[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Thanks for the link haney. Very interesting view.[/quote]
I thought this is what the OP was really getting at, but (sigh) it turned into another science/creation thread that will go no where.
I agree with vroom lets just get back to polotics if this is all we are going to do.
I am glad you liked the article. Augustine is in my opinion is one of the founding fathers of apologetics.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Boy that is sure a lot of billions being thrown around. Wouldn’t it be nice if the dating method used was actually real and factual and not just a theorized estimate? That would actually make your points valid. Yet, since carbon dating cannot be validated to that length of time you are just pissing in the breeze!
[/quote]
Holy shit… Didn’t you say you were a physics teacher? Poor kids…
They don’t use carbon dating for objects older than a few tens of thousands of years. Carbon is not the only element whose half life we know. We use Uranium (which decays into lead) to date objects which are billions of years old. Of course its not infinitely accurate, but it gives us an order of magnitude estimate (like 2.5 billion years plus or minus .3 billion years, or something like that).
So, let me get this straight. You constantly state that science has “proven” the supernatural (with the miraculous prayer cure study), and that because some of the Bible is historically accurate, that that “proves” its authenticity. And they let you teach our children science, even though you have no concept of the scientific process. So, when in thirty years, all of the meaningful science is coming from Asia and Europe, we’ll know why.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
That’s like that fish that was supposed to be 2 billion years old and extinct that was caught off the coast of Australia years ago.
Things like this continue to invalidate the evolutionary model, and yet because of the religion-like faith of the supposed scientists involved, they just continue as if nothing had happened and just ignore all the evidence that disproves their theory. I guess they too have faith in the unproven and the unseen. I wonder where there church is? Oh, that’s right, it’s their “lab”.
Time for your monthly Sin Report:
[x] Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities, that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Excessive belief in your abilites? Hot-diggity-damn! That’s got you covered in spades. Check this one.
[x] Envy is the desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Like having an above high school level understanding of science? Check.
[x] Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
In this case, it’s being a glutton for punishment, as your pitiful arguments are thorn to shreds time and time again, and still you keep repeating them.
[ ] Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
Hmmm. Hard to say, apart from the hard-on for Jesus. You get a pass on this one, since dead carpenters aren’t very arousing.
[x] Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
We know that 145 pounds of righteous fury is not very threatening, BUT the description makes no exception for angry wussies. Check.
[x] Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
Guiding principle of the USA. Checked by default.
[x] Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
Like spending time posting on T-Nation when you could be working or helping a fellow man… tsk, tsk.
6 out of 7. Not bad. Unless you’re hoping for Heaven at the end of your days. If so, you might want to make a few adjustments.
This report was a presentation of your friendly neighborhood soul-saving service. Our bill is in the mail.[/quote]
[i]“Let them alone:they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Matthew 15:14[/i]
Pookie – WATCH OUT FOR THE DITCH!
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Lucifer was created by God, as were all other angels (Ephesians 3:9). Lucifer was a “covering” cherub, or angel. One great angel stands on the left side of God’s throne and another on the right (Psalms 99:1). Lucifer was one of those highly exalted angel leaders. Lucifer’s beauty was flawless and breathtaking. His wisdom was perfect. His brightness was awe-inspiring. Ezekiel 28:13 seems to indicate that his throat was specially prepared to make him an outstanding musician. Some think he led the angelic choir.
Pride, jealousy, discontent, and self-exaltation arose in his life. Lucifer decided to attempt to unseat God and then demand that all worship him. It was treason of the worst kind.
Lucifer won the support of one-third of the angels (Revelation 12:3, 4) and caused an insurrection in heaven. God had no choice but to oust Lucifer and his angels. This was the greatest battle, by far, ever fought. Lucifer’s aim was to usurp God’s throne, even if it might eventually lead to murder (John 8:44). After his expulsion from heaven, Lucifer was called Satan (adversary) and devil (slanderer), and his angels were called demons.[/quote]
a quick question to all the fundamentalists (I asked FlyingEmuOfDoom something similar but he never returned my PM)…
man was created by God on the sixth day…
which of the first five days before man was created were Lucifer and the other angels created?
which of the first five days did the ‘Fall’ occur? do you think that five days (or less) is enough time for such an important happening as the ‘Fall’…
do you think that the first five ‘days’ were actual days that we think of as being days? or do you think that the first five ‘days’ were of undertermined length?
if you think that the first five ‘days’ were of normal length…
do you think that it was possible for Lucifer (who supposedly had perfect wisdom) to grow discontent, convince 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God, wage a war in heaven, and then be cast down all in five days or less?
do any of you know of any material that I could research this subject for myself?
thanks!
Yet another thread disintegrates into the “Is God real” trap.
There are to be no discusions, rational discussions, I mean, on whether God exists or not. It is one side quoting the scripture, and the other saying that it means nothing.
As a recovering, sometimes loyal Catholic, it is dissapointing to realize that there will never be any real talk of whether or not God exists, only partisan bullshit spewed back and forth.
It is sad that this is what defines “American” politics. The founding fathers would be cringing if they knew the degree that we have deteiorated to.
300 years…and we have nothing to show for it?
[quote]DPH wrote:
a quick question to all the fundamentalists (I asked FlyingEmuOfDoom something similar but he never returned my PM)…
man was created by God on the sixth day…
[/quote]
Not a fundie, but I can answer some of the questions for you.
The Bible doesn’t deal with the time line creation of Lucifer. It merely states that he fell from God’s grace
The Bible does not give a time lone for the fall either. It isn’t locked into having the fall done in the first few days. In fact it gives a liberal time frame for all of those events to happen (i.e. God would walk with them in the evening which would give an indication of a long period of time.)
Fundies would say 24 straight hours per day.
I think the previous answers take care of this.
[quote]
do any of you know of any material that I could research this subject for myself?
thanks![/quote]
outside of the Bible there are commentaries.
I can point you in the right direction if you PM me (and read my link on Augustine :-).
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
miniross wrote:
You obviously have no idea about radio isotopes and half lives and the calculations that are used to gain such information.
I have a rudimentry understanding from chemistry a level, and i can tell you, they are right.
How could anyone argue with such logical support! 
[/quote]
For you, what is fact?
Observations?
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
btm62 wrote:
miniross wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
miniross wrote:
I will now go off and collate all the evidence for it, and then you can read that.
It would take you years.
Very convenient. If you really have something, then show it. But don’t use a blanketed statement like that as proof when you don’t have anything.
Suggestion for you. Start with the first single celled organism. Tell us how it came to exist. Then move through step by step.
Right, i am going to do this. Call my bluff will you?
If thats my challange, then tell me who made god. Come back with an appropriate answer with that one.
Hi is the Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end. Certainly makes more sense, to me anyway, than all of the sudden, “poof” here we are.
I could not have said it better myself.
The response miniross gave is typical. He can’t find proof, so he will avoid the subject. I, myself, am comfortable believing in the almighty![/quote]
What you have to remembr is i am not avoiding the issue, it could be said that you are avoiding my question.
It takes time, you know to research this. Its not all in 1 big book.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
miniross wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
ShaunW wrote:
lorisco wrote
Boy that is sure a lot of billions being thrown around. Wouldn’t it be nice if the dating method used was actually real and factual and not just a theorized estimate? That would actually make your points valid. Yet, since carbon dating cannot be validated to that length of time you are just pissing in the breeze!
Mate,
Not once did I indicate that these datings going back to 3.6B yrs etc was based on radio-carbon dating.
I hope the below aids your understanding
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
The next 40 years was a period of expanding research on the nature and behavior of atoms, leading to the development of nuclear fission and fusion as energy sources. A byproduct of this atomic research has been the development and continuing refinement of the various methods and techniques used to measure the age of Earth materials. Precise dating has been accomplished since 1950.
A chemical element consists of atoms with a specific number of protons in their nuclei but different atomic weights owing to variations in the number of neutrons. Atoms of the same element with differing atomic weights are called isotopes. Radioactive decay is a spontaneous process in which an isotope (the parent) loses particles from its nucleus to form an isotope of a new element (the daughter). The rate of decay is conveniently expressed in terms of an isotope’s half-life, or the time it takes for one-half of a particular radioactive isotope in a sample to decay. Most radioactive isotopes have rapid rates of decay (that is, short half-lives) and lose their radioactivity within a few days or years. Some isotopes, however, decay slowly, and several of these are used as geologic clocks. The parent isotopes and corresponding daughter products most commonly used to determine the ages of ancient rocks are listed below:
Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years
And from further down this same link:
The radiocarbon clock has become an extremely useful and efficient tool in dating the important episodes in the recent prehistory and history of man, but because of the relatively short half-life of carbon-14, the clock can be used for dating events that have taken place only within the past 50,000 years.
Mate, you don’t seem to understand the difference between theory and fact.
Let me break it down for you.
“The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements.”
Since no one has been around to actually measure if the half life is actually 700 million years it is only theory. So why do they say that? They can measure the decay factually for say 50 years. They then take that and mathematical calculate what they believe the decay would look like in 700 millions years. This is a guess based on the decay they can actually measure for 50 years. This assumes a consistent decay over time, which again is not proven because they haven’t been around to determine if that is correct or not.
So all dating systems to date have the same problem; just like carbon dating, once they get beyond what they have actually been able to track it is an estimate.
So no one really factually knows how old these rocks are or how old the fossils found are once they are outside the date range that has been actually verified.
You obviously have no idea about radio isotopes and half lives and the calculations that are used to gain such information.
I have a rudimentry understanding from chemistry a level, and i can tell you, they are right.
Are those like the scientific calculations that demonstrate it is impossible for bumble bees to fly?
Bro, if they have never been able to demonstrate even once the entire life of an isotope (or for whatever time frame they are measuring) they don’t know how it will actually decay, becuase they have never actualy measured it.
Maybe terribleivan can explain this to you.
[/quote]
Those calculations are often misunderstood.
It is that they cant glide (unpowered) which then makes sense. So using them as an example is not valid.
It is often misquoted, or misrepresented.
[quote]miniross wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
btm62 wrote:
miniross wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
miniross wrote:
I will now go off and collate all the evidence for it, and then you can read that.
It would take you years.
Very convenient. If you really have something, then show it. But don’t use a blanketed statement like that as proof when you don’t have anything.
Suggestion for you. Start with the first single celled organism. Tell us how it came to exist. Then move through step by step.
Right, i am going to do this. Call my bluff will you?
If thats my challange, then tell me who made god. Come back with an appropriate answer with that one.
Hi is the Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end. Certainly makes more sense, to me anyway, than all of the sudden, “poof” here we are.
I could not have said it better myself.
The response miniross gave is typical. He can’t find proof, so he will avoid the subject. I, myself, am comfortable believing in the almighty!
What you have to remembr is i am not avoiding the issue, it could be said that you are avoiding my question.
It takes time, you know to research this. Its not all in 1 big book.[/quote]
More valuable input. Thanks Mini!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It is sad that this is what defines “American” politics. The founding fathers would be cringing if they knew the degree that we have deteiorated to.[/quote]
You mean they’d cringe at the fundamentalist Christians trying to push their religion everywhere?
I keep seeing repeated that the US was founded on Christian principles, when the founding fathers were mostly agnostics and deists.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
[i]“Let them alone:they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Matthew 15:14[/i]
Pookie – WATCH OUT FOR THE DITCH!
[/quote]
Don’t worry, my eyes are open.
You’re the one stumbling in the dark, blinded by faith; having surrendered your opinions and thoughts to a book of fabricated tales.
“The mass of people who are Bible-taught never get free from the erroneous impressions stamped on their minds in their infancy, so that their manhood or womanhood can have no intellectual fulfillment, and millions of them only attain mentally to a sort of second childhood.”
– Gerald Massey
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
[i]“Let them alone:they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Matthew 15:14[/i]
Pookie – WATCH OUT FOR THE DITCH!
Don’t worry, my eyes are open.
You’re the one stumbling in the dark, blinded by faith; having surrendered your opinions and thoughts to a book of fabricated tales.
“The mass of people who are Bible-taught never get free from the erroneous impressions stamped on their minds in their infancy, so that their manhood or womanhood can have no intellectual fulfillment, and millions of them only attain mentally to a sort of second childhood.”
– Gerald Massey[/quote]
Oooooo, Ooooo Gerald Massey!!! Some other atheist published a pithy qoute. I’m convinced. There goes my faith. I hope to hear what Jane Fonda says on the subject next.
And actually its erroneous anyway. Most people leave the church around high school and most never come back. I was the same way, only I came back. As far as my mentality, I’m sure that is due to kids and growing older and having to deal with retards, (from religions and non-religions) on a daily basis.
Where did that first single celled organism come from again? Maybe Gerald knows that too.
[quote]ShaunW wrote:
Dunno about ignorance, but i suggest some simple google searching.
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/measearth.html
200 BC: Eratosthenes of Cyrene got within 2% of the modern value (circumference of the earth) using only the geometry of sun shadows at two locations on the same day.
By about 300AD, the idea of a Flat Earth was revived:
Early Christian rejection of the “pagan absurdity” of a spherical earth.
This view was held sporadically until about 1300 AD.
It seems in my opinion only, that a certain institution had a vested interest in a flat earth, because such a BELIEF fit in with what was written in a certain book - a book actually written a few hundred yrs after the measurements were taken and published. Maybe such an institution has a vested interest in ignorance?
hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm…
[/quote]
Sorry to disapoint all the God haters (well actually I’m not :).
No where in the Bible does it state that the earth is flat!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No where in the Bible does it state that the earth is flat! [/quote]
The Bible is such a random mish mash of old tribal stories that you can find a quote to support anything you want.
For example, for your flat-Earth support, here’s what the Flat-Earther nuts themselves say:
The Shape of the Earth
[i]Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11.
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth…reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.”
If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth’s farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. [/i]
See? Either the Earth is flat, or the Bible is wrong. Nothing a little liberal interpretation or Biblical exegesis can’t fix, I’m sure. Poor God, such a confused author…
Not yet convinced? Good, there’s more:
[i]Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”
Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat.
The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him…”[/i]
They’ve got a point there Zeb, old chap; how does one come through the clouds and manage to be seen by “every eye” on a sphere? Is God to swallow the Earth like Pac-Man gobbling up a little blue dot?
Still disagree? Good, take it up with them: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Where did that first single celled organism come from again? Maybe Gerald knows that too.[/quote]
Ah, so you’ve got a God of the Gaps. How nice. Good thing we understand how thunder happens, or you’d be praying to Thor too.
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
No where in the Bible does it state that the earth is flat!
The Bible is such a random mish mash of old tribal stories that you can find a quote to support anything you want.[/quote]
Untrue.
[quote][i]Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11.
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth…reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.”
If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth’s farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. [/i]
See? Either the Earth is flat, or the Bible is wrong. Nothing a little liberal interpretation or Biblical exegesis can’t fix, I’m sure. Poor God, such a confused author…
Not yet convinced? Good, there’s more:
[i]Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”
Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat.
The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him…”[/i]
They’ve got a point there Zeb, old chap; how does one come through the clouds and manage to be seen by “every eye” on a sphere? Is God to swallow the Earth like Pac-Man gobbling up a little blue dot?
Still disagree? Good, take it up with them: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
[/quote]
I’ll take it up with you as you are obvously pointing this out in order to make the Bible look bad.
Words such as found in Daniel are expressions used. As in “I’d go to the ends of the earth.” “Climb every mountain.” Etc.
The Old Testament is filled with very representational speech.
“Every eye shall see him.” Perhaps there was an allusion to some sort of video telecasting the second coming? Certainly it is well beyond your limited mind to comprehend, mine as well.
For example, when Christ returns “We (Christians only) shall all be changed in a twinkling of the eye.”
Care to explain that to us?
What about the Angels that will be seen “BY ALL” near the end? Could the writer had known about televsion? No of course not…how could he? Unless of course…
Again There is NO reference in the entire Bible which claims that the earth is flat.
I would say “nice try” but it is not one of your better ones.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible is such a random mish mash of old tribal stories that you can find a quote to support anything you want.
Untrue. [/quote]
From your incomplete understanding of it.
I don’t have to do anything to make the Bible look bad, it is bad. Just read the thing.
[quote]Words such as found in Daniel are expressions used. As in “I’d go to the ends of the earth.” “Climb every mountain.” Etc.
The Old Testament is filled with very representational speech.[/quote]
There we go. Told you a little exegesis would fix that right up. And you say that my “malleable mish mash” theory is untrue. Tsk, tsk. The first thing you do is “interpret” the words so as to support the meaning you want them to have.
Have you taken this up witht those Flat-Earthers? There’s probably an email address on the web site.
The Bible prophecies “Live via satellite on FOX, it’s GOD!!!” Truly, an amazing work, that big book.
Seriously, you are aware that some of the 6 billions people on this planet don’t have TV, and hence, won’t be able to see God anyway?
Or is the End of Times to be announced by a mysterious “Cable Guy” that travels the globe giving free TVs and installing cable for aboriginals in South America?
Your pitiful attempts at interpretation make even less sense than the original fable itself. Quite a feat.
[quote]For example, when Christ returns “We (Christians only) shall all be changed in a twinkling of the eye.”
Care to explain that to us?
What about the Angels that will be seen “BY ALL” near the end? Could the writer had known about televsion? No of course not…how could he? Unless of course…[/quote]
Since it will never happen, it doesn’t really matter much whether it matches reality, does it? How can Christ ever return since he never was there to begin with. Abraham, Moses, Jesus… all mythical characters, fabricated to support the religion. Get real, man.
And again, not everyone has TV, so your explanation falls flat on its face.
Give it up, Zeb. Defending the Bible is an impossible task. Those old desert nomads never thought their stories would be subjected to modern analysis. They have no hope of ever holding up.
[quote]Again There is NO reference in the entire Bible which claims that the earth is flat.
I would say “nice try” but it is not one of your better ones.[/quote]
Well it’s not really one of mine. Those flat-Earther dudes are completetly convinced they’re right. And they don’t need to “interpret” the Bible to support their views. Why is your brand of nuttiness any better than theirs?
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The Bible is such a random mish mash of old tribal stories that you can find a quote to support anything you want.
Untrue.
From your incomplete understanding of it.[/quote]
No, from your own!
[quote]I’ll take it up with you as you are obvously pointing this out in order to make the Bible look bad.
I don’t have to do anything to make the Bible look bad, it is bad. Just read the thing.[/quote]
In your opinion.
No, actually you did that to begin with. No where on any of the verses that you gave is there a reference to a flat earth. You “assumed” meaning where there was none. And YOU were wrong.
You are making yet another false assumption. Who said that it would happen when they DID NOT have some sort of device that would allow them to see it?
In fact, the Bible says that it WILL HAPPEN when they ARE able to view it.
[quote]For example, when Christ returns “We (Christians only) shall all be changed in a twinkling of the eye.”
Care to explain that to us?
What about the Angels that will be seen “BY ALL” near the end? Could the writer had known about televsion? No of course not…how could he? Unless of course…
Since it will never happen, it doesn’t really matter much whether it matches reality, does it? [/quote]
You assume it will NEVER HAPPEN. Is that ANOTHER false assumption?
Doubting the existance of Jesus Christ? Now that is silly indeed:
Historical writers mentioning Jesus:
Following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/...s/annals.mb.txt
Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”
The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.
Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante?Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
The Talmud
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”
Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
Luke 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.”
This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day?the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11?13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.
Jesus Christ did in fact live! That you do not even accept this fact is astonishing.
Defending the Bible is actually an easy task. Stating that Jesus did not exist and making false assumptions regarding scripture is also easy…right?
[quote]Again There is NO reference in the entire Bible which claims that the earth is flat.
I would say “nice try” but it is not one of your better ones.
Well it’s not really one of mine. Those flat-Earther dudes are completetly convinced they’re right. And they don’t need to “interpret” the Bible to support their views.[/quote]
But YOU did interpret the Bible. And YOU did a very poor job of it.
[quote]DPH wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Lucifer was created by God, as were all other angels (Ephesians 3:9). Lucifer was a “covering” cherub, or angel. One great angel stands on the left side of God’s throne and another on the right (Psalms 99:1). Lucifer was one of those highly exalted angel leaders. Lucifer’s beauty was flawless and breathtaking. His wisdom was perfect. His brightness was awe-inspiring. Ezekiel 28:13 seems to indicate that his throat was specially prepared to make him an outstanding musician. Some think he led the angelic choir.
Pride, jealousy, discontent, and self-exaltation arose in his life. Lucifer decided to attempt to unseat God and then demand that all worship him. It was treason of the worst kind.
Lucifer won the support of one-third of the angels (Revelation 12:3, 4) and caused an insurrection in heaven. God had no choice but to oust Lucifer and his angels. This was the greatest battle, by far, ever fought. Lucifer’s aim was to usurp God’s throne, even if it might eventually lead to murder (John 8:44). After his expulsion from heaven, Lucifer was called Satan (adversary) and devil (slanderer), and his angels were called demons.
a quick question to all the fundamentalists (I asked FlyingEmuOfDoom something similar but he never returned my PM)…
man was created by God on the sixth day…
which of the first five days before man was created were Lucifer and the other angels created?
which of the first five days did the ‘Fall’ occur? do you think that five days (or less) is enough time for such an important happening as the ‘Fall’…
do you think that the first five ‘days’ were actual days that we think of as being days? or do you think that the first five ‘days’ were of undertermined length?
if you think that the first five ‘days’ were of normal length…
do you think that it was possible for Lucifer (who supposedly had perfect wisdom) to grow discontent, convince 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God, wage a war in heaven, and then be cast down all in five days or less?
do any of you know of any material that I could research this subject for myself?
thanks![/quote]
DPH,
You never sent me a PM.
Like Haney said, there is no mention in the Bible about a time frame concerning Lucifers creation. The Bible clearly states that Lucifer was created by God, but does not go into detail on when or how long it took. Lucifers creation is a seperate event from the creation of earth.