I'll tell you your future - for FREE!!

[poptart]

What is my future?

It's a question people put considerable energy into trying to glean.
And of course psychics (and online psychic readings) are a thriving business.

People work hard to try to set things up as best they can for their future.

I can absolutely tell you what your future will hold - for FREE!


When Adam left God (Genesis 3), he immediately became anxious and mentally oppressed.
He tried to "cover" himself - v.7.
He attempted to hide from God - v.8.
He blamed another (God and Eve) for his failings - v.12.

Adam's spiritual problem has surely passed to all people, and man who can surely not live apart from God, will experience the same things Adam did as he left God.

- In your life, you will become very anxious and oppressed mentally.
- You will try to "cover" the fact that you are apart from God by engaging in other activities of your own making - but will find no real rest or peace.
- You will deny God, even though you know that He is - further enhancing your anxiety.
- You will blame others as you suffer, and your suffering will surely increase.

- Of course you will fail physically, die, and then, because you have chosen to follow the guidance of the evil one rather than God, will find yourself going to the place of eternal torment prepared for satan and his angels from the creation of the world.


But not so for those who simply take the promise of God and receive Jesus Christ.
Only Christ breaks the authority of satan, and it was promised by God as soon as Adam took mankind into this problem - Genesis 3:15.

You will live with peace, and eternally so - Matthew 11:28, John 5:24.
God will be with you always and never leave you - Matthew 28:20.

And you will never fail.

Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose

Isaiah 43:1-5
But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.
When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
Fear not: for I am with thee

[Dinsdale]

What is my future?

It's a question people put considerable energy into trying to glean.
And of course psychics (and online psychic readings) are a thriving business.

Not nearly as thriving as religion.

[poptart]

Religion is a huge business, no doubt.

Religion is something man made, and it doesn't work, but the Gospel was given by God, and it is the only thing that works.


Genesis 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.


Man, in his anguish, tries to cover himself.

But God gave the Gospel and then covered man Himself - with the shedding of blood.


Gensis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee (satan) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

[mvscal]

but the Gospel was given by God,

Says who?

[poptart]

As Jesus was tempted three times by satan, he said:

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 4:7
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.


It is written.
It is written.
It is written.

It is written that God gave us the Gospel.

[BSmack]

FTFY

[poptart]

Exodus 5:1,2
And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.


God brought GREAT devastation to the land of Egypt and freed Israel, for the sake of the coming Christ.


Exodus 12:29-31
And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharoah that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the LORD, as ye have said.



Beaten down Pharoah: Go, serve your Lord, as ye have said.



Romans 14:11
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

[BSmack]

Thank you for making my point. The next time you're able to make an argument for the validity of the bible without exclusively citing ONLY the bible will be the first.

[poptart]

Oh, you're free to believe it or not.

For validity, I've many times cited the overwhelming fulfillment of prophetic Scripture by Jesus Christ, and of particular note, the direct fulfillment of arrival through the specific and narrow family line He was promised to arrive through.

The behavior of the apostles is also powerful evidence that they knew Jesus is the Christ.


Take it as you will.

[BSmack]

Oh, you're free to believe it or not. For validity, I've many times cited the overwhelming fulfillment of prophetic Scripture by Jesus Christ, and of particular note, the direct fulfillment of arrival through the specific and narrow family line He was promised to arrive through. The behavior of the apostles is also powerful evidence that they knew Jesus is the Christ. Take it as you will.

You cannot prove the validity of biblical scripture by citing other biblical scripture. It is like me citing a passage from The Godfather to prove that Michael Corleone existed.

[poptart]

1. Do you contend that Jesus was not born through the family line given in the Bible?

2. You are aware that the Bible is -66- different books, yes?

[BSmack]

1. Do you contend that Jesus was not born through the family line given in the Bible?

For all I know, Jesus didn't even exist. Show me one contemporaneous account other than the New Testament that mentions Jesus, just one.

Furthermore, even if we assume that he was born, his father was a carpenter and his mother was obviously a woman of very modest means. Yet they somehow knew their family lineage back to a king who ruled over a 1000 years ago? Dude, I needed Ancestry.com and the help of a few aunts to trace my family line back 200 years. Yet you expect me to believe that semi-literate farmers, herdsmen and tradesmen were capable of accurately tracking their family histories over a full millennium? Back off the fucking pipe.

2. You are aware that the Bible is 66 different books, yes?

So what? They were also written over the course of 1500 years. They are also wildly self contradicting and not reality based (see Noah and his arc). There has been zero to no quality control or independent verification of ANYTHING in any of the 66 books. Yet you continually cite ONLY those 66 books as your fucked up version of empirical evidence proving the existence of a god and his "plan" for humans.

[poptart]

For all I know, Jesus didn't even exist. Show me one contemporaneous account other than the New Testament that mentions Jesus, just one.

If you want to go the "I don't know that Jesus existed" route, there is not much point in me posting any follow-up.

It is, imo, one of the more strange takes out there.

But for what it's worth, there are so very few manuscripts of any kind of text written from that period of time.
Further, Jesus was active for just a very short few years.
And more further, he operated in just a tiny portion of the Roman Empire.
He was insignificant, from that perspective.
He was a shit-disturber who got taken and hung up.
A nothing.

And yet you want more writings on Him.

The writings are there and you deny them.

Luke, a doctor, was a credible witness.
He wrote:

Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.


You dismiss him.

Why?


Nevertheless, it is a false take that there are not writings outside of the Bible on Jesus.

You can do your own research into that.
You're more than capable, yet somehow have decided not to be.


Finding out your ancestery from ground zero, as you would basically do today is entirely different than how it was for the Jewish people at that time.
They already had Scripture detailing family lineage and were much more keenly aware of their family tree, their tribe, etc.

[BSmack]

If you want to go the "I don't know that Jesus existed" route, there is not much point in me posting any follow-up.

That might be the smartest thing you have ever posted.

It is, imo, one of the more strange takes out there.

What, you can't find Jesus' birth certificate? And no, not the short one, we want the long copy.

But for what it's worth, there are so very few manuscripts of any kind of text written from that period of time.
Further, Jesus was active for just a very short few years. And more further, he operated in just a tiny portion of the Roman Empire. He was insignificant, from that perspective. He was a shit-disturber who got taken and hung up. A nothing.

And yet you want more writings on Him.

The writings are there and you deny them.

I do not deny their existence. I question their validity. There is a difference. Try to understand it.

Luke, a doctor, was a credible witness.
He wrote: Luke 1:1-4

You dismiss him.

Why?

For one thing, Luke was not a contemporary of Jesus. He was not an eyewitness, he was someone who came along after the fact and cobbled together alleged eyewitness accounts.

Tell me, here you have a man who allegedly ROSE FROM THE DEAD, only to ascend in the sky upward to heaven in front of a throng of followers 40 days later. Do you seriously think something that kickass would not have been commented on by literate Romans of the day? I know literature wasn't exactly evolved, but there were libraries. Many documents have survived from that period of time have survived. Yet you apparently are unable to find one contemporaneous non biblical account of the crucifixion, the resurrection, any of the sundry miracles attributed to Jesus or of the Pentecost.

Nevertheless, it is a false take that there are not writings outside of the Bible on Jesus. You can do your own research into that. You're more than capable, yet somehow have decided not to be.

You're the one advocating that others believe. The least you can do is offer a proof for your position. That you have been steadfastly incapable of doing so can only be considered evidence that you're full of shit.

Finding out your ancestry from ground zero, as you would basically do today is entirely different than how it was for the Jewish people at that time. They already had Scripture detailing family lineage and were much more keenly aware of their family tree, their tribe, etc.

No they didn't. The begats listed in Luke 3:23-38 defy all common sense. There are 39 generation listed by Luke going all the way back to the creation. Now even if we accept the biblical date of creation, you're talking about 39 generations of people spanning 4000 years. That is insanely stupid. Only a moron would believe that.

[poptart]

I do not deny their existence. I question their validity.

Yes, of course.

No they didn't. The begats listed in Luke 3:23-38 defy all common sense. There are 39 generation listed by Luke going all the way back to the creation.

Family trees are given, and references are sprinkled throughout OLD TESTAMENT Scripture so that a Jew of Jesus' time knew from whence he came.

Btw, Luke lists 77 generations going back to creation.

The least you can do is offer a proof for your position.

Christ completely fulfilled prophecy written about Him hundreds of years earlier, He rose from the dead, He was witnessed by thousands, and the world has (and is) been evangelized just as promised.

You deny the proof which is right in front of your eyes, and yet you clamor for more proof.

I'm not here to prove anything to you.

I'm here to testify to Scripture and testify to Christ.

You'll find no solution to the problems which plague you apart from the Christ who God gave for you.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

[He was witnessed by thousands...
You deny the proof which is right in front of your eyes, and yet you clamor for more proof.

Does your standard for proof accept the Qu'uran?
It was "witnessed" by thousands too.

[poptart]

Muhammed is in his grave.
Jesus Christ rose from the dead, was witnessed, and sits on the right hand of God the Father.


Actually, one of the very fascinating things is that Islam began out of the disbelief of Abraham.

God had promised Abraham that He would bless him, make his name great, and that from him (his seed - from where Christ would come) would all families on earth be blessed - Genesis 12:1-3.

But Abraham's wife Sarah was SO old that Abraham didn't believe she could bring forth a child, so in disblief of God's promise, he slept with his maid, Hagar - and produced Ishmael.

And God said this to Hagar:

Genesis 16:11-12
And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

From Ishmael came Islam, which is a horrifying religion.


Disbelief is a scary thing, believe it.




Sarah later did bring forth a promised child, Isaac, which led to -----> Jesus Christ

[BSmack]

Family trees are given, and references are sprinkled throughout OLD TESTAMENT Scripture so that a Jew of Jesus' time knew from whence he came.

Btw, Luke lists 77 generations going back to creation.

Even 77 generations is laughable when you consider that it is 4000 YEARS of history, hundreds of which were spent as captive slaves with presumably. Do some simple math. A generation in modern times is roughly 25 years. In ancient times it was likely under 20. There's a reason Jews get Mitzvahed at 13, they were expected to marry and produce children before the age of 20 during biblical times. So let's be super conservative and multiply 30 times 77. The result is 2,310 years. That's not even close to bringing us back 4000 years. If you use the far more realistic value of 20 years, then you're only talking about 1,540 years.

So, either these men were the ONLY people in the world to be consistently having children while extraordinarily old, or you are being LIED to. Now, if you want to argue that Methusalah was 900 years old, then fucking prove it. Show me ANY evidence of such a fact that is not from the bible.

Of course you can't.

Christ completely fulfilled prophecy written about Him hundreds of years earlier, He rose from the dead, He was witnessed by thousands, and the world has (and is) been evangelized just as promised.

NO. Jesus, if he even existed, was written about by men who never actually knew him. Not one person wrote of the "miracles" of Jesus firsthand. NOT ONE. They were all written about second and third hand. Don't you even find this remotely odd? There were Roman all over the place. Romans were the most literate people of the day. Yet NOT ONE wrote a contemporaneous account about Jesus?

Jesus was alleged to have:

Walked on water
Turned water into wine
Raised a man from the dead
Cured leprosy by laying hands
Raised HIMSELF from the dead
Ascended to Heaven in full view of thousands of people

Yet no Roman bothered to write about this firsthand?

You deny the proof which is right in front of your eyes, and yet you clamor for more proof.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "proof" in any way, shape or form. Proof is not the quoting of scripture to validate other scripture. Proof means compiling an array of empirical evidence such that each item buttresses the other without being of the other. In other words, you take the Shroud of Turin . You analyze it and discover that is contains Carbon. Somewhere else, another person, working completely independently of you has discovered that Carbon decays at a consistent rate and has determined that rate. The bulb goes off in your head that maybe you could use that rate of decay to determine if the Shroud of Turin is really 2000 years old.

Oh wait, the RCC won't let anybody touch that shit for fear of losing tourists dollars generated when they put it on display.

But let's assume that the RCC was a credible organization. They they would allow a sample to be taken to determine the age and therefore the possible authenticity of the Shroud. And then we would have proof that could be examined and independently analyzed.

Is it starting to sink in yet?

I'm not here to prove anything to you. I'm here to testify to Scripture and testify to Christ. You'll find no solution to the problems which plague you apart from the Christ who God gave for you.

And yet he has you eating dog in some Korean shithole. How's that working out for you?

[poptart]

Now, if you want to argue that Methusalah was 900 years old, then fucking prove it. Show me ANY evidence of such a fact that is not from the bible.

Of course you can't.

That is true.
I can't.
It is written ...

Yet no Roman bothered to write about this firsthand?

Seems you are thinking about things by today's standards of expectation.
If it happened now, yes, there would be books.

As I noted, there are very few manuscripts of any kind from that period of time.



Actually, I should not have used the word proof and instead should have used evidence.

Proof is not the quoting of scripture to validate other scripture.

As I noted, also, the Bible is not ONE book.
It is a compilation of 66 books written by 40 different authors at different times in history.
One would naturally find, imo, if they look objectively with no agenda, that this compilation of books is PHENOMENAL in the way in which independent books piece together such that items of a shared interest and focus are noted.
Remarkable.

The man Jesus came through the exact narrow family line the Messiah was prophecied (in OTHER books) to come through.
His followers, 11 of them, went willingly and individually to horrific deaths because of their insistence the He is the Christ.

We know this, unless we choose to find this information ... not valid.

[BSmack]

That is true. I can't.

There you go. Now repeat after me, "I will not cite fairy tales on TIB." Got it?

Seems you are thinking about things by today's standards of expectation.

No, just injecting some logic into your life.

If it happened now, yes, there would be books.

If it happened now it would be on You Tube in 5 minutes. What are these "books" you speak of?

As I noted, there are very few manuscripts of any kind from that period of time.

And yet not ONE contemporaneous mention of what clearly would have been the single most important and mind blowing event in the history of the world. Yet for some reason, you don't find that odd. Would you like to buy a bridge from me?

Actually, I should not have used the word proof and instead should have used evidence.The man Jesus came through the exact narrow family line the Messiah was prophecied (in OTHER books) to come through.

You mean the family line that presumes men lived for 900 years in a time when Egyptian Pharaohs, the richest and most powerful men on earth, were lucky to reach their 40s? That line?

His followers, 11 of them, went willingly and individually to horrific deaths because of their insistence the He is the Christ.

And the Heaven's Gate folks insisted that Hale Bopp would pick them up and take them to their heavenly reward. That is evidence of possible motive, not proof of divinity.

[poptart]

Of course the Heaven's Gate people are not at all the same thing as the apostles.
Entirely different.

The Heaven's Gate people went to a group death because they believed something.

If Jesus was a fraud, the 11 apostles knew that and then still went to individual horrific deaths for what they knew to be a lie.

Sure, we might find one rogue 'tard who would do that, but all 11 of them, separately?

Nope.

In a court of law, the behavior of the apostles would be VERY POWERFUL evidence.

[BSmack]

Of course the Heaven's Gate people are not at all the same thing as the apostles. Entirely different. The Heaven's Gate people went to a group death because they believed something. If Jesus was a fraud, the 11 apostles knew that and then still went to individual horrific deaths for what they knew to be a lie.

Not necessarily. They very easily could have been duped like you have. Most of them joined up with Jesus because they were alleged to have witnessed his powers in action. You know, calming the waters and all?

Sure, we might find one rogue 'tard who would do that, but all 11 of them, separately? Nope. In a court of law, the behavior of the apostles would be VERY POWERFUL evidence.

Remind me never to hire you as my attorney. In a court of law that would still require some form of eyewitness corroboration to even come close to a conviction. Of course, no such eyewitness corroboration has ever been found. Seriously, the only difference between the bible and the Brothers Grimm is the line "Once upon a time."

[poptart]

Not necessarily. They very easily could have been duped like you have.

As the apostles were with Jesus, they came to believe that He was the Messiah.
But as he was taken to be crucified, they gave it up, fled, hid, and no longer believed in Him - as He was not doing as they expected of the Messiah.

Then, they did a 180 and began BOLDLY proclaiming Him as Christ.

If He did not rise, appear to them, and have them know He was the risen Christ, I can find no reason for them to do a 180 and make up a bogus tale about Him having risen.
Further, there is no way to logically conclude that they would each, individually, subject themselves to torture and death for what they knew to be a LIE.


I said the behavior of the apostles is EVIDENCE.
I did not say it would merit a conviction in a court of law.

The conviction is what you already feel in your heart as you know the truth.

[BSmack]

As the apostles were with Jesus, they came to believe that He was the Messiah. But as he was taken to be crucified, they gave it up, fled, hid, and no longer believed in Him - as He was not doing as they expected of the Messiah. Then, they did a 180 and began BOLDLY proclaiming Him as Christ. If He did not rise, appear to them, and have them know He was the risen Christ, I can find no reason for them to do a 180 and make up a bogus tale about Him having risen. Further, there is no way to logically conclude that they would each, individually, subject themselves to torture and death for what they knew to be a LIE.

Are you fucking DENSE? It makes no difference what the apostles believed. The fact remains that not one contemporaneous account of Jesus or his 12 apostles traipsing around the countryside performing miracles and what not exists. NOT ONE. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in the bible was gleaned from secondhand or worse sources. It is as reliable as a newspaper horoscope.

I said the behavior of the apostles is EVIDENCE. I did not say it would merit a conviction in a court of law. The conviction is what you already feel in your heart as you know the truth.

That kind of bullshit today gets you labeled a kook or a cultist. Christianity is nothing more than a cult with a thin veneer of social respectability.

[poptart]

The fact remains that not one contemporaneous account of Jesus or his 12 apostles traipsing around the countryside performing miracles and what not exists. NOT ONE.

I would suggest to you that in looking at ancient history, it is a mistake to suppose that an unmentioned did not exist.
Can you reference any historic or chronological event(s) from Jewish writings of that time?
It's very slim pickins, Bri.

The apostles, or those who were witness to events surrounding Jesus didn't sit down and write about what was happening.
It's just not how people were operating at that time.
You are wanting to apply a contemporary standard to an ancient time.

[BSmack]

The fact remains that not one contemporaneous account of Jesus or his 12 apostles traipsing around the countryside performing miracles and what not exists. NOT ONE.

I would suggest to you that in looking at ancient history, it is a mistake to suppose that an unmentioned did not exist.
Can you reference any historic or chronological event(s) from Jewish writings of that time?
It's very slim pickins, Bri.

The apostles, or those who were witness to events surrounding Jesus didn't sit down and write about what was happening. It's just not how people were operating at that time. You are wanting to apply a contemporary standard to an ancient time.

So what you're saying is that since there is no evidence, we should just ignore our sense of reason and logic because some shysters came around years after the fact and scribbled down a fairy tale. Good luck with that argument. Never mind that there were literate Romans paid to do just that in their dispatches to Rome. Yet they said NOTHING.

You can't just argue that because proof does not exist your position is still valid based on your analysis of the apostles "behavior". That is the kind of quackery that even Fawn Brodie would blanch at.

[poptart]

So what you're saying is that since there is no evidence, we should just ignore our sense of reason and logic because some shysters came around years after the fact and scribbled down a fairy tale.

Per norm, when someone goes to the "So what you're saying ..." card, they post something that makes no sense.

I say there is no evidence?

No, I don't say that.


We should ignore reason and logic?

No, I don't say that.


Some shysters came around years after the fact?

No, I don't say that.


They scribbled down fairy tales?

No, I don't say that.


It is believed that the apostle Matthew (direct eyewitness of Jesus' activities) wrote the book of Matthew.
John (also direct eyewitness of Jesus' activities) wrote the book of John, Revelation, and 1 John, 2 John, 3 John.
And Peter (also an apostle) wrote 1 and 2 Peter.

If we look at just the four Gospels, we see MANY MULTIPLE places where different authors have reported on the SAME facts, and they contain no exclusive contradictions.

Now if you look at the Gospels and somehow consider them "not valid," I would consider that to be extremely intellectually dishonest.

But it's your own call to make.

[BSmack]

So what you're saying is that since there is no evidence, we should just ignore our sense of reason and logic because some shysters came around years after the fact and scribbled down a fairy tale.

Per norm, when someone goes to the "So what you're saying ..." card, they post something that makes no sense. I say there is no evidence? No, I don't say that. We should ignore reason and logic? No, I don't say that. Some shysters came around years after the fact? No, I don't say that. They scribbled down fairy tales? No, I don't say that.

No you didn't. I said those things based on the evidence at hand. Ignoring reason and logic is exactly what you are doing when you insist on believing the literal word of biblical accounts.

It is believed that the apostle Matthew (direct eyewitness of Jesus' activities) wrote the book of Matthew. John (also direct eyewitness of Jesus' activities) wrote the book of John, Revelation, and 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. And Peter (also an apostle) wrote 1 and 2 Peter. If we look at just the four Gospels, we see MANY MULTIPLE places where different authors have reported on the SAME facts, and they contain no exclusive contradictions.

"MANY MULTIPLE places???"

Is that like "gay homosexual?"

Sorry Tart, but there is more than a little scholarly work out there that casts doubt on the authorship of those books. The truth is you can never know who wrote what. There is no chain of custody and no independent corroboration available. So, as you said before, "Are we to ignore reason and logic?"

Reason and logic say that if a man does the kind of things that Jesus is alleged to have done that it would have been reported upon. Yet not one Roman in a society that was attuned to believe in the concept of men with god-like powers left an account of any of this for posterity. Reason and logic say that a man who is dead stays dead, at least until medical science figures out a way to reverse necrosis. Reason and logic say that if the average lifespan of humans in an era is 30 to 35 years, that stories of men who life to over 900 years of age are blatant falsehoods. Reason and logic say that fitting every species of animal on the planet earth in a boat smaller than the Titanic is not only impossible, but weapons grade stupid. Reason and logic say that parting the Red Sea did not fucking happen.

Are you beginning to follow along?

Now if you look at the Gospels and somehow consider them "not valid," I would consider that to be extremely intellectually dishonest. But it's your own call to make.

I'm an agnostic. So I will always hold out a sliver of hope that what you say about the gospels is right. But you'll never get me to lay a bet on it unless you tighten up your game.

[ppanther]

I'm an agnostic. So I will always hold out a sliver of hope that what you say about the gospels is right. But you'll never get me to lay a bet on it unless you tighten up your game.

Wow. Whether or not you get off the spiritual fence is the sole responsibility of a guy named poptart on an internet message board?

Take some responsibility for yourself, Bri. Your responses in this thread have been incredibly tedious, and could have been avoided had you read the part where poptart said you were free to not believe.

[BSmack]

I'm an agnostic. So I will always hold out a sliver of hope that what you say about the gospels is right. But you'll never get me to lay a bet on it unless you tighten up your game.

Wow. Whether or not you get off the spiritual fence is the sole responsibility of a guy named poptart on an internet message board?

I'm not on the fence when it comes to reading the bible literally. I think people who do read the bible literally have taken leave of their senses.

Take some responsibility for yourself, Bri. Your responses in this thread have been incredibly tedious, and could have been avoided had you read the part where poptart said you were free to not believe.

Awww Christy. Does logic make your wittle head hurt?

[poptart]

there is more than a little scholarly work out there that casts doubt on the authorship of those books. The truth is you can never know who wrote what.

Bri, there are those "modern scholars" who do attempt to deny Matthew and John were written by said apostles.
Yep.
There is a very hard core agenda on the part of academia to discredit the Bible.

My conclusion - just this poptart guy on the interweb - is that it's very silly to try to deny the obvious, which is that those Gospel accounts were written by apostles Matthew and John.
One must contort himself into a pretzel in order to try to make a case against that being so.
But again, you can do whatever you want with it.

About the people living to VERY old ages ...
None of us were there and it's worth noting that those ages were pre-flood.
Immediately after the flood, the ages which are recorded go down drastically.
Enviornment change made that so, apparently.

If an author wanted to make something believable to an audience, would have purposely write something entirely WACK - like 900 year old people?
Yet this is what we have in the Bible.
Yes, because, imo, that is simply the FACT.
Those people DID live that long and Moses simply gave record of it.

The ages are given completely unapologetically, and very matter-of-factly.
The author (Moses) had to know that readers would say, "WTF?" when reading it, but did not offer any explanation for it.
It seems he thought there is no reason to need to explain it.
If he wanted to have you (or people such as yourself) believe the Word, he could have lied and said Adam lived to be ... 90, or something.
But he didn't.
He simply gave the account as it was, imo.

I believe those ages.
If you don't, again, it's your choice.

[BSmack]

Bri,

There are those "modern scholars" who do attempt to deny Matthew and John were written by said apostles. Yep. There is a very hard core agenda on the part of academia to discredit the Bible.

Yea sure there is. How fucking HUGE A prize would it be to be the first person to every verify in a peer reviewed journal that the apostles DID write the material they are alleged to have written? It would be the biggest archeological find in the history of civilization. But no, they all have an anti-bible agenda.

My conclusion - just this poptart guy on the interweb - is that it's very silly to try to deny the obvious, which is that those Gospel accounts were written by apostles Matthew and John. One must contort himself into a pretzel in order to try to make a case against that being so. But again, you can do whatever you want with it.

I need not do anything of the kind. I simply told you there was absolutely no contemporaneous corroboration for the gospels. Nor is there anything other than the word of men who were not alive in AD 33 that the apostles wrote this material you allege them to have written.

About the people living to VERY old ages . None of us were there and it's worth noting that those ages were pre-flood. Immediately after the flood, the ages which are recorded go down drastically. Enviornment change made that so, apparently.

Now look who is stretching the bounds of credulity. A different environmental made it possible for men to live nearly 1000 years?

If an author wanted to make something believable to an audience, would have purposely write something entirely WACK - like 900 year old people? Yet this is what we have in the Bible. Yes, because, imo, that is simply the FACT. Those people DID live that long and Moses simply gave record of it.

Yea sure he did. People believed all sorts of crazy shit. Your own scripture says that people worshiped a cow made of gold. WTF was THAT all about? You believe that people who could be duped into worshiping a COW would get fussy over some age discrepancies?

The ages are given completely unapologetically, and very matter-of-factly. The author (Moses) had to know that readers would say, "WTF?" when reading it, but did not offer any explanation for it. It seems he thought there is no reason to need to explain it. If he wanted to have you (or people such as yourself) believe the Word, he could have lied and said Adam lived to be ... 90, or something. But he didn't. He simply gave the account as it was, imo.

I believe those ages.
If you don't, again, it's your choice.

Of course it is my choice. I live in America you dog eating freak. You know, 1st Amendment and all that. And it's your choice to believe all this crap. And it is my choice to mercilessly pummel you in this thread.

[poptart]

A different environmental made it possible for men to live nearly 1000 years?

Pre-flood, we are told that there was a water (or water vapor) canopy above the earth.
After the flood, it was gone.

Exposure to radiation and many other factors would have made the post-flood enviornment drastically different for man.

Your own scripture says that people worshiped a cow made of gold. WTF was THAT all about?

People of today bowing down and worshipping Buddha.
It's the very same thing.

Man, who is a creation, is made to have his heart aligned toward God, and to receive grace from God.
But when we left God, we placed our hearts toward other created things.

It will never change and it is the beginning of mental problems.

[poptart]

I simply told you there was absolutely no contemporaneous corroboration for the gospels.

We have two authors (Matthew and John - both direct witnesses) independently authoring material which give, in many different places, THE EXACT SAME INFORMATION - and which contain no exclusive contradictions.

But you want more, even though we know that there is very little in the way of any manuscripts on anything from that period of time.

And you seek to deny that Matthew and John even wrote those materials.

I would suggest here that if you had more corroboration for the Gospels - say a Roman - you would vigorously seek to discredit that, too, just as you do Matthew and John.

[BSmack]

Pre-flood, we are told that there was a water (or water vapor) canopy above the earth. After the flood, it was gone. Exposure to radiation and many other factors would have made the post-flood envionment drastically different for man.

You're a fucking joke. You're just making shit up.

You know what planet DOES have a water canopy?

Venus. Maybe you should try flying there.

People of today bowing down and worshipping Buddha. It's the very same thing. Man, who is a creation, is made to have his heart aligned toward God, and to receive grace from God. But when we left God, we placed our hearts toward other created things. It will never change and it is the beginning of mental problems.

You missed the point entirely. You claimed that putting ridiculously advanced ages in the bible was risky. I countered by pointing out that people of that time worshiped all sorts of crazy things, so slipping a story about 900 year old men in pre-flood times was hardly a risky move. People want their gods to be special and they want their patriarchs to be special. Look at the lie about George Washington and the cherry tree.

[Dinsdale]

Pops -- you know there was no global flood, right?

Geologist can certainly back up the observed evidence of widescale flooding for a short time in the Middle East, which certainly corroborates the source of the myth...

But there was no global flood, there was no blanket of water vapor covering the planet (which would have shortened lifespans, if anything).

See, Pops -- modern scientists aren't quite as dumb as you think. They can verify and put a more truthful light on these alleged events, and they can flat laugh others right out of the realm of reality... such as the global flood (resulting in several million species of animals traversing oceans to get on board a yatch... uhm, if they could swim, they wouldn't really have needed Noah for anything, right?).

[poptart]

See, Pops -- modern scientists aren't quite as dumb as you think. They can verify and put a more truthful light on these alleged events

Yes, Dinsdale, I do see how the "modern scientist" can operate.
Man-made global warming as ... a fact ... out front told me so.

such as the global flood (resulting in several million species of animals traversing oceans to get on board a yatch.

This is false.
Several million species of animals did not need to traverse the oceans to get on board a boat.

If you care to look into why it is a false representation of the event, from an apologist POV, the material is plentiful.

Do what you wish.

[BSmack]

Several million species of animals did not traverse the oceans to get on board a boat.

FTFY

[poptart]

I agree.

[BSmack]

I agree.

Under normal circumstances I would take this as a sign of sanity. But I suspect you have some explanation that is even more retarded.