Post Any Evidence For God Here

[jonesthecurl]

Then how successful has god been in spreading his word?
Just you?
You and some of the authorities you quote?
You and the Radio Church of God?

Hey, that is God's business not yours. You just worry about yourself and the final judgment that is appointed unto each one of us.

"A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."
-Daniel 7:10

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
-Hebrews 9:27

Well. if it's only you, you might to do a little re-evaluating.
I'm not asking GOd, I'm asking you.
And you made that my business by preaching at me.

[jonesthecurl]

P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

[Viceroy63]

P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?

[daddy1gringo]

First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.

What makes Lionz' and Viceroy's interpretations (which have dadddygringo's endorsements and which are actually pretty popular in the Christian community) any more or less right than yours or Night Strike's or that of any sect of Christianity?

Woah, hold on there. All I said is that they weren't simply using the silly circular argument, "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." That doesn't mean I endorse everything they say. I agree with them that God exists and that the Bible is his word to man (I think players### would say the same, and she and I agree on almost nothing else) but there are various things that each of them have said with which I would not want to be associated.

I suppose I agree with a lot of what they both say about the Bible being consistent with archaeology and making unannily accurate predictions through history, but I really don't think that's a worthwhile line to take in a forum like this, and have not done so.

The point I would like to make from all this, and I think Players would agree with me here too, is that other than a very VERY, few beliefs that are the absolute common ground, any doctrrine expressed by any Christian is no excuse for rejecting Christ as savior.

You don't believe that Genesis is literal? Fine; dont. Lots of Christians don't. (I'll go out on a limb here) You don't believe that homosexuality is an aberration and a spiritual problem that can be healed? Fine; don't. Lots of Christians don't.

You wouldn't side with those who don't believe those things because you think they are being inconsistent, "cherry-picking", and compromising? Fine, don't. Take your stand with the hard-liners. I really don't care, and I don't believe God does either.

[2dimes]

P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?

I went for it. I wonder if I did it wrong?

[crispybits]

It's not just the inconsistencies between positions that many people have problems with daddy, it's inconsistencies within each position (or at least all of the non-100%-literal or non-100%-symbolic positions). How does anyone (christian or otherwise) decide which bits of the bible are literal truth, and which bits are symbolism and parable intended to guide us towards moral truth without being meant to be taken literally? And who decides which is which? And why does, for instance, your interpretation have more significance for you than Viceroy's (and vice versa) if you're both talking about the same immutable thing (absolute moral truth)?

Is God's absolute moral truth actually a mutable and constantly changing thing as fits the culture (because every culture has different moral standards and the biblee has been influential in many of these different settings), or is it a fixed and unchanging thing (and if so why does biblical interpretation change over the centuries)?

[Metsfanmax]

Viceroy, of those thirteen "predictions," how many of those do you think occurred after the prediction was recorded in the Bible?

[jonesthecurl]

P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?

I have read the entire bible for myself thank you, as I have many other religious works.
I have never read any historical documentation detailing the amount that Judas was paid for betraying Jesus.
I'm pretty certain there are none.
Perhaps you could help me out?
Or have you just accepted what the good Doctor said as yet another unimpeachable authority? You seem to have a lot of them.

[chang50]

First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.

What makes Lionz' and Viceroy's interpretations (which have dadddygringo's endorsements and which are actually pretty popular in the Christian community) any more or less right than yours or Night Strike's or that of any sect of Christianity?

Woah, hold on there. All I said is that they weren't simply using the silly circular argument, "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." That doesn't mean I endorse everything they say. I agree with them that God exists and that the Bible is his word to man (I think players### would say the same, and she and I agree on almost nothing else) but there are various things that each of them have said with which I would not want to be associated.

I suppose I agree with a lot of what they both say about the Bible being consistent with archaeology and making unannily accurate predictions through history, but I really don't think that's a worthwhile line to take in a forum like this, and have not done so.

The point I would like to make from all this, and I think Players would agree with me here too, is that other than a very VERY, few beliefs that are the absolute common ground, any doctrrine expressed by any Christian is no excuse for rejecting Christ as savior.

You don't believe that Genesis is literal? Fine; dont. Lots of Christians don't. (I'll go out on a limb here) You don't believe that homosexuality is an aberration and a spiritual problem that can be healed? Fine; don't. Lots of Christians don't.

You wouldn't side with those who don't believe those things because you think they are being inconsistent, "cherry-picking", and compromising? Fine, don't. Take your stand with the hard-liners. I really don't care, and I don't believe God does either.

I just reckon you have to have an incredibly high opinion of your species to imagine any of them can reliably interpret the word of the ultimate creator,should one exist.The word that best describes this is fatuousness,or stupid vanity.

[tzor]

P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Which "secular" historians covered Jerusalem at the time of Christ?
Which "secular" historians would cover "history" to that level of detail?

I'll give you a hint ... NONE!

Velleius Paterculus, a Roman historian, died a few years before the crucifixion. But he concentrated on Romans, not on non-Romans.

Flavius Josephus, was not even born until several years after the crucifixion and was a Jewish historian with a very large chip on his shoulder.

So if you look at the timeline of historians you will see that there are few, far between, and none around A.D. 33.

[jonesthecurl]

P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Which "secular" historians covered Jerusalem at the time of Christ?
Which "secular" historians would cover "history" to that level of detail?

I'll give you a hint ... NONE!

Velleius Paterculus, a Roman historian, died a few years before the crucifixion. But he concentrated on Romans, not on non-Romans.

Flavius Josephus, was not even born until several years after the crucifixion and was a Jewish historian with a very large chip on his shoulder.

So if you look at the timeline of historians you will see that there are few, far between, and none around A.D. 33.

my point. thank you.

[jonesthecurl]

Oh, for those of you who just blank out viceroy's diatribes, this was part of his proof for the veracity of biblical prophesies: getting the price right, AS VERIFIED BY SECULAR HISTORIANS.. Hence my question.

Viceroy, any backup on that point yet?

[AAFitz]

Then how successful has god been in spreading his word?
Just you?
You and some of the authorities you quote?
You and the Radio Church of God?

Hey, that is God's business not yours. You just worry about yourself and the final judgment that is appointed unto each one of us.

"A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."
-Daniel 7:10

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
-Hebrews 9:27

How many thousands of men have quoted these and similar passages...and are already dead?

Its a rhetorical question of course. All I can say is perhaps you should read that bit of advice, and maybe learn from it yourself.

Fitzy out.

[crispybits]

Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors.

How do you explain this one Viceroy if there's no errors?

Ezekiel 26:3-14

Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.

But....

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=tyre+l ... n&t=h&z=16

[Viceroy63]

P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Which "secular" historians covered Jerusalem at the time of Christ?
Which "secular" historians would cover "history" to that level of detail?

I'll give you a hint ... NONE!

Velleius Paterculus, a Roman historian, died a few years before the crucifixion. But he concentrated on Romans, not on non-Romans.

Flavius Josephus, was not even born until several years after the crucifixion and was a Jewish historian with a very large chip on his shoulder.

So if you look at the timeline of historians you will see that there are few, far between, and none around A.D. 33.

Well yeah, that makes sense since anyone who claimed to be a Christian was put to death at the time. So would the works of anyone who wrote about it be burned as well most likely.

So if you were living there at the time and you saw this persecution and murdering of Christians going on, you certainly are not going to write about it! At least not from a Christian's perspective. Why take the risk of death?

Also it is my understanding that historians usually write about history after the facts. So all historians basically write in hindsight. Those who write the news as it happens are not historians but reporters. And if they are not killing reporters at the time for reporting the news, then it is a good job to have. Although even the news is greatly biased and manipulated as well.

[jonesthecurl]

So which secular historians wrote the stuff which your doctor claims as evidence for his claim that the bible has this real prophecy in it?

[tzor]

Well yeah, that makes sense since anyone who claimed to be a Christian was put to death at the time. So would the works of anyone who wrote about it be burned as well most likely.

Not at that time. Rome generally treated the Christians as a Jewish Cult at first; it was only when the cult started converting non Romans in Rome that the Romans started to persecute them for their Atheism (Note that to the Romans an atheist was one who did not worship the Roman gods; you could worship anyone you liked as long as you worshiped their gods also). Israel was the only part of the empire that did not have the mandate to worship the Roman Gods and it also applied to all Jews in the Empire.

But the real reason may be somewhat more dull; most early Christians thought the second coming was practically any day now so they didn't bother to write things. It was only when they realized that this wasn't going to be the case and the Apostles were dying off did they think of writing things. So the first few decades of the "followers of the way" were kept orally.

In any event, it's important to note that the number of historians at the time could be expressed as a binary number; there was either one or there was none at any given time. There was no press of any kind whatsoever.

[PLAYER57832]

P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Why would they have even bothered? Jesus was not considered a great figure except to his followers... still few in number until some time after his death.

As Jesus said, "A prophet in his own land....". Might as well add "in his own time" as well...

[PLAYER57832]

They (the Catholic Church) thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if they say "well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did." Then what are they for?!?!

Actually they did not do any such thing. The first papal letter on slavery was, ironically, a few years before the New World was discovered and it was about the treatment of the natives of the Canary Islands.

Granted, the Catholic Church was not exceptionally vocal about slavery in the Americas and it didn't help that most of the letters by the Pope to the bishops in the Untied States were generally ignored, but it is wrong to say that the Catholic Church was ever a supporter of the racial generational slavery (wherein you owned not only the person but the children of said person) as practiced in the United States.

Tzor... there was also serious question as to whether non-Europeans were truly human, or "as human" as whites. Its easy to justify bad treatment of people who are not considered your equal, perhaps not really and truly people in the full sense.
(not saying ALL thought that, but it was a serious discussion).

[PLAYER57832]

It just a false question. You want to set up demands that just don't exist. Religion is not science. Religious texts were not set up with the same fact standards as science. This doesn't mean fiction versus fact, it means that the people reading and viewing these texts have a very different way of viewing the world, perceiving things than modern science does.

I would disagree with one point; religious texts were written with the science of the day in the minds of the writers. The writings were not a "science" textbook, however. They were not strict history books as we generally consider history books today. The truth of the Bible does not imply that everything is scientifically correct. (Let's face it, a hundred years from now people will laugh at some of the things we believed were scientific "facts.") The books of the Bible need to be considered in the context they were written in and the purpose for the writing of the book in the first place.

I believe I was saying just that...

"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; not how the heavens go."

Not understanding the purpose of a book of the Bible is the surest way of totally missing the point of the book of the Bible.

Like I said....

[PLAYER57832]

Hmmm, wikipedia or the global catholic network, which is more likely to give a full account? I read the whole ETWN articla and it doesn't even mention the change in law about claiming freedom or the approval of mulim slaves.

So I went looking, and rejecting any sources that were worded with only as much detail and in a very similar way to wikipedia (becuase I know a lot of sites will quote it without credit). How about the London School of Economics, where I found this paper:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/R ... eSmith.pdf

Starts on the catholic section towards the bottom of page 7, I'm not going to quote it in here but it's pretty clear that the early catholic church through until after the time of Paul III, while not all endorsing slavery, often failed to condemn it. Others outright allowed it as long as the slave was a heretic.

There is a HUGE difference between what the Roman Catholic church said and says and wha the Bible says. Roman Catholics sometimes like to pretend they are the only Bible followers, the only Christians and certainly the only "true" church, but there are several million Christians who disagree.

So, are you discussing the Bible or the Roman Catholic Church?

[jonesthecurl]

P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Why would they have even bothered? Jesus was not considered a great figure except to his followers... still few in number until some time after his death.

As Jesus said, "A prophet in his own land....". Might as well add "in his own time" as well...

PLAYER and others, please stay out of this bit.
All I am doing is picking one of Viceroy's miraculously accurate predictions in the bible, at random, and questioning it.
Here is what he said, or rather quoted... (It was in one of his walls of text which I know people akip over - that's why I'm trying to keep my bit of the conversation down to one bite-size, readable bit)

In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1011.)

[crispybits]

Hmmm, wikipedia or the global catholic network, which is more likely to give a full account? I read the whole ETWN articla and it doesn't even mention the change in law about claiming freedom or the approval of mulim slaves.

So I went looking, and rejecting any sources that were worded with only as much detail and in a very similar way to wikipedia (becuase I know a lot of sites will quote it without credit). How about the London School of Economics, where I found this paper:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/R ... eSmith.pdf

Starts on the catholic section towards the bottom of page 7, I'm not going to quote it in here but it's pretty clear that the early catholic church through until after the time of Paul III, while not all endorsing slavery, often failed to condemn it. Others outright allowed it as long as the slave was a heretic.

There is a HUGE difference between what the Roman Catholic church said and says and wha the Bible says. Roman Catholics sometimes like to pretend they are the only Bible followers, the only Christians and certainly the only "true" church, but there are several million Christians who disagree.

So, are you discussing the Bible or the Roman Catholic Church?

The quote Tzor responded to that got the response that you responded to was quite clearly and specifically about the catholic church...

[tzor]

There is a HUGE difference between what the Roman Catholic church said and says and what the Bible says.

Technically speaking the Bible says nothing on racial slavery. Slavery in the time of the Old Testament and in the time of Rome was so vastly different from the African Slave trade that anything written about it in the Bible simply cannot apply to the later invention of racial slavery. No southern slave owner ever followed the "Biblical" laws on the treatment of slaves.

[jonesthecurl]

All I am doing is picking one of Viceroy's miraculously accurate predictions in the bible, at random, and questioning it.
Here is what he said, or rather quoted... (It was in one of his walls of text which I know people akip over - that's why I'm trying to keep my bit of the conversation down to one bite-size, readable bit)

In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1011.)

So the list of the secular historians is the same as the list of scientists who confirm your claim that the universe is made up of three elements:
i.e. none.

Your impeccable authorities are looking sparse on the ground.