Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He belongs to some satanic temple. Thats enough proof for me.
👆
Also, LOL @ "if he tells u he's worshipping Satan then he's trolling u". I don't care if he actually worships Satan or not because by calling himself a "Satanist" he is aligning himself with Satan and against God whether he actually believes in them or not. Period.
Originally posted by Star428[QUOTE=15521492]Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Proof?
Of course he doesn't have any. Anyway, he's a Satanist so pretty much everything he says religion related is bullshit. I don't even bother reading any of his posts in the religion forum anymore. [/QUOTE]
If the people of his time believed Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, then there would not still be Jews today.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66[QUOTE=15521522]Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So how can you believe in Satan, but not God?
Spoiler:
[/QUOTE]
He doesn't believe in Satan.
👆
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B]Of course he doesn't have any. Anyway, he's a Satanist so pretty much everything he says religion related is bullshit. I don't even bother reading any of his posts in the religion forum anymore.
If the people of his time believed Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, then there would not still be Jews today.
Spoiler:
[/QUOTE]
He doesn't believe in Satan.
👆 [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not following you. Why wouldn't there be Jews today?
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'm not following you. Why wouldn't there be Jews today?
If Jesus fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies in the first century BCE, and it was not a postdiction from the fourth century CE (the date of the oldest biblical manuscripts), then the first century Jews would have converted to Christianity, and there would be no Jews today.
Clearly, the Jews of Jesus' time did not believe that he fulfilled the messianic prophecies, nor do the Jews today.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If Jesus fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies in the first century BCE, and it was not a postdiction from the fourth century CE (the date of the oldest biblical manuscripts), then the first century Jews would have converted to Christianity, and there would be no Jews today.Clearly, the Jews of Jesus' time did not believe that he fulfilled the messianic prophecies, nor do the Jews today.
I'm talking Old Testament prophecies, all of which precede the time of Christ. These documents were written well before the fourth century CE.
Also, Jews refers to the name of a people, not a religion. Jews would still be around regardless of what they believed. Of course most Jews rejected Christ. The Bible prophecied thst would happen also.
I believe you were implying Judaism wouldn't exist. That was what had me confused.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'm talking Old Testament prophecies, all of which precede the time of Christ. These documents were written well before the fourth century CE.Also, Jews refers to the name of a people, not a religion. Jews would still be around regardless of what they believed. Of course most Jews rejected Christ. The Bible prophecied thst would happen also.
I believe you were implying Judaism wouldn't exist. That was what had me confused.
The claims that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies have the benefit of being written, compiled, and edited between the fourth and the eighth centuries BCE.
Anyone can start with a written prophecy and then interpolate details into a manuscript to show the prophecy was fulfilled, especially when the story is not being written during the lifetime of any of the characters, let alone by eyewitnesses.
That is one of the ways postdiction works.
Moreover, I was not implying that Jews as an ethnic group would not exist, I was implying that Judaism would not exist.
The Jews of the first century BCE were anticipating the imminent coming of the Messiah. If Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies in their lifetime, they would have converted to Christianity.
A man cannot raise 500 people from the dead for 500 witnesses, and people remain non-believers. If that truly happened, there would be no Jews today. Judaism would have died and there would only be Christians.
Well, then you have things like the Battle of Los Angeles were the people claimed they saw an alien ship and to this day no one believes them.
That's not a good argument since history can't be recorded 100% accurately, specially when those events are as old as the one you're referring to. Also, 500 people is not that much people anyway.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The claims that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies have the benefit of being written, compiled, and edited between the fourth and the eighth centuries BCE.Anyone can start with a written prophecy and then interpolate details into a manuscript to show the prophecy was fulfilled, especially when the story is not being written during the lifetime of any of the characters, let alone by eyewitnesses.
That is one of the ways postdiction works.
Moreover, I was not implying that Jews as an ethnic group would not exist, I was implying that Judaism would not exist.
The Jews of the first century BCE were anticipating the imminent coming of the Messiah. If Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies in their lifetime, they would have converted to Christianity.
A man cannot raise 500 people from the dead for 500 witnesses, and people remain non-believers. If that truly happened, there would be no Jews today. Judaism would have died and there would only be Christians.
No evidence that postdiction occured with these prophecies. How could we trust any hostorical texts if there is doubt about its authenticity? Who's to say what we know about Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates was not corrupted? Is the Bible's authenticity only attacked because it concerns a particular religion?
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
No evidence that postdiction occured with these prophecies. How could we trust any hostorical texts if there is doubt about its authenticity? Who's to say what we know about Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates was not corrupted? Is the Bible's authenticity only attacked because it concerns a particular religion?
The existence of Sokrates and Plato is not intrinsic to their thought. The philosophies they wrote (or in the case of Sokrates had written about) stand without their existence. The same goes for Jesus moral message of course, but not his divinity.
At any rate. We do scrutinize historical sources based on the time periods and authors of them, that's part of historical work and interpretation
Originally posted by Bardock42
The existence of Sokrates and Plato is not intrinsic to their thought. The philosophies they wrote (or in the case of Sokrates had written about) stand without their existence. The same goes for Jesus moral message of course, but not his divinity.At any rate. We do scrutinize historical sources based on the time periods and authors of them, that's part of historical work and interpretation
No, people tend to accept as fact everything that's said in history books, science books, or any other kind of educational books as "fact" without actually seeing the proof with their own eyes. People never seem to question what non-biblical historians or scientists say. They'll gladly swallow whatever they tell them without them having the proof themselves. But when someone brings up the Bible atheists start claiming the authors of the Bible are lying just because they don't like what they say they've witnessed (like the many miracles Jesus performed).
Just look at the theory of evolution. There's not a single shred of proof that humans came from apes but you atheists have no problem accepting it as "fact" just because some scientist uses a bunch of sophisticated-sounding terms and you don't like the idea of creation even though it makes a Hell of a lot more sense.
Answer me this, why would so many different authors of the Bible lie about what they've witnessed? Many of them were persecuted for their faith. John the Baptist was actually beheaded. Why would they be willing to be persecuted so harshly and even in some cases become martyrs for a lie?
Originally posted by Star428
No, people tend to accept as fact everything that's said in history books, science books, or any other kind of educational books as "fact" without actually seeing the proof with their own eyes. People never seem to question what non-biblical historians or scientists say. They'll gladly swallow whatever they tell them without them having the proof themselves. But when someone brings up the Bible atheists start claiming the authors of the Bible are lying just because they don't like what they say they've witnessed (like the many miracles Jesus performed).
What the heck is this? Do you know anything about what you are talking about? Academic history is exceptionally sceptical about its sources, and the older they get, the more sceptical they are. There is an entire branch of academia dedicated towards trying to work out what parts of ancient historians like Tacitus and Livy can possibly be corroborated in any way- because they are so completely unsourced. The truth is the total opposite of what you are saying here. NO-ONE is taking these things at face value. Scepticism is the default position. The scepticism the Bible gets is the same as due to any source.
There is also shedloads of evidence for evolution in general, and 'humans came from apes' is a made-up thing ignorant people say. It's abut common ancestors. You're just flailing here.No-one accepts anything because of fancy language. Evolution is accepted because it is scientifically backed in demonstrable, evidenced ways.
Take the articles in links below for example:
http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
They both make a clear case for creation being a much more plausible explanation for our existence than evolution but the fact the links has "Christianity" or "creation" in them means that atheists will automatically dismiss them as invalid sources. Yet they expect us Christians to blindly accept what some scientist says about evolution being a so-called "fact" just because that scientist uses a bunch of fancy-sounding terms and uses some other scientist as a source to back it up. Of course, that scientist he uses as a source also uses another scientist as his so-called "proof" and so on and so on. LOL. No actual proof is ever shown. They just expect people to blindly accept it as fact "just because". LOL.
Originally posted by Star428
Of course he doesn't have any. Anyway, he's a Satanist so pretty much everything he says religion related is bullshit. I don't even bother reading any of his posts in the religion forum anymore.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He belongs to some satanic temple. Thats enough proof for me.
Originally posted by Star428
Take the articles in links below for example:http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
They both make a clear case for creation being a much more plausible explanation for our existence than evolution but the fact the links has "Christianity" or "creation" in them means that atheists will automatically dismiss them as invalid sources. Yet they expect us Christians to blindly accept what some scientist says about evolution being a so-called "fact" just because that scientist uses a bunch of fancy-sounding terms and uses some other scientist as a source to back it up. Of course, that scientist he uses as a source also uses another scientist as his so-called "proof" and so on and so on. LOL. No actual proof is ever shown. They just expect people to blindly accept it as fact "just because". LOL.
Again, not fancy words, they use evidence to back it up, as you would know if you made any sort of serious study. All you have in your pages are blind assertions- trying to make the world fit what they want, the opposite of science, which is open minded to discovering how the world actually is rather than following an agenda.