- This topic has 232 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
>humans created thousands of religions during history
>90% of religious people somehow believe that the religion they were born into is the true onewtf, how don’t they realize that is all bullshit?
-
Why are you so bitter about the intellectual journey? If you want to give up fine but don’t get pissy if others continue up the mountain without you.
-
t. doesn’t get it
-
I don’t think you get it.
-
The true is that religion is for the stupid and weak.
-
>consumes corn syrup and watches "science" videos on youtube
-
It’s way to easy to get to guys to reply.
Anyway you are assuming I don’t believe in anything. This is not true. I just think that organized religion is a cope and a means of keeping people enslaved.-
>assuming that I don’t believe in anything
>anyway “le organized religion cope”HOLY COPE AND CRINGE. The absolute state of fedora scrotes in current year.
-
Now you get it, everything is meaningless and wait until you are really lonely, you’d go and want a greater spiritual community right quick
-
-
-
You just gave up on trying to understand the world around you and are afraid to think about the metaphysical. You are weak.
-
Edgy,14 year olds don’t belong in LULZ.
-
Why are you so abscessed with the idea of white men being raped?
-
-
are you euphoric?
-
the one clever anon
-
-
-
-
-
This entire universe is nothing but a virtual thunderdome God made to test my soul, of course the religion I was born with is the right one.
-
It’s not the whole 90% who realize their and only their religion is true, a small yet non negligible percentage knows about the other ones, and another small yet non negligible percentage does the practice of "fake it until you make it" because they’re too afraid to even start thinking the alternative, a sort of implicit Pascal’s wager.
-
Am I really this tired or does this not make sense? It’s like something that an AI would try to pass off as a coherent statement.
-
I assume you’re OP and you meant that 10% of all religious people don’t believe their religion is true and just practice it in public. These are the so called fence sitters, if they’re given opportunities they would leave or are already in process of leaving.
The 90% that remains is the "true" believers group:
Some people belonging to this group know about other religions’ claims of truth about the world and have thought about them, thus they don’t think their own religion having an absolute hold on truth.
Some others are basically unbelievers that try their best to believe in the religious practices they were raised in, but they won’t leave if given the chance, at most they would remain deists or fall into the spiritual but not religious category, with heavily biased ideas.
-
-
-
op just refuted religion holy shit
-
It refutes itself.
-
Are you one of those who thinks their religion is the right one? If so, why?
-
There is only one religion in which God came to Earth in the form of Jesus Christ, got crucified for all of us and still resurrected. It’s the only one that has truth to it and it’s all written in the Bible.
-
Why is it the true one religion?
-
I just explained it.
-
What do you mean?
Why would a real god go down to earth to kill himself but not really? That’s nonsense.-
Is it?
-
Yes. Why would an all powerful, all knowing being choose the rube-goldberg jesus plan?
-
-
-
Why zoroastrism doesn’t have truth in it? What truth does the bible has?
-
Jesus Christ.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Were you born into atheism? If so, then someone could throw this argument back at you: that you only believe in atheism because you were born into it. If you "converted" then you must accept that it’s possible to convert to theological and philosophical positions for reasons outside birth.
-
> that you only believe in atheism because you were born into it
People who never had religious Influence from family and society and in turn are atheists have a much easier time to justify why religion is bullshit though, try to convince me that your religion is the right one and not the other 1000 ones.
>If you "converted" then you must accept that it’s possible to convert to theological and philosophical positions for reasons outside birth.
The vast majority of people who are religious are so because their family or society they live in imposed their religion on them, and they are too dumb to reflect on the veracity of the claims the religion has. Only a few people convert to other religions because of theological aspects, most just become atheists.-
>try to convince me that your religion is the right one and not the other 1000 ones
The quantity of opposing theories is not relevant because truth is not determined probabilistically. Hypothetically, there could be thousands of people who each share a different opinion on what 2+2 equals. That does not change the reality of mathematics though. In the same way, because there isn’t an equivalence of world religions, that is, because they are differentiable, and pertain to objective reality they must be examined on their own merits not by their relation to all world religions.
>The vast majority of people who are religious are so because their family or society they live in imposed their religion on them
This also has no bearing on truth. Most people are raised to believe 2+2 equals 4, that doesn’t invalidate mathematics though. Regardless, the point is that conversion happens, which means that there is a concern for the legitimacy of the religion itself.Lastly, the reason for this post is to dissuade the specific argument that a specific religion can’t be true because of the multiplicity of world religions. Before any positive argument can be made for any one religion this argument must be countered or else it would be pointless to try.
-
>The quantity of opposing theories is not relevant because truth is not determined probabilistically.
It is relevant when you realize that most people only believe their religion because they were born in a country or in a family that had a religion that influenced them into believing it is the truth. They should be then able to convince someone that their religion is the right one, so go ahead and convince me that your religion is right and not all other ones.
>Hypothetically, there could be thousands of people who each share a different opinion on what 2+2 equals. That does not change the reality of mathematics though.
Every mathematician can easily prove that 2+2 equals 4, no religious people can prove that their religion is the right one. That’s a big difference between math and religion lol, what a dumb comparison. That is why math is an universal language that got us on the moon while the many religions can’t even make a decent case in why they’re the true ones.
>Most people are raised to believe 2+2 equals 4, that doesn’t invalidate mathematics though.
Like I said, you can easily prove that 2+2 equals 4, while you can’t prove that your religion is true.
>Regardless, the point is that conversion happens, which means that there is a concern for the legitimacy of the religion itself.
Almost no religious people care about other religions and why they’re wrong. The vast majority is influenced by family and the society they are born into, it is a brainwashing process that doesn’t care about proof, legitimacy or evidence.
>a specific religion can’t be true because of the multiplicity of world religions.
If you believe that the religion you were born into is the right one you should at minimum agree that you are extremely lucky, and if you’re sure that it is the right one then you should at minimum be able to convince why this religion is right and why all other religions are wrong.-
>It is relevant when you realize that most people only believe their religion because they were born in a country or in a family that had a religion that influenced them into believing it is the truth.
The problem is that you assume this applies to every other religion but not atheism. You assume that if both of my parents were Christian that this is because my parents imposed their religion on me, but that if both of my parents were atheists this would magically and suddenly not be a factor.
>Every mathematician can easily prove that 2+2 equals 4
We’re not talking about mathematicians. we’re talking about regular people. His point, which I don’t necessarily think was well-worded, is that someone can ask you "what is 2+2" and there are millions upon millions of potential answers. However, only one of those answers is correct. Tautologically, as regards religion, it is the same.
>That is why math is an universal language that got us on the moon
Irrelevant
>The vast majority is influenced by family and the society they are born into, it is a brainwashing process that doesn’t care about proof, legitimacy or evidence.
Then you were brainwashed into atheism and I was brainwashed into something else. If 100% of humanity is brainwashed I fail to see why we would be having this conversation.-
>The problem is that you assume this applies to every other religion but not atheism.
What the hell? I never implied that. It can be too applied to atheism, The difference is that atheists do better when justifying their beliefs. Try now to convince me that your religion is the right one.
>His point, which I don’t necessarily think was well-worded, is that someone can ask you "what is 2+2" and there are millions upon millions of potential answers. However, only one of those answers is correct. Tautologically, as regards religion, it is the same.
That depends, you can’t prove all of math axioms, 2+2=4 only is correct when you use those unproved axioms as truth. If you apply the same logic to religion, there is no way to know which religion is the right one because each has it’s own claims that you can’t prove or disprove.
>Irrelevant
No it isn’t. With mathematical axioms and science we advanced a lot. The same can’t be said of religions and their claims contributing to medicine, engineering or chemistry. So we have more evidence that math works instead of religions being true.
>If 100% of humanity is brainwashed I fail to see why we would be having this conversation.
Read the first point of this reply.-
>The difference is that atheists do better when justifying their beliefs.
…In your opinion. I obviously disagree.
>f you apply the same logic to religion, there is no way to know which religion is the right one because each has it’s own claims that you can’t prove or disprove.
I flatly agree, which is why I said his comparison was off.
>With mathematical axioms and science we advanced a lot. The same can’t be said of religions and their claims contributing to medicine, engineering or chemistry.
So what?
>So we have more evidence that math works instead of religions being true.
I never said math doesn’t work. Furthermore, why do you think mathematics and religion are competing ideas? I mean, really. Nobody is worshipping mathematical equations instead of God so I fail to see why you bother to make the comparison in the first place.-
I agree with him that atheists are better at justifying their beliefs.
You believe some Roman judea preacher and his dad who is also him created the universe, atheists don’t believe that.They may make an unjustified jump in concluding that the universe wasn’t created by a being, but it’s still more reasonable than your beliefs.
-
>I agree with him that atheists are better at justifying their beliefs.
Why should I care? I don’t.-
You’re getting replies and opinions on your posts because you’re posting on a message board with other people, hope this helps.
-
-
-
>…In your opinion. I obviously disagree.
Go ahead and convince me then that your religion is the right one. Science doesn’t point to gods existing or miracles being able to happen.
>I flatly agree, which is why I said his comparison was off.
If there’s no way to know which religion is the right one, there’s no point in believing one is true.
> Furthermore, why do you think mathematics and religion are competing ideas? I mean, really. Nobody is worshipping mathematical equations instead of God so I fail to see why you bother to make the comparison in the first place.
I wasn’t the one who started talking about math, but the point is that math and science do a way better job to help humanity than religion. And by science there’s no evidence for gods existing or miracles being able to happen, so it goes against religion and their claims.-
>Science doesn’t point to gods existing or miracles being able to happen.
So what? Science also doesn’t point to empircism being a valid worldview, so I don’t understand your point.
>If there’s no way to know which religion is the right one, there’s no point in believing one is true.
There would also be no point in believing that atheism is true. Regardless, I believe it is possible to reasonably argue that some religions are obviously wrong. It’s not like it’s completely unknowable and that our only option is to fumble around in the dark.
>I wasn’t the one who started talking about math, but the point is that math and science do a way better job to help humanity than religion
Help humanity do what?
>And by science there’s no evidence for gods existing or miracles being able to happen, so it goes against religion and their claims.
Obviously I agree that miracles cannot happen by scientific standards. But you would have to prove to me that there’s no scientific evidence for gods existing, because I don’t believe that.-
>Science also doesn’t point to empircism being a valid worldview
The absolutely desperate state of Christians that they have to throw out the idea that things can be proven to be true with evidence. I mean just give up and admit it’s just faith instead of making such a goddamn fool of yourself. Have some dignity man, Christ -
You don’t even understand what science is so clearly there is no point in trying to discuss it with you. Look up the word "science" in a dictionary, read it, and then return to the thread.
-
The only person, the only person here that tried to judge whether empiricism can be proven by science was you. No one argued that, not me, not the guy you were talking to, just you.
So if you accept empiricism is true, it was a complete distraction from the point, which is all you seem capable of doing.
-
Anon, read the thread.
>Science doesn’t point to gods existing or miracles being able to happen.
I can make two conclusions here.
One, that anon is making a complete non sequitur. He is talking about something conmplete irrelevant and cannot stay on topic.
Two, he is implying that empiricism is true but doesn’t understand that the possibility of empiricism being true is not within the domain of science to ascertain. I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt. -
He’s not talking about proving empiricism he’s talking about the absence of empirical proof for gods. I hope this is enough information for you to understand.
-
If he’s not talking about empiricism, then I can obtain knowledge in other ways other than through scientific discovery. Meaning that if even if there isn’t any empirical proof of any god existing, it literally does not matter, I can just go investigate non-scientific sources and still come to meaningful, truthful conclusions.
Therefore, if he’s not talking about empiricism, it’s either a non sequitur or a confusion on his part. -
You could literally say the same thing about fairies from folklore and it would be just as stupid.
You’re trying to toss out empiricism so you can believe what you want and try and push it on others without having to prove that it’s true.
-
>You could literally say the same thing about fairies from folklore and it would be just as stupid.
But I wouldn’t because I’m not interested in discussing or debating about things that are obviously fake.
>You’re trying to toss out empiricism
No, I’m not. I’m saying that, by anon’s own standards, there’s no reason for me to care about what he’s saying. I would have to accept it purely on faith and against reason, therefore his argument is not valid. -
No one is throwing out empiricism, you’re just failing to prove your god exists, as always.
And like many Christians on this board, really the only way to keep talking after displaying you have no proof is to erase empiricism altogether or spiral into solipsism.If you were a good faith actor you would man up and simply admit you have no empirical proof that a god exists, and you base your belief on faith, which we all know is true anyway.
-
>you’re just failing to prove your god exists, as always.
Did you read the thread? It’s not about me and it’s not about my religion in particular, I am therefore under no obligation to prove such a thing to you.
>after displaying I have no proof
If I have no proof then why bother talking to me? You either don’t care about proof or you’re lying. Either way there is nothing more for us to discuss. -
>I am therefore under no obligation to prove such a thing to you.
The important thing is that nobody could. -
Because you block it out of mind. You claim that I cannot give you any evidence that there is a god. This means that anything I give you, regardless of its merit, will be rejected by you. You’ve declared victory before your opponent could present an argument, you are therefore completely unreasonable and there is no point in engaging you.
-
You had plenty of time to provide your evidence catscrote (I assume, since you "argue" just like him). Where is it? No more distractions on your part, please.
-
Well anon, basically what I told him is that since the thread wasn’t about me nor was it about my religion (in particular) or my God, that I was under no obligation to give him evidence of my God existing because it’s off-topic.
Honestly he should just make another thread for it. And yes I am catscrote.
Anon, I will tell you two things.
Number one, I almost never debate on whether or not God exists. It’s not something that I am interested in doing.
Number two, if you want to talk about something other than the thread topic, make another thread, link it, and I’ll converse with you. However, I’m not debating you on whether or not God exists.So people gave you good evidence for God being real, but you are hogging it all to yourself?
No it’s just completely irrelevant to the thread topic.
>Aren’t you going to convinve me that your religion is the righ one?
No.
>All of science is woke af on experiences that can be falsifiable, and look where it got us
So what? Empiricism is still unscientific so I still have no reason to care.
>Atheism has more evidence to justify its claims.
Prove it.
>Why is islam wrong? Why is judaism wrong? Why is zoroastrism wrong?
I don’t have time to nor am I interesting in giving you three seperate comprehensive counter-arguments for three seperate religions.
>Make vaccines for diseases instead of praying them away, for starters lol
Yeah, scientists make vaccines. I already knew that. I’m starting to not take you seriously, if you are just going to tell me common knowledge and pretend it’s a compelling argument then this is just a waste of time.
>There’s no scientific evidence for god existing, try to find one, you can’t.
That has literally nothing to do with what I asked you for. -
Do you care about any kind of evidence at all? What do you are about, feels?
No evidence indicates a God. Plenty evidence indicates a natural world, in fact all evidence we have so far points to this.
-
>No evidence indicates a God.
You keep saying that but it doesn’t matter and has no bearing on our argument at all. Furthermore, you haven’t even proven that that’s true. -
>you haven’t even proven that that’s true.
Do you think playing at this, being childish, is winning you any points? -
You ignore my first point, which is that it’s completely irrelevant in the first place.
-
It does matter if the Christian god is real. I would be a Christian if he was, but since that’s not the case I’m not a Christian or religious.
-
So basically if you just define God as not being real you then have a a reason to not be Christian.
Okay. -
Why would you believe something to be real without reasons?
-
Non sequitur.
-
No, that’s my epistemology.
I don’t believe things with zero empirical basis to be real, without reasons.
Until someone shows this God concept exist independent of human imagination, I will believe it to be just that, imaginary. -
Non sequitur. I didn’t ask about your epistemology, or whether or not you believe things without empirical evidence, and the OP is not about God’s existence.
Literally, completely irrelevant. -
It’s insane how many people have told you they would believe a god is real if there was evidence and how you still can’t wrap your head around it.
You just have nothing between your ears -
Ad hom. You will get no more replies from me in this thread.
-
You won’t engage with the substance of what people are saying so you only have yourself to blame.
People don’t believe in the Christian god because of the lack of evidence. You refuse to engage with that because you can’t.
-
Of course not. You already proclaimed your victory and started strutting around.
-
He knows just sticking to the point is an easy way to body him so he squirms and tries to run away.
A weasel just like his mother. -
No there isn’t adequate proof that the Christian god is real and the Bible has many outright false claims.
-
Then why mention it?
You seem to fall to the same thing you accused others off,:
>anything I give you, regardless of its merit, will be rejected by you.
With the huge freaking difference in that my evidence actually exist, whereas yours is entirely imaginary
Does that trouble you? -
>Does that trouble you?
No because you have not given me even one single reason to care about anything you’ve said. All you have done is claim "Absence of evidence is evidence of abscence" which is a commonly known and understood fallacy. The only reason why I am still replying to you is to make an example out of you to other anons who see the thread, but if we were talking face to face I would have long walked away. -
Do you understand how evidence works? No one is using the P-word (proof).
Every single explainable thing, had a natural explanation. This would be evidence of the world being naturalistic.
The supernatural has never explained anything. This would be evidence of the supernatural not existing. -
>Every single explainable thing
As opposed to every unexplainable thing? Seriously, what do you even mean by this?
>The supernatural has never explained anything
And how, again, will you prove that? -
>And how, again, will you prove that?
I’m not particularly interested in the nitty-gritty business of "converting" you.
Because I believe anyone that pretends to be a Christian on LULZ is either deeply dishonest, or deluded to the point of insanityOne wouldn’t prove that. As what you are asking me to is really to prove that something doesn’t exist (evidence of the supernatural), a negative.
There can be evidence for my position, but not proof.
I would encourage you to look into miracle claims, and see how they all fail.Unless you think I’m wrong, and such things do exists, and there is evidence of them existing.
Here’s your chance to make me look like a fool! Simply present evidence of the supernatural existing. -
>As what you are asking me to is really to prove that something doesn’t exist (evidence of the supernatural), a negative.
I’m just asking you to prove your claim. If you cannot do that, then you have failed to provide a cogent argument.
>Here’s your chance to make me look like a fool! Simply present evidence of the supernatural existing.
Why? I don’t have to do anything to make you look like a fool. You already made a claim and then straight up gave 0 evidence to back it, then tried to reverse the burden of proof onto me. I don’t have to explain how that makes you look. -
You’re a clown
-
You guys need "proof" to believe things now? That’s new.
-
It’s pathetic that you get asked to prove your beliefs and instead of proving them you ask people to prove that what you believe in doesn’t exist.
You’re not fooling anyone, you’re just showing everyone that Christians believe stupid shit without evidence and do not have the balls to admit their beliefs are woke af on faith without proof.
-
Evidence is Jesus Christ and the Bible.
-
Your primitive brain is cute
-
It is better to believe without seeing, otherwise you will have to go through the great tribulation in order for God to wake you up, enjoy that I guess.
-
Lol seethe
-
-
>It’s pathetic that you get asked to prove your beliefs
Do you walk up to vegans in the street and ask them to explain themselves? I imagine not. I was just in this thread posting, minding my own business discussing the topic at hand, then an anon came to me demanding to know why I was a Christian and to give him evidence of Yahweh’s existence. Like, no dude. I have no obligation to do anything for you especially when I’m minding my business, in a thread that isn’t about Christianity or evidence for God’s existence.
You cannot just come to me out of the blue and start immediately interrogating me about a subject I’m not interested in debating, and expect me to play ball. No, I will not do that. -
The reasons why you believe the Christian god is real is perfectly relevant to the thread and you’re a coward. Just like Jesus
-
When did Euphrates river ever dry up in history?
[Rev 16:12 KJV] 12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.
-
>Christian gets his beliefs questioned
>cracks and begins schizoposting
Lol -
>schizo posting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c7AuSQdvow -
If you don’t care enough to sum up the content of the video, we got nothing to discuss about it.
-
It’s about the Euphrates river drying up from Vox news. If you don’t like that I got multiple sources.
-
Another prophecy that came true in the bible:
When in History has a "nation been born in a day"
[Isa 66:8 KJV] 8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? [or] shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Israel was the first nation born in a day
How does that prove the God of the Bible being real, rather than imaginary???
-
Another prophecy that came true in the bible:
When in History has a "nation been born in a day"
[Isa 66:8 KJV] 8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? [or] shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Israel was the first nation born in a day
-
Dumbass the schizoposting is you thinking this is biblical prophecy even when you’re posting a video explaining the the down to earth political and environmental reasons why it’s happening.
-
The Bible is not a systematic treatise on Theology, or Morals, or History, or Science, or any other topic. It is a REVELATION of God, of the fall of Man, the Way of Salvation, and of God’s "Plan and purpose in the Ages." It treats of-
1. Four Persons-God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and Satan.
2. Three Places-Heaven, Earth and Hell.
3. Three Classes of People-The garden gnome, the Gentile, and the Church of God. -
>gets accused of schizoposting
>completely goes off the rails to prove that he isn’t schizoposting
Lol -
The Scriptures were given to us piece-meal, "at sundry times and in divers manners." Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, during a period of 1600 years, extending from B.C. 1492 to A.D. 100. The Bible consists of 66 separated books; 39 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament.
-
These books were written by about 40 different authors. By king such as David and Solomon: by statesmen, as Daniel and Nehemiah; by priests, as Ezra; by men learned in the wisdom of Egypt, as Moses; by men learned in gnomish law, as Paul. By a herdsman, Amos; a tax-gatherer, Matthew; fishermen, as Peter, James and John, who were "unlearned and ignorant" men; a physician Luke; and such mighty "seers" as Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah.
-
It is not an Asiatic book, through it was written in that part of the world. Its pages were penned in the Wilderness of Sinai, the cliffs of Arabia, the hills and towns of Palestine, the courts of the Temple, the schools of the prophets at Bethel and Jericho, in the palace of Shushan in Persia, on the banks of the river Chebar in Babylonia, in the dungeons of Rome, and on the lonely Island of Patmos, in the Aegean Sea.
-
Imagine another book compiled in a similar manner. Suppose, for illustration, that we take 66 medical books written by 40 different physicians and surgeons during a period of 1600 years, of various schools of medicine, as Allopathy, Homeopathy, Hydropathy, Osteopathy, etc., and bind them all together, and then undertake to doctor a man according to that book, what success would we expect to have, and what accord would there be in such a medical work.
-
While the Bible has been compiled in the manner described, it is not a "heterogeneous jumble" of ancient history, myths, legends, religious speculations and superstitions. There is a progress of revelation and doctrine in it. The Judges knew more than the Patriarchs, the Prophets than the Judges, the Apostles than the Prophets. The Old and New Testaments are not separate and distinct books, the New taking the place of the Old, they are the two halves of a whole. The New is "enfolded" in the Old, and the Old is "unfolded" in the New. You cannot understand Leviticus without Hebrews, or Daniel without Revelation, or the Passover or Isaiah 53 without the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
-
While the Bible is a revelation from God, it is not written in a superhuman or celestial language. If it were, we could not understand it. Its supernatural origin however is seen in that fact that it can be translated into any language and not lose its virility or spiritual life giving power, and when translated into any language it fixes that language in its purest form.
The language however of the Bible is of three kinds. Figurative Symbolical and Literal. Such expressions as "Harden not your heart," "Let the dead bury their dead," are figurative, and their meaning is made clear by the context.
Symbolic language, like the description of Nebuchadmezzar’s "Colossus," Daniel’s "Four Wild Beasts," or Christ in the midst of the "Seven Candlesticks," is explained, either in the same chapter, or somewhere else in the Bible.
-
The rest of the language of the Bible is to be interpreted according to the customary rules of grammar and rhetoric. That is, we are to read the Bible as we would read any other book, letting it say what it wants to say, and not allegorize or spiritualize its meaning. It is this false method of interpreting Scripture that has led to the origin of so many religious sects and denominations. There are things that we must avoid in the handling of God’s Word.
1. The Misinterpretation of Scripture
2. The Misapplication of Scripture.
3. The Dislocation of Scripture. -
The trouble is men are not willing to let the Scriptures say what they want to say. This is largely due to their training, environment, prejudice or desire to make the Scriptures teach some favorite doctrine.
Then again we must not overlook the "Parabolic Method" of imparting truth. Jesus did not invent it, though He largely used it, it was employed by the Old Testament prophets. In the New Testament it is used as a "Mystery Form" of imparting truth. Matt. 13:10-17. A mystery is not something that cannot be known, but something that for the time being is hidden. I hand you a sealed letter. What it contains is a mystery to you. Break the seal and read the letter and it ceases to be a mystery. But you may not be able to read the letter, because it is written in a language with which you are not familiar. Learn the language and the mystery ceases. But perhaps the letter contains technical terms which you do not understand, learn their meaning and all will be plain. That is the way with the Mysteries of the Scriptures, learn to read them by the help of their author, the Holy Spirit, and they will no longer be mysteries.
This brings us to the great question-
>Is The Bible God’s Book Or Man’s Book? -
Is The Bible God’s Book Or Man’s Book?
That is, did God write it, or is it simply a collection of the writings of men? If it is simply a collection of the writings of men, without any divine guidance, then it is no more reliable than are the writings of men; but if God wrote it, then it must be true, and we can depend upon its statements. It is clear from the character of the Bible that it is not the work of man, for man could not have written it if he would, and would not have written it if he could.
It details with scathing and unsparing severity the sins of its greatest men, as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon, charging them with falsehood, treachery, pride, adultery, cowardice, murder and gross licentiousness, and presents the history of the Children of Israel as a humiliating record of ingratitude, idolatry, unbelief and rebellion, and it is safe to say, that the garden gnomes, unguided and undirected by the Holy Spirit, would never have chronicled the sinful history of their nation.
How then was the Bible written? The Bible itself gives the answer.
"ALL Scripture Is Given BY INSPIRATION OF GOD." 2 Timothy 3:16
I. What Are We To Understand BY the "INSPIRATION," of the Scriptures?
We are to understand that God directed men, chosen by Himself, to put into writing such messages, laws, doctrines, historical facts, and revelations, as He wished men to know.
All Scripture (the Graphe writing), is given by inspiration (The-op-neu-stos), that is, is-
GOD BREATHED -
That is, God Himself or through the Holy Spirit told holy men of old just what to write. The Bible, then, IS the word of God, and does not simply here and there contain it. God is a Person and can both Write and Speak. He wrote the two "Tables of Testimony" on stone. Ex. 3:18; 32:16, and on the wall of Belshazzar’s Palace. Dan. 5:5,24-28. He talked with Moses on the Mount when He gave him the Specifications for the Tabernacle and its furnishings, and all the Levitical Law and order of service. He spoke at the Baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:17), and on the Mount of Transfiguration. Matt. 17:5, and one day when Jesus was talking to the Multitude. John 12:27-30. But God not only spoke directly to men, He spoke to them in the person of Jesus, for Jesus was God Manifest In The Flesh. John 1:1-5,14. I Tim. 3:16. Matthew and John’s Gospels contain 49 chapters, 1950 verses, 1140 of which, almost three-fifths, were spoken by Jesus, and He claimed that what He spake, He spake not of Himself, but that the Father which sent Him, gave Him commandment What He Should Speak. John 12:49,50. We see then that God can both write and speak, and therefore can tell others what to write and speak.
-
II. Does the Inspiration of the Bible Extend to Every Part?
Yes. From the dry lists in Chronicles to the very words of God in Exodus, and through Christ. And more, it extends to every sentence, word, mark, point, jot and tittle in the original parchments. When Jesus said in Matt. 5:17,18, that not one "jot" or "tittle" should pass from the Law until all be fulfilled, he referred to the smallest letter (jot) and the smallest mark (tittle), of the Hebrew language, thus indicating that even they were inspired, and were necessary for a complete understanding of God’s meaning in His Word.
But how about the words of Satan, and wicked and uninspired men, the genealogical tables, and the account of the Fall of Man, the Flood and other historical portions of the Bible. They were inspired of Record. That is, the inspired penman or historian was told what historical facts to record and what to omit. To one who has read the Old Testament, and also profane history covering the same period, with its legends and traditions, and detailed descriptions, it is very clear that the writers of the Old Testament were divinely inspired to record only those things that would throw light on God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages.
-
III. HOW Were These Men Inspired to Write the Scriptures?
Were they simply thrown into a kind of "spell," or "ecstasy," or "trance," and wrote under its influence whatever came into their mind, or did God through the Holy Spirit, dictate to them the exact words to use?
We know that thought can only be expressed in words and those words must express the exact thought of the speaker or writer, otherwise his exact thought is not expressed. We see then that inerrancy demands that the sacred writer by simply an amanuensis. This we see is what the Scriptures claim for themselves. In 2Pet. 1:20,21, we read that-"No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. That is, no man has a right to say what the Scriptures, according to his opinion, means. Why? Because-
> "The Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were Moved by the HOLY GHOST."
And this is confirmed by the fact that much that the Old Testament Prophets wrote they did not themselves understand. 1Pet. 1:10, 11. They must then have been mere amanuenses, recording words that needed an interpreter. That they were mere instruments is shown by the fact that not all of them were good or holy men, as Balaam (Num. 22:38; 23:26), King Saul (1Sam. 10:10-12; 19:2024), the Prophet of Bethel (1Kings 13:7-10; 20:22; 26), and Caiaphas, John 11:49-52.
-
That the Old Testament writers spake and wrote the exact words that God gave to them is clear from their own statements. Moses declares that the Lord said unto him-"Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." Ex. 4:10-12. The Prophet Jeremiah says-
> "Then the Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth, And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put My Words In Thy Mouth." Jer.1:6-9.
Ezekiel, Daniel, and all the prophets make the same claim. The expressions-"The Lord Said," "The Lord Spake Saying," "Thus Saith the Lord," etc. etc., occur 560 times in the Pentateuch, 300 times in the Historical and Prophetical books, 1200 times in the Prophets (24 times in Malachi alone), in all over 2000 times in the Old Testament, thus proving the statement of Peter, that Holy men of Gad spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
But you say-"If this be true how do you account for the difference of style of the writers; for Isaiah’s style is different from Ezekiel’s or Daniel’s, and Peter’s from that of John or Paul?" This easily explained. On the principle that when we wish a legal document written we choose a lawyer, or a poetical article a poet, etc., so God when He wanted to speak in symbols chose an Ezekiel, a Daniel, a John, or in poetry a David.
-
How are we to explain the fact that sometimes a New Testament writer in quoting from the Old Testament, instead of quoting literally paraphrases the quotation? For instance in Amos 9:11 we read:
> "In that day will I raise up the Tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old."
But when the Apostle James, in the First Church Council at Jerusalem, quotes this passage, he paraphrases it, saying-
> "After this I will return, and will build again the Tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." Acts 15:16
Why the change in the wording? Simply because the author of both passages was not Amos or James, but the Holy Spirit, and an author has a perfect right to change the phraseology of a statement he may make in the first chapter of his book, in the tenth chapter, it by so doing, without contradicting himself, he can make his meaning clearer.
That is an illuminating statement in 1Pet. 1:11, where the Apostle tells us that it was the "Spirit of Christ" that testified through the Prophets of His "Sufferings." This is, the "Spirit of Christ" took possession of the Prophets and through them forecast or prophecied His "Sufferings" on the Cross, as in Isa. 53:1-12.
-
The question is often asked, "Is there any difference between Bible Inspiration and the so-called ‘inspiration of Poets, Orators, Preachers, and Writers of today?" In answering the question we must distinguish between "Inspiration," "Revelation," and "Illumination."
As we have seen "Bible Inspiration" is something totally different and unique from the inspiration of Poets, Writers and Public Speakers. It is an inspiration in which the Exact Words of God Are Imparted to the Speaker or Writer by the Holy Spirit.
>see picture related.
"Bible Revelation" is the disclosure to men of things that they otherwise could never know. Things hidden in the mind of God, such as His "Plan and Purpose in the Ages."
"Bible Revelation" ceased with the Book of Revelation. There has been no new revelation from God since then. When men today claim that they have received some new revelation they must be classed as imposters.
"Spiritual Illumination" is different from either Bible Inspiration or Revelation. It is the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Believer, by which he has his "Spiritual Understanding" opened to understand the Scriptures. John 16:12-15. The "Natural Man" cannot receive the things of the "Spirit of God," neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually Discerned. 1Cor. 2:11-14. The work then of the Holy Spirit in there days is not to impart some new revelation to men, or to inspire them to write or speak as the Prophets and Apostles of old, but to so illuminate men’s minds and open up their understanding of the Scriptures that their heart will burn within them as they compare Scripture with Scripture, and have revealed to them God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages as disclosed in His Holy Word.
-
It’s a different anon. I already know that you are beyond reason but I do applaud the other anon for throwing himself to the proverbial dogs. I’m just going to keep clutching my pearls though, my time is better spent elsewhere.
-
Yeah sis that’s why you’re still here… Fuck off scrotebrain.
-
Thank you for letting us know, your holiness
-
I just don’t want you to think that I changed my mind and decided to entertain your delusions.
-
baby having a melty
lmfao -
Saying that I’m just like Jesus, a man who willingfully faced death and persecution for his people, is the highest possible compliment that you could possibly give me.
-
>discussing the topic
What exactly do you think the topic of this thread is? -
I started typing it out but then decided that I wasn’t going to re-read the topic. Scroll up anon, I’m not parroting it for you.
-
baby having a melty
lmfao -
>Can’t discuss anything just trolls and insults
-
The ad hoomer
>doesn’t know anything about debate
>just trolls and insults -
Me? I would not proclaim contested beliefs unless I was ready to defend them.
-
Neither would I.
-
Not sure what you expect from someone who’s sadly unironically too stupid to differentiate reality from fantasy. Shifting the burden is one of the lines of defense of the dumbest, most easily triggered, most vocal self proclaimed Christians.
When people call them on their dumb shit, like you in this case, they think that’s a win situation and they double down due their tunnel vision and lack of any self awareness whatsoever. -
Oh yeah man he’s not changing his mind. The key is to get them to either admit that their beliefs aren’t woke af on proof and evidence or to just prompt them to do so and let everyone see that they just are way too afraid to answer these things straight up and head on because they have nothing.
-
So people gave you good evidence for God being real, but you are hogging it all to yourself?
-
>The important thing is that nobody could.
You just keep proving me right. -
As an observer of this conversation
>Help humanity do what?
In response to someone saying that math and science help humanity is a transparent bad faith strategy. You’re just playing dumb to get him answering stupid questions and further de-railing the conversation where you have to stay on topic of proving your beliefs.
Utter cowardice on your part. -
Aren’t you going to convinve me that your religion is the righ one?
>So what? Science also doesn’t point to empircism being a valid worldview, so I don’t understand your point.
All of science is woke af on experiences that can be falsifiable, and look where it got us. Science doesn’t show god or miracles happening anywhere. Maybe that is why so many scientists are atheists and agnostics.
>There would also be no point in believing that atheism is true.
Atheism has more evidence to justify its claims.
>I believe it is possible to reasonably argue that some religions are obviously wrong. It’s not like it’s completely unknowable and that our only option is to fumble around in the dark.
Why is islam wrong? Why is judaism wrong? Why is zoroastrism wrong?
>Help humanity do what?
Make vaccines for diseases instead of praying them away, for starters lol
>But you would have to prove to me that there’s no scientific evidence for gods existing, because I don’t believe that.
There’s no scientific evidence for god existing, try to find one, you can’t.
-
-
-
-
>No it isn’t. With mathematical axioms and science we advanced a lot. The same can’t be said of religions and their claims contributing to medicine, engineering or chemistry. So we have more evidence that math works instead of religions being true.
The Sumerians ‘invented’ a plethora of technological and societal advancements, yet purely attribute them to gifts of their Gods. If you were well read you would see that your argument is myopic and biased. Now you can debate about whether the Sumerians actually interacted with their Gods, but you cannot refute that they had a great impact on all civilizations that came after them. Now ask yourself; Why would a civilization with such limited supplies expend any on frivolous tasks such as temple building and religious record keeping?
-
-
-
-
Alright sis(s), here goes. Coming off
The acioms of logic, and maths, can be examined and judged as true on the basis of their predictions of the real world.
It is possible to judge the claims to truth that a religion has. Wether it delivers on its promises or not, the quality of those promises, &c.
Now, I had the grace of being born in a Catholic household, for which I am grateful and want to soread this blessing. Though the underexposure to other faiths makes my view a bit myopic.
The aim of Christianity is, I believe, to teach how to live a good life; and by extension have a good afterlife, but that requires a different kind of proof I don’t fully understand nor am I ready to explain it prudently.
To explain what entails a good life, one must understand the meanings of good and life. The ultimate origin of the world and its purpose, why bad things happen, &c. The 10 commandments would be the proof for the things in common between Christianity and Judaism.
But between these, which? One has to look at the prophets for this. The prophecies made about the savior of their people and his reign. Christians recognize their fulfillment (at least of some IIRC) in the character of Jesus Christ, the ones pertaining to his kingdom gulgulled in the Church; while garden gnomes think he was a heretic, his claims as fake and gay.Dunno about the specifics of other religions, but I do know they differ in the terms on wich disgrace cones to us. For the garden gnome and the Christian, we suffer as a result of our sins (disobeying God), not because God punishes us actively like one would spank a misbehaving child. Our suffering comes from disaligning ourselves from the direction that our lives should take (all specifics aside). I have a vague understanding of this matter in pagan faiths (Romans, Greeks, Aztecs &c.), in which the gods use their powers over nature however they want and are appeased with offerings.
-
-
-
-
What’s the point of being an Atheist if you waste all your time bitching about religion anyway? If it’s not real why not go watch a movie or something?
-
All religions stem from one religion. That being Christianity (Christianity also including pre-Incarnation)
-
https://i.imgur.com/gSTOzEv.gif
Alright since I have to come right out and say it for you: we just believe the morals and act like its all true just in case God is real.
Its like one of those "repost this or your mom dies in her sleep tonight" posts. Only a total poopyhole wouldn’t understand why people repost and would get mad at the people that do.
-
Pretty much.
-
>we just believe the morals and act like its all true just in case God is real.
Do you believe in the morals? Jesus is preaching essentially Proto-communism and pacifism. Give away all your things, let people steal from you, let them hurt you, rich men have virtually no chance of getting to heaven, wandering with no belongings and helping people is basically the message.-
Yes. That’s a good philosophy to live by
-
-
-
why do atheists have such reductivist views of religion
-
Are you implying that of all religions that ever existed, one of them is the right one? Which one?
-
-
>Oh wow, you mean some other dumb cocksucker somewhere else believes something different from me?
>Welp, guess that makes my God false as well, shoot!
>Back the old drawing board!?????????????
-
My religion is NOT the one true religion.
-
>>humans created thousands of religions during history
>all of them are BS, trust me, I know
>except for mine!
Why are atheists and agnostics like this?-
Alright bucko then what do we call the people that don’t believe in the atheism religion or in any other?
-
https://i.imgur.com/jUGTzO8.gif
There’s no such thing as a human being without a religious opinion.
-
What does the word "religious" mean to you?
Theres got to be some sort of belief that person is following for it to be called that.
Now say that person suddenly realizes their religious belief isn’t true. It just flat out doesn’t match reality, they’re certain its outright wrong. What are they then?
-
>What does the word "religious" mean to you?
It doesn’t matter what it means "to me", it just matters what the word means. This definition is from Merriam-Webster.
I’ll respond to you more thoroughly in a second though -
>Now say that person suddenly realizes their religious belief isn’t true.
It depends on the person but generally speaking I would say that they would then be agnostic. For example, when I was younger I was an atheist and then realized that belief was not true. I was going from a place of certainty to non-certainty, meaning that I was without sure knowledge, or agnostic. That is how I would describe it, although some people immediately convert to some other religion.
-
-
What if it’s a person who has no opinions on anything? Someone who never thinks about anything in life and just "exists"
-
-
-
Religious people and atheists are almost the same, Religious people think all other gods and religions are bullshit except their own, atheists just add one more religion as bullshit too.
-
Leave it to catscrote to post this 90 IQ post.
Learn reading comprehension.-
https://i.imgur.com/vURYbut.gif
It’s literally special pleading anon. He is saying that all religions are BS except for his but not giving a reason for me to believe that.
-
-
-
>humans also created atheism
>90% of atheists somehow believe that their belief is the true onewtf, how don’t they realize that is all bullshit?
-
>create strawman about atheism
>refute strawman
>Therefore god-
nope, just pointing out the irony of the situation
-
-
-
Why are people talking to this loser still? It’s clear he only wishes to bitch and not actually have a discussion.
-
Whats the point in trying to come at the truth in anything if people will just refuse to address it?
-
I’m using his thread as a springboard for discussion with people who are actually reasonable.
-
How do you expect to do that when religion is inherently unreasonable?
-
>except mine
You yourself are unreasonable.
-
-
-
-
Can any of you prove that your "god" isn’t a misinterpretation of contact with ancient aliens?
-
A question for the ages, and one neither you nor I have the knowledge to answer in full. In the meantime, you are a scrote and should have a nice day.
-
Most all these religions share common values despite having contradictory beliefs.
-
>humans created thousands of vaccines during history
>90% of vax cattle somehow believe that the vaccine they were born into workswtf, how don’t they realize that is all bullshit?
-
They’re dumb, or ignorant or crazy and some just don’t think about it critically.
-
Syncretism is a major redpill when it comes to spirituality. There is more truth than one out there, just us there are more ways to reach them than one as well. Religious fundamentalists are oonga boonga-tier.
Asians/Easterners had always been more redpilled advanced on religion compared to Westerners. -
>Humans created thousands of nations during their history
>90% of humans somehow believe that the nation they were born in is somehow superior
Geeee who would have thunk it -
My religion is true Holy Roman Catholic
-
My religion is true Holy Roman Empire
-
-
Believing in a religion is different from believing in a scientific fact. People seem to conflate the two.
Science deals with the falsifiable, religion deals with the metaphysical where there is no absolute truth other than how we feel. Ultimately, what matters to everyone is what they experience throughout their lifetimes, and whether or not any of it is "true" doesn’t really matter because it doesn’t change the nature of the experience.
Religion provides a mental framework to the lives of people, to give them things to lean on in matters with no objective answer, such as "what should I do" and "why am I here". In this sense religion and philosophy serve the same purpose.
From this perspective, whether or not a religion is "correct" in unimportant, what matters is the perspective of the person experiencing their life.-
They don’t keep it to themselves, push it on others and bother other people for not buying into existential delusion as a coping mechanism, and they use it to judge others in real life.
This would be fine, and just weird if people kept it to themselves or only brought it up when asked. Thats not how it works though, it inevitably ends up being a delusion that infringes on other people who don’t have that delusion
-
-
All religions are valid if they are followed sincerely.
-
Pretty sure that "feels" don’t make things real
-
-
It’s not like science looked under every rock and found no God, that’s not the evidence against God
It’s that we know people make up shit all the time, and never once has have miracles or gods been show to exist outside the human imagination.
That’s evidence to believe God is imaginary.If you don’t think that’s bad evidence against God, when you got zero evidence for God. That’s on you, just don’t try and pretend to be reasonable. Who do you think you are fooling? Yourself? Not me.
Christians that try to convince me they arrived at their God through reasonable means, it’s the most embarrassing shit. -
I wasn’t born into buddhism, I converted after my time I lived in Japan for school.
-
>Bahha’i
-
>tips fedora
-
A lot of religions aren’t mutually exclusive like abrahamic ones.
-
before abrahamists there would’ve been generally far less "exclusivity" as you seem to perceive, which is in a sense almost like a totemic fall from grace
not just talking about similar religions and how they could easily identify deities between the two as basically referring to largely overlapping numena/concepts verbalized in a certain way(similar to colors, culture determines how the words are used to determine a certain spectrum, but people can broadly come to understand each other), but too facts held as divine in a certain group do not necessarily really affect others i.e Druidic or Vedic or even Japanese religion aren’t really affected in their truth by the Roman held belief that Romulus and Remus were demi-gods according to their myth
or hell, a pagan isn’t necessarily at all flabbergasted by the idea that Jesus was some sort of divine avatara, hence how he was initially even accepted without much issue
broadly speaking all people could be said to be united by a multifaceted and multiformed understanding of "behind the curtains" driving numena/forces, each expressed in locally understandable language-myth, and those wiser of them, on unity behind multiplicity
YHWH and his followers have done scorched earth around spirituality, hence the modern fractured understanding of things behind spirituality -
Because all of them, even modern philosophies point to Jesus on the cross.
-
The empty tomb, though
why would the Romans lie? -
The Quran proves the Bible has been corrupted, though
How else would Mohamed (pboh) get 4 facts about bees right. FOUR IN A ROW, three, maaaybe.. but 4? it’s beyond chance, it’s a scientific miracle
People back then didn’t know there were female bees, by Muhammad (pobh) knew, it would be impossible without divine relations.
Prove me wrong. You can’t.-
sneed
-
-
Why the fuck is this scrote copying and pasting propaganda
-
Because people don’t want to discuss the topic so I will post my opinion here to answer OP. Is that ok with you?
-
Copy/paste is just going to make people hate you and the gospel by association. The thread was already trash before you came and now you are actively ruining what little was left of it when you showed up.
-
You are free to discuss, I am open to talking with you friend. If not I will continue to post thanks.
-
Can you summarize whatever you’re trying to say in 2000 characters or less? Literally no one is going to read what you’re copying and pasting, you’re wasting your time.
-
Ok, my answer to OP question is why can’t I realize that this is all bullshit? Because it’s not bullshit. Have a nice day 🙂
If you want to know why it’s not bullshit then read Clarence Larkin
-
Why is not bullshit?
-
-
-
You’re just absolutely awful at conversation and I have no idea who trained you to do this. People don’t respond to having stuff thrown at them, you need to actually talk to them like human beings. I know this isn’t on topic but watching you behave this way makes me cringe and I have to try and help you, especially when you are doing this to the gospel.
-
Why are you still responding then? Seems like you are a bit interested.
Because the bible is prophetic. How do I know? Because the prophecies came true.
-
Are you the same guy who posts the American McGee pictures in random threads?
-
[Rev 19:10 KJV] 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
-
Is that a yes?
-
Negative, I was pointing out that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Discuss.
-
-
So the reason why religions are not bullshit is because some people wrote about Jesus long time ago?
-
Not sure what you are asking, but:
Now we have seen that there were 109 predictions of the Old Testament Prophets literally fulfilled at Christ’s First Advent, but there are 845 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament, and 333 of these refer to Christ. They vary from types and figures, that seem meaningless unless you place Christ in them, to exact predictions that at times descend to the minutest details. The only books of the Old Testament not quoted in the New Testament are Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Songs of Solomon and Obadiah.
-
I asked why you think that religions are not bullshit (OP is asking if you realize religions are all bullshit). Your previous answer was due perceived prophecies about Jesus that come from the bible, so that’s why I’m asking if you’re referring to all religions not being bullshit or just Christianity.
-
No, I think Christianity is not bullshit. I already gave my answer why multiple times. Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Why would you not be a Christian when the Christ is real? Prophecy is real, there is no other way.
-
Proofs? Non-circular, please
-
Why would garden gnomes, the descendants of the people that wrote the OT, disagree with Jesus fulfilling prophecy?
-
Because they disobeyed God and decided to rely on their own wisdom. Jesus came to speak against them because He was moved by the Holy Spirit to do so. This was also fullfilled in the prophecy, I guess they didn’t read their own scripture or trust their own prophets?
>Now there 25 specific predictions made by the Old Testament Prophets bearing on the betrayal, trial, death and burial of Jesus.
-
They’re using the same scriptures you’re referring to and they disagree with you. Why do you think you’re the one that got it right?
-
>They’re using the same scriptures you’re referring to
Like I said I suppose they don’t believe in them. I happen to believe the scripture… -
They too believe in the scripture and they say you’re wrong. Who should I believe?
Both of you can be wrong but both of you can’t be right at the same time. -
I guess you need to read them yourself and find out for yourself what the truth is…
I’m only here to testify my own experience.
the prophecies about the life of Jesus were uttered by different prophets during the period from B.C 1000 to B.C. 500, yet they were all literally fulfilled in 24 hours in one person. According to the Law of "Compound Probabilities" there was one chance in 33,554,432 that these 25 predictions would be fulfilled as prophesied. If one prophet should make several predictions as to some one event, he might by collusion with others bring it to pass, but when a number of prophets, distributed over several centuries, give detailed and specific predictions as to some event, the charge of collusion cannot be sustained. It is a fact that there were 109 predictions literally fulfilled at Christ’s First Advent in the flesh. Apply the Law of "Compound Probabilities" to this number, and the chance was only one in BILLIONS that they would be fulfilled in one person.
-
Can there be two opposite truths about the same thing? garden gnomes are saying you’re wrong, and you (and Christians in general) say they’re wrong. Don’t you see the problem?
-
What does light have to do with darkness?
-
Please don’t get all esoteric and try to answer the question in a serious way.
-
You can certainly read them yourself:
The Messiah (OLD TESTAMENT) should be sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:1-12), be betrayed by a friend (Psa. 41:9), forsaken by His disciples (Zech. 13:7), accused by false witnesses (Psa. 35:11), be dumb before His accusers (Isa. 53:7), be scourged (Isa. 50:6), His garments parted (Psa. 22:18), mocked by His enemies (Psa. 22:7-8), be given gall and vinegar to drink (Psa. 69:21), not a bone of His body broken (Psa. 34:20), die with malefactors (Isa. 53:12), that the price of His betrayal should be used to purchase a "Potter’s Field" (Zech. 11:13), and that He should be buried in a rich man’s tomb. Isa. 53:9.
-
-
In Zechariah the title of the chapter is the "doomed Flock." We can draw parallels of Christ body and the great shepherd’s flock, whom was divided (garden gnome and gentile).
In [Zec 11:12 KJV] 12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me] my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver.
This is showing us that Jesus Christ, whom the prophets had not known yet, would purchase His flock. (Jesus was purchased for 30 pieces of silver by the religious authorities at the time.)
-
In the same manner Jesus Purchase His flock not with money, but with His own blood to show that:
3 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
-
Historians can’t even conclusively prove that Jesus existed (though, it’s the consensus) and you believe he fulfilled 333 prophecies, because it says so in the same book that predicts them?
-
The bible is a collection of books written in different parts of history by different men, why do you think they compiled them in such a way? I already covered this with writing from clarence larkin you can go read yourself:
see
-
-
-
-
>Why are you still responding then? Seems like you are a bit interested.
I’m interested in trying to help you be less terrible, although perhaps that a lost cause.-
Less terrible for whom? Yourself? You don’t have to be here. It’s not my fault you don’t like religion or christianity, or what Christ had to say or His prophecies, I agree they are terrible for those who don’t listen. Better to repent now.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
they are scrotebrained
-
>only 10% of religious people are converts
extremedoubt.png -
Reality exists independent of human imagination
-
God revealed his Torah to the entire gnomish nation at Sinai and entered into an eternal covenant with them. This simply cannot be refuted. It proves the Torah and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be the only true religion.
-
[Zec 11:10 KJV] 10 And I took my staff, [even] Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
The covenant that was broken?
-
That’s not the covenant that was being talked about. Read the context.
-
The Israelite broke every covenant they were asked to uphold. Re-read the bible.
-
Or I should have said the torah.
-
But. If you want to understand what to do about this predicament you can read a bible to find out God’s plan for salvation.
-
-
And that doesn’t serve to nullify the covenant. What the fuck do you think an eternal covenant is scrotebrain?
-
The covenant is eternal with God, but mankind broke it and could not uphold it. The answer lies in forgiveness, but you need to accept forgiveness to receive it.
-
Do you even read your own scripture? Or do you have someone read it for you?
-
The bad guys from halo
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.