[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?
I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]
It’s easier to believe in aliens than God whom you must answer to and be held accountable by. Belief in aliens has no direct effect on, or require a change to, your lifestyle.
[quote]NAUn wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?
I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]
I don’t see how believing in aliens discredits anyone’s opinion, unless they claim to know for a fact there are aliens and get into that whole nonsense.[/quote]
How can you believe in aliens without physical proof of their existence? For those who don’t believe in God, many say this is the necessary requirement for belief.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
wrong - that is a “yes” there is plenty of proof . . . sorry that I happen to be in a training class and cannot spend hours educating you on your obvious lack of information . . . it’s there if you want to bother to do your own research.
Your original question was what proof I found to support the story of Exodus found in the Bible - i gave you a brief rundown on the basic archeological sites and some of the leading sources that i could remember off the top of my head. When taken as a whole, there is plenty of evidence - I suggest you go do some study on your own and actually read the sources rather than just the websites that agree with your presuppositions . . .[/quote]
Sorry but no there is not. If there was lots of evidence then people would talk about how much evidence there was.
You listed some random archeological digs, most totally unrelated to Exodus and a couple of names without any links. That is not evidence.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?
I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]
I believe aliens are possible (even likely in a certain sense due to how fricking huge the universe is) however I don’t think there has ever been definitive proof of their existence.
[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?
[/quote]
That position has been around for a long time. And this explains what I mean, deeper to the blaspheme thing.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…what does that mean, “seen”? Before you can start to “see” you need to believe, right?
[/quote]
Um, no. If you know that Jesus is Truth and you see Jesus’ works and you say it’s not Jesus.
Example, if I see a miracle, or I see grace working, and I say that it’s the Devil working or it is just chemicals or something like that when I know better. That is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.[/quote]
…just to get this clear: only a person like you, who is a devout catholic, could blaspheme against the holy ghost because you believe it’s all true and have seen Jesus’ works?
[/quote]
Nope, a self-proclaimed atheist can do it. Knowledge transcends establishments.
The Jewish Pharisees did it. [/quote]
…but the pharisees believed, i do not. I’ve never seen the truth as you’ve seen it. I’ve never seen a miracle i knew was god’s doing and denied he did it. I guess it’s simply knowing about the church’s dogma and rejecting it that’s enough to blaspheme?
[/quote]
I can’t say if you do or don’t, however everyone has a chance to see the truth.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< a long post >>>
[/quote]I (and others) have addressed all this already elsewhere in this thread. If you are interested in Christian views please peruse. If not then why are you here? Not that I’m sorry in the slightest that you are, but I’m curious. I have to say again that it’s been like a couple decades since I’ve heard a new argument against the Christian faith. They’re all the same argument in different packages anyway.
[/quote]
You’re right, I don’t get what a person in the modern world would still believe in any of the Abrahamic religions. I could see how a person could be a Deist. For a while I had somewhat of a Deistic belief based mainly on the cosmological argument that the universe required some sort of prime mover. But I never understood the Jesus story. If God wanted to forgive humans, why not just do so? Why the need for what was essentially a human sacrifice of his son no less? I could also see how the Abrahamic religions fulfilled a need to impose law, order, and a sense of morality during the Bronze Age and into the Middle Ages. But why these beliefs survive into the 21st century is a mystery.[/quote]
Because the Jesus story is a made up story taken from a collection of stories and was designed to ‘fulfill’ various conflicting prophesies.[/quote]
I’m sure you know how arguments go, you have to premises AND conclusions with evidence to back up your premises.[/quote]
So now I need evidence for the non existence of something. How about you put up one piece of credible evidence that the Jews were taken into bondage by the Egyptians and then freed. One single piece.[/quote]
I believe someone already did that in a post way back. I never said anything about the Jews, I just pointed out you were just making a statement not an argument, that is the reason for my statement.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ll say this again that the majority of atheists don’t say that they are 100% certain there is no God, only that there is no good evidence that supports a belief in one. There is a difference.
[/quote]
Then they are not atheists. Atheists are persons who deny the existence deities.[/quote]
No, atheist means without religion. Nothing more.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure I pulled that definition right out of dictionary. Like I mean copied and pasted. Plus Theist = Believes in G-d, so adding an “a” would indicated the opposite.
[quote]weby wrote:
serious question i was asked by a atheist i had no answer-Christians believe that God took human form as Jesus Christ and that God is present today through the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in the actions of believers. So when Jesus died and was resurrected who looked after the world in the period in between?[/quote]
G-d, the Father. As well, the Holy Ghost has always been around, as well as, Jesus Christ forever they have always existed.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?
[/quote]
I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]
And the Virgin Mary.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?
I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]
It’s easier to believe in aliens than God whom you must answer to and be held accountable by. Belief in aliens has no direct effect on, or require a change to, your lifestyle. [/quote]
Nor do generic kindred deities that shockingly have all the same views we do.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]StrawmanAndPlanIt wrote:
Which just serves to discredit all of you.
If it was “The truth” like you’re saying, then all the christians would agree on it.
Since your “truth” has no more firm ground than Tiribs “truth”, I see no reason to believe either.
But…but… MY bible says this… and mine is the right one…NO MY bible says THIS and MINE is the right one…[/quote]
My Church created the Bible, I win. My Bibles inerrancy comes from the fact that the Holy Ghost is with my Church, same for it’s doctrines. Happy? Stop using Straw-man and know who you are talking to.
Just because their is absolute truth, and some people might not believe it does not mean that we are all wrong.[/quote]
Didn’t realise you were Orthodox, thought you were Catholic…[/quote]
Not sure what you are getting at here.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dmaddox wrote:
<<< “There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]
I’m just not up to it man. Maybe later. I retract my earlier assertion that I couldn’t let one of your catholic doctrines go unanswered. I don’t have the present inclination for a “one hundred reasons why the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church. but individual catholics can be in spite of it” post.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
My Church created the Bible, I win. [/quote]
I beg to differ. Brother Chris you always forget about the Eastern Orthodox Church. This was the first Church because Paul’s first Missionary Journey was in Asia Minor, which encomposses the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Chruches were one Church and bishops from both churches were there at the councils that set the cannon. The Roman Catholic Church became more political over time while the Eastern Orthodox Church, IMO, stayed more true to the early church roots. The early church were Jews, and not so much Gentiles. The Eastern Orthodox Church’s calendar and festivals follow the Moon and not the Sun just like the Jews.[/quote]
I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church, and I am sorry my point still stands. The EOC’s church is not Catholic (some are, but not counting the Eastern Rite inside the Roman Catholic Church, they are not generally Catholic). Jesus did not give the keys to Heaven to Paul, he gave them to Peter. Yes, The EOC and the RCC were one Church at one point, but the EOC has dissembled and are no longer Catholic/catholic. What’s your point about Jews, so gentiles don’t count now or something, I do not follow.
[quote]
I have never studied in depth on why the apocrapha was taken out or added to the Bible. I do know that the Protestants followed the Jewish Cannon of the Old Testament which does not include the Apocrapha. The Jewish Bible was cannonized before the Christian Bible so this might be the reason the Protestants went this direction. Please correct me if I am wrong on what I am about to say. The Apocrapha was not officially cannonized, but continued to be used, because it was in the Septuagent the first translated Jewish Bible out of Hebrew to Greek.
The New Testament for all Christians is the exact same.[/quote]
There is different Sects of Judaism, Catholics were Messianic Jews that believed that Jesus was their Messiah. They did not all agree on how things were supposed to be. Jews use the Apocrypha, so do some Protestants. The reason why some Protestants do not use the Apocrypha is because then it would go against their doctrine.
A lot of things were not officially canonized until someone declared that the Traditional Bible was wrong, and they had to make it official.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?
[/quote]
I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]
And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]
I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.
So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
My Church created the Bible, I win. [/quote]
I beg to differ. I’ve seen copies of the Torah that are far older than the Roman Church, or any Christian denomination.
The oldest contiguous Christian denomination, BTW, is the Eqyptian Orthodox. I know this because I served as a tour guide (read: armed body guard in PA areas) in the Church of the Holy Sepulchar. [/quote]
Well I am including the New Testament in there, not just the old Testament, the Hebrew Bible came to us through Tradition, as well as some of our doctrines came to us through Jewish Tradition oral and written.
Not physical church, but Roman Catholic Church. I go to the same Roman Catholic Church in Argentina, as I do in Phoenix, as I do in Houston, as I do in Kansas.
Totally unrelated to the topic how is the beef in Argentina?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
My Church created the Bible, I win. [/quote]
I beg to differ. Brother Chris you always forget about the Eastern Orthodox Church. This was the first Church because Paul’s first Missionary Journey was in Asia Minor, which encomposses the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Chruches were one Church and bishops from both churches were there at the councils that set the cannon. The Roman Catholic Church became more political over time while the Eastern Orthodox Church, IMO, stayed more true to the early church roots. The early church were Jews, and not so much Gentiles. The Eastern Orthodox Church’s calendar and festivals follow the Moon and not the Sun just like the Jews.[/quote]
I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church, and I am sorry my point still stands. The EOC’s church is not Catholic (some are, but not counting the Eastern Rite inside the Roman Catholic Church, they are not generally Catholic). Jesus did not give the keys to Heaven to Paul, he gave them to Peter. Yes, The EOC and the RCC were one Church at one point, but the EOC has dissembled and are no longer Catholic/catholic. What’s your point about Jews, so gentiles don’t count now or something, I do not follow.
[quote]
I have never studied in depth on why the apocrapha was taken out or added to the Bible. I do know that the Protestants followed the Jewish Cannon of the Old Testament which does not include the Apocrapha. The Jewish Bible was cannonized before the Christian Bible so this might be the reason the Protestants went this direction. Please correct me if I am wrong on what I am about to say. The Apocrapha was not officially cannonized, but continued to be used, because it was in the Septuagent the first translated Jewish Bible out of Hebrew to Greek.
The New Testament for all Christians is the exact same.[/quote]
There is different Sects of Judaism, Catholics were Messianic Jews that believed that Jesus was their Messiah. They did not all agree on how things were supposed to be. Jews use the Apocrypha, so do some Protestants. The reason why some Protestants do not use the Apocrypha is because then it would go against their doctrine.
A lot of things were not officially canonized until someone declared that the Traditional Bible was wrong, and they had to make it official.[/quote]
Jews do not use the Apocrypha. Some Jews prior to the cannonization of the Old Testament, 200BCE, used the Apocrypha. After the cannonization of the Old Testament they no longer use them. I will ask you to tell me which Protestant churches use the Apocrypha? All the major ones that I know of do not use them. I am not against the books, and in fact I have a Catholic Bible and plan on reading it. Just so you know those books do not change the Gospel of Christ. They are Old Testament, and are nothing more than History or Wisdom books. Both of our New Testaments are identical so the Gospel is all that remains.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?
[/quote]
I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]
And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]
I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.
So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.
[/quote]
Yes, she was born without Original Sin. That’s fine, not sure why you have a problem with Mary being without Sin.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Totally unrelated to the topic how is the beef in Argentina?[/quote]
Good, different but good.