• Hi all
    Just a notice, we recently discovered that someone got into a moderator account and started hard deleting a load of key and legacy threads...around 150 threads have been lost dating back to 2007 and some weeks ago so we can't roll the forums back.
    Luckily no personal data could be accessed by this moderator, and we've altered the permissions so hard deleting isn't possible in the future
    Sorry for any inconvenience with this and sorry for any lost posts.
  • Hi all. We had a couple of reports of people's signatures getting edited etc. in a bad way. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and nobody has compromised any of our databases.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar passwords to elsewhere which has been accessed, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords, and two-factor authentication if you are able. Make sure you're as secure as possible
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
G
Reaction score
12

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Lol is this a serious reason to believe something is true? Asking "Why would the person lie?" I'm sorry but I never ever follow that line of reasoning. Not for anything.
    Yes, that's pretty much what I'm talking about: If I were writing a myth with myself as a central character, who would I naturally want to look good? Me. I wouldn't make something up to make myself look bad, dumb, etc. And you are correct--there are repeated references in the gospels to the disciples saying dumb stuff or just being thick. Why would they make up accounts with many details that embarrassed them if those accounts were lies?

    It's one of the totally hilarious yet overlooked themes of the Bible.
    No problem at all. But don't hesitate to hit me with a contradiction that seems extraordinarily difficult. If a debate specifically about that ever pops up, I could use all the practice I can get.

    But I also do have to briefly tell why the account of Transfiguration is believable:
    (1) The disciples were nodding off (Luke 9:32)
    (2) Peter, important among the disciples, started saying dumb stuff (Mark 9:5-6)

    You don't have to answer, but do you think it is likely the disciples would make up an account that makes them look boneheaded?
    O.O

    *blink blink*

    Upon coming to your page, I see now why it seemed as though you didn't respond to my last point in our VM conversation. LOL at me because I should have checked your page! Anyway, I will respond to that soon. However...

    Right now, I'd like to let you know about an interesting tournament that is on its last day of registration. If you are interested in battling, we would enjoy having you participate!
    ----------
    (Remember, eyewitness evidence is one of only two types of historical evidence from the ancient world. Plus it is the the only type that even could provide evidence of a person's miracles.)
    ----------
    So let's see the eyewitness evidence of Jesus coming back to life.


    ----------
    Anyway, how about this contradiction? According to Matthew & Mark, the Transfiguration took place six days after he said certain things. And the site claims that Luke says it was eight days. But look--there is a certain qualifier in the quote from Luke that...well, what do you notice about the eight days?
    ----------
    Mkay, so you argue earlier versions or translations are more accurate. I'd like to see them if you have them.


    ----------
    Since I brought up the Transfiguration, would you like to know a humorous reason why this report of a supernatural occurrence is trustworthy?
    ----------
    Not sure what you're referring to here.
    Honestly, logically speaking, the idea that Jesus did miracles while alive is not absolutely necessary to the belief that he came back to life. But I do recall pointing out eyewitness evidence that Jesus performed miracles. (Remember, eyewitness evidence is one of only two types of historical evidence from the ancient world. Plus it is the the only type that even could provide evidence of a person's miracles.)

    Let's treat the New Testament documents as books that were written by humans. Though I certainly believe God had some important part, I also most definitely believe they were written by people! You do not have to be sure that God wrote every word in the book to believe that Jesus came back to life.

    So let's talk about contradictions a bit. First of all, I want to point out that the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, is based off of the KJV. The King James is not a horrible translation, but it is just shy of 400 years old. Since English has changed over the last 400 years, misunderstandings could be just due to the fact that we speak differently. Also, scholars now have access to many more manuscripts than the King James translators had. Personally, I'm glad that some people have pointed out errors in the King James translation, because there are wackos who think that God directly gave us the KJV. They need to stop partying like it's 1611.

    Anyway, how about this contradiction? According to Matthew & Mark, the Transfiguration took place six days after he said certain things. And the site claims that Luke says it was eight days. But look--there is a certain qualifier in the quote from Luke that...well, what do you notice about the eight days?

    Since I brought up the Transfiguration, would you like to know a humorous reason why this report of a supernatural occurrence is trustworthy?
    To start off like I said, the contradiction of Islam is absolutely foundational. If you believed in a prophet who claimed that no prophet could ever sin, yet you believed that same prophet sinned, what would that mean to you?

    Second, though Islam claims to teach that Jesus was a prophet, it also teaches that no true prophet can suffer torment. Yet the historical accounts clearly show that Jesus suffered and died (whether you believe He came back to life or not). Muhammad, born in the late 500s, was not an eyewitness. Muhammad's claim requires one to assume the supernatural against that case's evidence!

    Now, if you'd like to hear resolutions to contradictions...you'll have to buy my new book! No, that's a joke; I haven't written a book yet. But seriously, first off, I'd like to point out that even if the Bible did contain some few contradictions, does that fundamentally challenge belief that Jesus died and came back to life? Does it matter where these contradictions are found? Does it matter on what issues portions of the Bible contradict each other? What if one author in the Bible contradicted himself constantly, but others were free of contradictions?

    If you'd like to discuss any specific contradictions that have been alleged against the Bible, please let me know. Obviously one VM is not going to fit hundreds of them! I'll be glad to discuss this.
    ----------
    Religion is an 'explanation' of our five senses... but how? We can't sense God. Most of what we 'sense' has been explained by logic or science. Everything God related is word of mouth.
    ----------
    Maybe to clarify, God is the explanation as to why certain things (which we pick up with our five senses) happen, examples of this, Ancient Egyptian religions deal with why the sun moves (what they thought was true). As religion develops it instead answers other questions. And nearly every religion has fingers in death and afterlife.

    Very simply, religion is in a sense one simple answer to everything, when people ask questions that others can't answer then religion steps into the breach. But some people aren't content with such an answer so they seek other religions/science.


    ----------
    Maybe to the neutral observer, but there is a clear difference between science and religion, and that difference is noticed in the past couple of centuries.
    ----------
    Oh i'm not disputing the difference between science and religion, I was merely pointing out that that is how alot of arguments religious or not go. The two generally have different forms of argument which make them very difficult sometimes to argue well.
    i was banned. if you are so self-righteous you will accuse me of being a "troll", then i pity you and your delusions of grandeur.
    With enough thought you can put most things into modern and scientific terms (please don't bug me about Revelation), although with supernatural occurences.

    I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are enough to prove the legitimacy of the Bible, at least to some extent.
    I'm just talking about interpreting a document to put it in to scientific context.
    I'd go as far as to say science is dependant on language and history to exist, it's sort of an amalgamation of knowledge accquired from all fields, so reading historical documents is directly correlated here.


    I worded that awfully.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top