There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[credoconsolans]

Wait, how many times has he said he was leaving now? Sounds like a plea for help to me.

Like I said,why isn't this thread closed? It's clearly someone witnessing,which is against the rules. Is the moderator not around?

 

[Keith&Co.]

the wounded calls for God

One of the ways a person can come to Christ is coming to the brink of their existence.

But then they're not really coming to Christ, no more than the other guys're 'coming to mommy.'
They're coming to their fears. Which is not a great place to plan major life changes.

For example, watch the movie that came out this year called "God's not Dead" and you will see exactly what I mean by the end of the show. Great movie! This is a must watch movie for atheists!

Part of a review of GND:

Evangelical Michael Gerson, however, was highly critical of the film and its message, writing "The main problem with God’s Not Dead is not its cosmology or ethics but its anthropology. It assumes that human beings are made out of cardboard. Academics are arrogant and cruel. Liberal bloggers are preening and snarky (well, maybe the movie has a point here). Unbelievers disbelieve because of personal demons. It is characterization by caricature."

I can see why you would think this a compelling movie.

God will put a person in dire straights because that is the only potential possibility they would ever consider receiving His mercy.

So, God uses suffering to achieve his ends. Not exactly a person i want to give power in my life. Sounds like a major sadist.

So the person calls for God if genuine, and God knows your heart even every hair on your head so that person would accept Jesus as God and Savior.

That person would accept Beelzebub if he promised they'd live through the battle and get home safe.

more preaching....

more preaching....

A total lack of evidence.....

 

[Kharakov]

Whatever persona the apologists put on, we should remember that there really is another part to their personality, maybe several of them. They may be really hurting inside (somewhat like they are conditioned to believe all non-Christians are...it is just actually true to some degree the other way as well).

I can assure you that not every one of them is acting, although all mature atheists are.

 

[Kharakov]

Wait, how many times has he said he was leaving now? Sounds like a plea for help to me.

Like I said,why isn't this thread closed? It's clearly someone witnessing,which is against the rules. Is the moderator not around?

He isn't actually witnessing. Rather, he's acting like he is witnessing. Since it's the second (although he will deny it, because he must keep up the act), he isn't technically witnessing, which means he isn't breaking the rules.

 

[revivin]

Condemning non-believers

I can't condemn you. I can only report back to you what the Bible says. The Bible says, and I fully agree, that you are going to Hell because you are unwilling to come to the cross to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior.

 

[DBT]

That's odd, I was under the impression that the only mention of Jesus of Nazareth, the miracles, etc, can only to be found in the books of NT. Which are not composed of independent accounts written by anyone outside of the interests of the faith, but written by believers, those within the fold of the faith. That the writers, some who borrow from older sources, wrote about 'eye witnesses' to miracles is not the same as a report made by an unrelated and independent source.

They are independent accounts that's why they differ so much! Matthew never wrote Mark, Luke or John. Mark never wrote Matthew, Luke or John. Luke never wrote Matthew, Mark or John. And John never wrote Matthew, Mark or Luke. Why are you having independent issues with that?

Because Mark is the oldest of the ''gospels'' and written by an unknown author and none are actually original in the sense that they borrow from even older oral traditions. It is a case of each author taking up the narrative in his own style...Mathew being over the top with his embellishments involving the dead being raised, the donkey and the ass error taken from the OT, etc. Taken overall, it is not a very reliable account of events.

quote;
''The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.''

I think you are placing your faith on a flimsy body of information. Hardly more than assertions.

 

[DBT]

Condemning non-believers

I can't condemn you. I can only report back to you what the Bible says. The Bible says, and I fully agree, that you are going to Hell because you are unwilling to come to the cross to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior.

What I am not unwilling to do is accept something highly extraordinary as being true and factual if the claim can't be shown to be true factual. That requires evidence. So if your contention just happened to be factual (however unlikely that is), I would be condemned, but not for refusing ''to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior'' but requiring a reasonable standard of evidence for the extraordinary claims that are being made.

 

[revivin]

Mark is the oldest of the ''gospels''

You need a reason to suspect why Mark didn't write Mark. Vague accusations of embellishment and your misreading of the donkey matter are hardly of any consideration. Mark wrote Mark and placed himself running in the street naked when Jesus was captured. Mark goes all the way back to the cross written about 35 AD 2 years after the cross as I explained why based on Luke, Acts and Paul's death. The important thing to realize is that the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles goes all the way back to the cross because Paul said he spent 15 days with Peter, and also time with James and John. Paul was converted 2 years after the cross and met the Apostles 3 years after that. They had the same eyewitness testimony of Jesus in various group settings. Those very same Apostles were put to death for their eyewitness testimony, they never changed their testimony, and group hallucinations are impossible. When you consider the best proof for Jesus resurrecting Himself, nothing surpasses the 27 books of the NT. It's a solid in terms of historical evidence and highest standards. So I believe based on this evidence you are struggling to overturn. If you were to provide a naturalistic explanation that is plausible, I would side with you. But you can't ask someone to do that when you don't present any challenge to the data.

 

[DBT]

Mark is the oldest of the ''gospels''

You need a reason to suspect why Mark didn't write Mark.

That appears to be the position held by scholars.

''Marcan priority has been accepted by most scholars since the late nineteenth century and forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory,''

The reasons why, and the evidence for that position is readily available.

Vague accusations of embellishment and your misreading of the donkey matter are hardly of any consideration.

But it's not vague. The quotes are quite clear on the matter of two beasts.

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

''21:4-5) "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying ... thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass."

''These verses claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. (Matthew had Jesus riding on two donkeys at once since he misunderstood the form of Hebrew poetry used in Zechariah 9:9.) ''

 

[revivin]

''Marcan priority has been accepted by most scholars since the late nineteenth century and forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory,''

So Mark was the earliest of the 4 gospels. That's good.

Matt. 21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.
''These verses claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. (Matthew had Jesus riding on two donkeys at once since he misunderstood the form of Hebrew poetry used in Zechariah 9:9.)''

The military leader and earthly kingdom would have been, but Jesus was killed by the Romans so that will have to wait for His second coming.

Matt. 21.3 "The Lord hath need of them" - In His capacity as the Creator, the Lord lays claim to them since the entire creation belongs to Him. Commentators usually take the ass to be representative of the Gentiles and the colt, the Jews. Actually the reverse is the truth: the ass represents the Jews and the colt, the Gentiles.

From Mark's account (11.7) we see that the Lord rode upon the colt, with the ass no doubt following, thus signifying that the Lord has His hand upon the Gentiles and that the Jews are following. It is most difficult to ride a colt; even an ass expert is not able to, such as a Pharisee has no means of control over the Gentiles. Spiritually speaking, before anyone is saved they are like a colt. But when saved, they are like the colt which the Lord can ride easily on. The horse speaks of war, while the ass speaks of peace. In this instance now, the Lord as the Prince of Peace rides on the colt, that is, a young ass (Matt. 21.5). Israel has lost her youth, what they once were. At His second coming He will ride on a militant white horse.

Bethpage means "house of unripened figs" - Jews are not ready to accept Christ, not even a remnant (that will be left for the day of the Lord's return). The ass is "loosed", let go, even by Matt. 13 (and completely lossed in Matt. 23); if it were not so, then why does the Lord spend his nights at Bethany (see 21.17; cf. also Mark 11.11-12,19). It is because Jerusalem has become a rejected entity. The Colt was not tied, free as the Gentiles now who have come to Christ and let Him ride them.

Source: http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?145-The-Colt-and-the-Ass

We could do this all day, all year and the rest of our lives, and you would find there are no contradictions, but God wants you to focus on the Minimal Facts Approach that solves it once and for all that Jesus is God. Very simply, Gary R. Habermas has collected most scholars from the past half century who do peer review journal or accredited work on the resurrection. One of the things they are virtually unanimous on is that the Apostles truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected in various group settings. Put aside all those scholars for the moment and understand the argument they cannot deny. They cannot deny Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. And of all Paul's writings this is most certainly his sincere belief and from his own hand. He spent 15 days with Peter. With John and James. And it goes all the way back to the cross and their eyewitness testimony for these are the very Apostles themselves who spent 3 years with Jesus, who said they saw Him resurrected.

The challenge before you then is what naturalistic explanation can explain this away? If you can't find any then give your life to Christ for that would be the reasonable thing to do. For starters we know group hallucinations are impossible and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. Other theories like Swoon Theory fail too.

 

[DBT]

From Mark's account (11.7) we see that the Lord rode upon the colt, with the ass no doubt following.

For a start, what do you mean by ''with the ass no doubt following?'' Where in the gospel of Mark does it say, or even suggest the actual presence of two animals?

 

[revivin]

From Mark's account (11.7) we see that the Lord rode upon the colt, with the ass no doubt following.

For a start, what do you mean by ''with the ass no doubt following?'' Where in the gospel of Mark does it say, or even suggest the actual presence of two animals?

Why does Mark have to mention both animals? It would make more sense if riding the colt the ass would follow rather than putting the ass up front leading.

If Mary saw Bob and John, and Jack saw Bob, it doesn't mean John was not there. Jack just decided to leave out that detail as it was not relevant to his emphasis.

Source: http://biblocality.com/forums/showt...ike-the-Gentiles-and-the-Ass-is-like-the-Jews

 

[none]

...
I did search God out with all my heart and soul and that's why I found Him, so the only reason someone is not saved is because they don't search God out with all their heart and soul.

so what if my imaginary friend believes in God, does that mean I have to believe in God too? does it mean that God believes in my imaginary friend because my imaginary friend believes in God?

can I get an answer?

 

[DBT]

For a start, what do you mean by ''with the ass no doubt following?'' Where in the gospel of Mark does it say, or even suggest the actual presence of two animals?

Why does Mark have to mention both animals? It would make more sense if riding the colt the ass would follow rather than putting the ass up front leading.

If Mary saw Bob and John, and Jack saw Bob, it doesn't mean John was not there. Jack just decided to leave out that detail as it was not relevant to his emphasis.

Source: http://biblocality.com/forums/showt...ike-the-Gentiles-and-the-Ass-is-like-the-Jews

As two animals are only mentioned in Mathew, and there is no mention of the presence of two animals in the other gospels, it strongly indicates that the writer ''Mathew'' attempted to present his account as a fulfillment of OT prophesy but made an awkward error in detail. Just as he embellished his account of the crucifixion with the dead rising from their graves.


52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

These are extraordinary events, monumental, yet not even a mention of it to be found in any other source? That it is not mentioned in the other gospels, not mentioned by the Romans, Not mentioned by the Jews, not by any historian, writer, scribe, etc....tends to support the proposition that the writer 'Mathew'' was simply attempting to embellish his account of the miracle of the divinity of Christ and his crucifixion and resurrection .

 

[jonJ]

Condemning non-believers

I can't condemn you. I can only report back to you what the Bible says. The Bible says, and I fully agree, that you are going to Hell because you are unwilling to come to the cross to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior.

You were going really well there until your third sentence. I guess we can add 'condemn' to the list of words you apparently don't understand.

 

[untermensche]

Since professed believers in Christianity behave exactly as non-believers behave. They rape, they steal, they kill. And atheists behave exactly as professed Christians. They love, they nurture, they bear with patience. What exactly is it that the invisible sky-god of the Bible wants?

He collects those who will believe wild fanciful stories with no evidence, merely claims?

That is some great trait?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If Mary saw Bob and John, and Jack saw Bob, it doesn't mean John was not there. Jack just decided to leave out that detail as it was not relevant to his emphasis.

Of course, if John's presence is crucial to a prophecy, then it would be kind of foolish to read Jack and just decided that John was there, without a doubt, for no good reason other than to pretend that the prophecy was fulfilled.
You can't claim the prophecies are fulfilled if you have to work this hard to pretend they were fulfilled. Or, well, you can CLAIM it, it's just pretty lame presupposition.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He collects those who will believe wild fanciful stories with no evidence, merely claims?

There ARE people who do that.
False prophets.
Cult leaders.
Snake oil salesmen.
Homeopathy clinics.
Gay Conversion Therapy Counselors....

 

[Keith&Co.]

I guess we can add 'condemn' to the list of words you apparently don't understand.

So where are we now?

Condemn.
Encore.
Depart.
Leave.
Finish.
End.

Eyewitness.
Evidence.
Atheist.
Masochism.
Sadism.
Burden of Proof.
Proven.
Scholarship.
Plagiarism.
Infinite regress.
Scholarship.

 

[atrib]

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Why is this fool allowed to keep spamming the boards?