowing there was a good chance I would not wanna sit through it, that way you could pretend like I'm rejecting the "evidence" you gave me, when in fact I really didn't feel like sitting through a long, drawn out Youtube video. "No offence but youâve already admitted what Iâd suspected of you from the beginning" No I haven't "namely your rejection of Christianity stems from a personal bias against the possibility of it being true." Oh then by that reasoning, I suppose my rejection of man-eating ogres also stems from a personal bias against the possibility of them being true. Do you see why this argument is silly?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 7, 2023 13:00:40 GMT
You said what I said with different words, almah was mistranslated. Alma means young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah and is used a bunch of times in the Hebrew text so if they meant virgin, they would have written virgin but that's not what they meant. You confirmed I was right. Bro, whatâs happened here is youâve evaded parts of my post because theyâre too inconvenient for your argument. How can the context of a passage possibly be irrelevant? What is this supernatural sign given by God of a young woman conceiving a baby? Who was this person described as being âGod with usâ? Btw betulah does not unambiguously mean virgin. In fact there is no single word in ancient Hebrew that unequivocally means âvirginâ. You havenât addressed my point about the Septuagint neither. Remember it was written by Jews long before Christianity, why did they understand alma to mean virgin by translating it with the Greek parthenos, which literally means âvirginâ, if thatâs not the intended meaning of the verse? They certainly wouldnât have had any theological agenda regarding Jesus. So no Matthew never mistranslated anything. He simply quoted the Greek Septuagint, which translated alma as virgin because the context pointed in that direction. LOL, your "point" about Septuagint confirms the original word was not virgin. I was right, how much more do you want me to address it? Nowhere in the scriptures does it say the Messiah would be a virgin birth, nowhere. It's simple, the virgin birth is not scripture and saying it was, is a lie, a sin. There is no context you can add to make the lie real.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 7, 2023 13:55:51 GMT
This thread proves what a bunch of flake cop-outs non-believers are. They can't even answer a simple question because the thought of a Creator offends them so much. What if the creator is you and not some supreme God thing?
Vger the creator....
That's what Jesus said: "Ye are all gods." "What I do so shall you do and more." "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you."
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 7, 2023 13:58:59 GMT
What if the creator is you and not some supreme God thing?
Vger the creator....
That's what Jesus said: "Ye are all gods." "What I do so shall you do and more." "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." I thought you said you weren't a Christian?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 7, 2023 14:01:44 GMT
That's what Jesus said: "Ye are all gods." "What I do so shall you do and more." "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." I thought you said you weren't a Christian? You're mistaken. I never said that.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 7, 2023 14:10:34 GMT
I thought you said you weren't a Christian? You're mistaken. I never said that. You know what, what you're right (first time for everything I suppose), I'm rereading a coversation we had, you claimed you weren't religious, I pointed out that you were a Christian, but then you tried to make some idiotic argument about how Christianity isn't a religion. So yeah I mistook your weird delusion into thinking Christianity isn't a religion as you claiming you weren't a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 7, 2023 14:23:19 GMT
Being a Christian is often believing what you can't see, it's called FAITH. And thereâs nothing invalid with holding this kind of spiritual POV.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 7, 2023 14:27:58 GMT
That's what Jesus said: "Ye are all gods." "What I do so shall you do and more." "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." Therefore, there is no need to believe in anything, only to accept our own lives as being master and commander within them. That takes some measure of believing it's so, or at least a knowingness. It also means that we are eternal spirits in a temporary body to have a human experience.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 7, 2023 14:45:13 GMT
The point is about the motivation. Do non-believers reject the gospel purely because they see the evidence as too insufficient to believe or do they reject it because itâs too inconvenient to their lifestyles and thus they want it to be false through personal bias. Some of the responses here seem to suggest the latter tbh. That is then of the implication, that the believer is holier than thou, righteous and just and the non-believer doesn't know how to act accordingly towards their fellow humankind. That is at the fallacious crux of Christianity as interpreted by many, that to be saved, one only has to believe, which is utter and absolute nonsense.
There would be believers, that act more like asses than some non-believers, yet get a free pass to be saved. Nope! Doesn't make sense.
Do non-believers reject the gospel purely because they see the evidence as too insufficient to believe or do they reject it because itâs too inconvenient to their lifestyles and thus they want it to be false through personal bias.
1. There were dozens of gospels written, but only four made it into the NT. This was in early 4th century. The rest were suppressed or destroyed. A committee of men who lived long after Jesus picked these four based on rational system of being closest to events when written. Even so, the first Gospel was written at least a generation removed from Jesusâ time. 2. While the first church was a Jewish sect, this church was soon overwhelmed by the pagan churches who mixed their pagan sensibilities with a Jewish Apocalyptic cult. In time and through the work of learned men, they honed down the motley Christian Churches into an organization. Even then, it took centuries to figure out exactly what Jesus was and still arguing. 3. Paul of Tarsus has more to do with the spread of Christianity than Jesus. We have his own first person experience, while the Gospels are hearsay and bad readings of the Hebrew Scriptures, none of them written by Jews. Therefore, a third reason non-believers do not accept the GospelsâŠârejectâ connotes they once believed itâŠis the Gospels are not a reliable source of information. Even the Bible never claims itâs the inerrant word of God.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jan 7, 2023 15:03:05 GMT
Well there is a difference between believing something and actually practicing it and doing what it says. Believe it or not a lot of skeptics answer no to this question. What you are asking, is would one convert to Christianity if proven to be true? If something is true, why would it need conversion? I can't answer without being delusional, over a deluded question being asked. Sorry but that just seems a cop-out. If Christianity were proven to be true. Would you become a Christian, as in practice the faith and apply its teachings and instructions to your life? I suspect that deep down it is the practicing the faith and applying itâs teachings & instructions to your life thatâs the stumbling block for you. You wouldnât be dancing around the question otherwise.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jan 7, 2023 15:14:06 GMT
Bro, whatâs happened here is youâve evaded parts of my post because theyâre too inconvenient for your argument. How can the context of a passage possibly be irrelevant? What is this supernatural sign given by God of a young woman conceiving a baby? Who was this person described as being âGod with usâ? Btw betulah does not unambiguously mean virgin. In fact there is no single word in ancient Hebrew that unequivocally means âvirginâ. You havenât addressed my point about the Septuagint neither. Remember it was written by Jews long before Christianity, why did they understand alma to mean virgin by translating it with the Greek parthenos, which literally means âvirginâ, if thatâs not the intended meaning of the verse? They certainly wouldnât have had any theological agenda regarding Jesus. So no Matthew never mistranslated anything. He simply quoted the Greek Septuagint, which translated alma as virgin because the context pointed in that direction. LOL, your "point" about Septuagint confirms the original word was not virgin. I was right, how much more do you want me to address it? Nowhere in the scriptures does it say the Messiah would be a virgin birth, nowhere. It's simple, the virgin birth is not scripture and saying it was, is a lie, a sin. There is no context you can add to make the lie real. Again the original word was not âvirginâ because there was no unequivocal word for virgin in ancient Hebrew. An almah in the culture of Isaiahâs time would have been a virgin. Context determines the meaning of passages which is why the Jews with no theological agenda translated almah into the Greek word parthenos which does literally mean virgin.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jan 7, 2023 15:32:48 GMT
Sorry but that just seems a cop-out. If Christianity were proven to be true. Would you become a Christian, as in practice the faith and apply its teachings and instructions to your life? I suspect deep that down it is the practicing the faith and applying itâs teachings & instructions to your life thatâs the stumbling block for you. You wouldnât be dancing around the question otherwise. You wouldn't be dancing around the rationality of argument many have provided you, if you weren't so delusional.
Truth doesn't need window dressing or belief to be beholden to it. Truth is not wrapped up in delusion and deceptions, which is what you have peddled with your ludicrous question and point. Why is it relevant to you, that you need conversions to Christianity? Isn't your own life challenging and important enough for you to contend with in which you can use your belief as a crutch to find your own understanding of it, or is it that you just want to avoid what is really going on with you, so you attempt to save others as a distraction from yourself?
How is it a ludicrous question? Christianity makes a truth claim. It is either true or it is false. Letâs imagine that it were proven true, would it be enough to compel you to convert to and practice the religion? The answer clearly seems to be No with you. But for some reason you donât seem to want to admit it.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jan 7, 2023 19:09:06 GMT
How is it a ludicrous question? Christianity makes a truth claim. It is either true or it is false. Letâs imagine that it were proven true, would it be enough to compel you to convert to and practice the religion? The answer clearly seems to be No with you. But for some reason you donât seem to want to admit it. You haven't read all my posts, because the first one I commented on, not directly to you, was NO! I gave a reasoning why.
Since Christianity will never be proven to be true, and who knows what this truth claim is, because you couldn't even provide evidence of jack, means you need to get over yourself and your absurd belief that has a stranglehold on you.
But thatâs irrelevant to the hypothetical. Itâs like me asking if there were a black female president of the United States would you vote for her? And your response is âSince there will never be a black female president, your question is absurd!!!â
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 7, 2023 19:34:28 GMT
Short answer, yes. But this will require something on the scale of Steven Spielberg doing Cecil B DeMille landing on the White House lawn. Iâve honestly looked inside and out for proof, undoubtedly more than most Christians, and so far not convinced. When I had faith there was no problem going along with rituals. Scripture study and such, but the minute I bit into the tree of knowledgeâs offerings, poof, faith was gone. So, donât ask for proof, you might wind up not believing like me. I am much happier now, to tell you the truth. Very liberating to the spiritâŠat least for me. My mind is too out there for just one repetitious narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 7, 2023 20:41:12 GMT
LOL, your "point" about Septuagint confirms the original word was not virgin. I was right, how much more do you want me to address it? Nowhere in the scriptures does it say the Messiah would be a virgin birth, nowhere. It's simple, the virgin birth is not scripture and saying it was, is a lie, a sin. There is no context you can add to make the lie real. Again the original word was not âvirginâ because there was no unequivocal word for virgin in ancient Hebrew. An almah in the culture of Isaiahâs time would have been a virgin. Context determines the meaning of passages which is why the Jews with no theological agenda translated almah into the Greek word parthenos which does literally mean virgin. Bethulah, look it up. The virgin birth was only mentioned in Matthew and Luke; Mark, John, and Paul never mention it. I can give you two sources, experts in the field who have read the original scriptures, Bart Ehrman and Jen Knust. Don't trust random things you google.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 7, 2023 20:45:42 GMT
Again the original word was not âvirginâ because there was no unequivocal word for virgin in ancient Hebrew. An almah in the culture of Isaiahâs time would have been a virgin. Context determines the meaning of passages which is why the Jews with no theological agenda translated almah into the Greek word parthenos which does literally mean virgin. Bethulah, look it up. The virgin birth was only mentioned in Matthew and Luke; Mark, John, and Paul never mention it. I can give you two sources, experts in the field who have read the original scriptures, Bart Ehrman and Jen Knust. Don't trust random things you google. Revelation chapter 12 implies it, as does St. Paul in Galatians chapter 4 (note he mentions Our Lord Being Born of a Woman, but, mentions no man's involvement).
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 7, 2023 21:10:14 GMT
Bethulah, look it up. The virgin birth was only mentioned in Matthew and Luke; Mark, John, and Paul never mention it. I can give you two sources, experts in the field who have read the original scriptures, Bart Ehrman and Jen Knust. Don't trust random things you google. Revelation chapter 12 implies it, as does St. Paul in Galatians chapter 4 (note he mentions Our Lord Being Born of a Woman, but, mentions no man's involvement). "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law..." Because men don't give birth, durp. But it doesn't say which god so obviously it was a new god that overthrew Yahweh. I mean if you can make things up from scripture, so can I. If you are going to keep posting lies for me to refute, I'll do the same. The wild beast in revelations is Elijah and 7 heads refers to his 7 penises, 10 horns is gonorrhea, and 10 crowns is monkey pox. Somewhere in Numbers it says this is what happens when people lie about the virgin birth.
|
|