The bible is man-made.

[Angel4Truth]

"Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." - that's one of many failed prophecies of the bible. If you want more you can look up "failed prophecies of the bible" and you will find hundreds.

How, do you even know what the word in red means?

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Immanuel (Hebrew: עִמָּנוּאֵל‎ meaning, "God with us"; also romanized Emmanuel, Imanu'el)

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I do read through scripture quite often. I wouldn't say it was really crammed down my throat, I accepted it at first, but as I grew, it seemed less and less realistic.
And cite whatever you like!

Awesome!

Are you aware that current Egyptology is the marker for all anthropology and historical time frames recorded into the scholarly records?

Archeology and such of modern pursuit.

 

[Crucible]

"Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." - that's one of many failed prophecies of the bible. If you want more you can look up "failed prophecies of the bible" and you will find hundreds.

So the entire basis of Christianity is based on a painfully obvious prophesy fail according to you?

This is where you make yourself look like a damn idiot.

In biblical times, names were important by their meaning, and they were stated accordingly. Immanuel means 'God among us', and Yeshua means 'Rescuer'. Jesus is the Savior and of the Godhead.


You don't have any interest to discuss theology, you joined this site to clash with Christians- and only Christians- because you're a politically correct dweeb whose motives are ultimately about debasing Christian culture for your Muslims and, as ironic as ever, your gays

Come back when you're either out of school or your parent's basement :chuckle:

 

[Atheist19]

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching


Don't believe websites filled with lies. Actually read the bible yourself. God doesnt condone the type of slavery you mention in fact speaks against it, the only 'slavery' condoned by God was the indentured servitude type. Where a person sells themselves (labor) to pay debts and then there were specific guidelines and time periods.

The hebrews were placed into bondage as slaves themselves for not following Gods ideal.

Seek God at the source, nothing else that anyone else says will matter.

Wow! I wasn't aware of that. That clearly contradicts Leviticus 25:44-46. So I appreciate that, I'll make sure to write that one down and add to my list of contradictions in the bible.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Wow! I wasn't aware of that. That clearly contradicts Leviticus 25:44-46.

No, it doesnt, shows you dont read context, what is defined there is what i said, whats allowed.

So I appreciate that, I'll make sure to write that one down and add to my list of contradictions in the bible.

Feel free to lie to yourself, you were already told the differences, and its clear now you aren't interested in truth.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I do read through scripture quite often. I wouldn't say it was really crammed down my throat, I accepted it at first, but as I grew, it seemed less and less realistic.
And cite whatever you like!

2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

True to us with a belief system... but apologia must be utilized now. Paul himself said that faith without physical substance is void of hope. He pointed to the evidence of Christ Crucified and resurrected. As many scholarly enemies wrote at length to contest this matter and Roman comedy mocked these events... along with other deeply historical accounts of the matter... we know that there was a man named Jesus and he indeed died by crucifixion and was counted to have a resurrection "conspiracy" associated with him... run on sentence extraordinary lol... we know that the "early" churches faith was based on physical events that afforded concrete faith... instead of blind faith.

To refer an Athiest to the Bible for faith is like referring a person of low intellect to Astro physics to teach him why we have meteor showers.

1 Cor. 15:12-15

 

[Angel4Truth]

To refer an Athiest to the Bible for faith is like referring a person of low intellect to Astro physics to teach him why we have meteor showers.

1 Cor. 15:12-15

I disagree, we lead to Christ, whether they seek the truth after that or not, depends on God and them. This guy here, is playing games, he isnt seeking the truth, which is why he wont find any.

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I disagree, we lead to Christ, whether they seek the truth after that or not, depends on God and them. This guy here, is playing games, he isnt seeking the truth, which is why he wont find any.

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.

I agree with you... but it becomes necessary to tie the Bible to matters we can prove. If the Atheist runs from this... we immediately know they are not void of faith, but rejecting dogma.

Dawkins is a brilliant man and so was Hitchens... rip... but neither of them actually had a true picture of God and thus they never rejected God, but dogma pumped from doctrine of man based institutions.

I am employing a tactic to see if the Atheist is willing to acknowledge certain facts that bring full validity back to the Bible.

If he resists the direction of the physical evidence I was headed towards citing... I know he won't be willing to discuss matters openly, but instead has come here to vent anger at Spiritual abuse he or she has incurred at the hands of poor representatives of Christ.

I am speaking so openly because [MENTION=13987]Angel4Truth[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4465]Bright Raven[/MENTION] are wonderful servants of our Lord and God, Jesus.

I acknowledge both of you are correct... but I was attempting to be "wise as a serpent, but harmless as a dove".

I expose my tactics to make peace with you both.

It was a little good cop bad cop play.

: )

Ya dig?

 

[Atheist19]

No, it doesnt, shows you dont read context, what is defined there is what i said, whats allowed.


Feel free to lie to yourself, you were already told the differences, and its clear now you aren't interested in truth.

Ok, well I just read the entire verse in full, again, and still it has the same meaning it did before. It does discuss servants, which are the ones who "dwell with you". But god still says that you may purchase slaves and own them as property, but you can only do that to the "nations around you".

 

[Angel4Truth]

I agree with you... but it becomes necessary to tie the Bible to matters we can prove. If the Atheist runs from this... we immediately know they are not void of faith, but rejecting dogma.

Disagree again, its not up to us to "prove" God, God proves Himself.

Romans 1:19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, 15since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them

Dawkins is a brilliant man and so was Hitchens... rip... but neither of them actually had a true picture of God and thus they never rejected God, but dogma pumped from doctrine of man based institutions.

I disagree, they have evidence of God that God has already shown them, they refuse it.

I am employing a tactic to see if the Atheist is willing to acknowledge certain facts that bring full validity back to the Bible.

If he resists the direction the physical evidence I was headed towards citing... I know he won't be willing to discuss matters openly, but instead has come here to vent anger at Spiritual abuse he or she has incurred at the hands of poor representatives of Christ.

This guys a troll, using a poor atheist website. Hes not interested in the truth. When he actually wants some, he will seek God, not us.

 

[Atheist19]

True to us with a belief system... but apologia must be utilized now. Paul himself said that faith without physical substance is void of hope. He pointed to the evidence of Christ Crucified and resurrected. As many scholarly enemies wrote at length to contest this matter and Roman comedy mocked these events... along with other deeply historical accounts of the matter... we know that there was a man named Jesus and he indeed died by crucifixion and was counted to have a resurrection "conspiracy" associated with him... run on sentence extraordinary lol... we know that the "early" churches faith was based on physical events that afforded concrete faith... instead of blind faith.

To refer an Athiest to the Bible for faith is like referring a person of low intellect to Astro physics to teach him why we have meteor showers.

1 Cor. 15:12-15

Awesome!

Are you aware that current Egyptology is the marker for all anthropology and historical time frames recorded into the scholarly records?

Archeology and such of modern pursuit.

I am now! haha
What physical events did the early churches use? Because after the 1,2,3, or at least 5 people saw Jesus be resurrected it was from then on hearsay.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

[MENTION=19577]Atheist19[/MENTION] ?

Awesome!

Are you aware that current Egyptology is the marker for all anthropology and historical time frames recorded into the scholarly records?

Archeology and such of modern pursuit.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I am now! haha
What physical events did the early churches use? Because after the 1,2,3, or at least 5 people saw Jesus be resurrected it was from then on hearsay.

This is Dawkins false claim. The sources I cited are fragments of many. I was an Atheist... then an Agnostic... after much research and obsession with evolution and Christian Apologetics... not the kooky stuff... but the historical facts... I conceded.

There were Roman soldiers, Jews and many others who cited that something "odd" happened. Plus... the Gospel differences show a lack of collusion... which is good! One perfectly agreeing account wouldn't contain different perspectives.

Shall we continue with Egyptology and it's current implications?

 

[Atheist19]

This is Dawkins false claim. The sources I cited are fragments of many. I was an Atheist... then an Agnostic... after much research and obsession with evolution and Christian Apologetics... not the kooky stuff... but the historical facts... I conceded.

There were Roman soldiers, Jews and many others who cited that something "odd" happened. Plus... the Gospel differences show a lack of collusion... which is good! One perfectly agreeing account wouldn't contain different perspectives.

Shall we continue with Egyptology and it's current implications.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. What was Dawkins false claim? Also what sources and historical facts are you talking about?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. What was Dawkins false claim? Also what sources and historical facts are you talking about?

If you truely care about this matter... wouldn't you search it out on your own? Doesn't an Atheist pride themself on refusing to be spoon fed facts? I know I did. I still have that same chip on my shoulder. Perhaps you should start by researching Dawkins claim that there is no proof of a man named Yeshua Ben Yoseph.

I'll throw you a bone...

I didn't know about until after I did my own digging.

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Case for ... Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310339308/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_bDNKyb846Y7FE

 

[Crucible]

No point in wasting your time with the poster- if he were actually interested in a theological discussion, he wouldn't have came on here and spit down Christianity right from the get go.

The title of this thread should've been 'Disgruntled Atheist Starter Kit', because it's just basic nonsense from you're basic liberal atheist

 

[Nihilo]

Let's just say for the sake of argument, that the Maker was made flesh, about 20 centuries ago.

If that happened, what evidence might we expect to find, if we suspected that such an event actually occurred, and we examined the historical record?

 

[jsanford108]

I'm extremely new here, so I'm not sure what "OP" is. Also, nothing I say is meant to be read as "malicious", I am sorry if it seems that way, I truly do not mean it to be.

I believe that there could be a god, but as of now I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that there is one. I am fairly confident that if there is a god, that it almost certainly isn't the god of the bible. There are too many errors, contradictions, and fables for me to believe that. Let me ask you, do you believe the literal word of the bible? If not, how exactly do you view the bible?

No worries. As I said, I don't attribute the "malicious" label to you. I have not taken anything you have said as negative.

As far as how I view the Bible, I view it as exactly as it is written, while keeping the perspective of the authors in context. For example, if it says that a bear ate two kids, the bear ate two kids. If it says that the world was flooded, it may have seemed that way from the point of view of the author. Make sense? Most of the figurative or allegorical subjects are pretty clearly marked in their respective passages. But as I said, it must be viewed in context with the perspective of the author.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[chair]

So the entire basis of Christianity is based on a painfully obvious prophesy fail according to you?...

Let's see now. Chritianity's successes are either in the spiritual realm ("grace", " salvation"), or will happen some day in the future when Jesus returns.

Not very convincing.

The only evidence you have for anything is your holy book. Which may be good enough for you- but don't expect it to convince the outsider.

 

[Crucible]

The only evidence you have for anything is your holy book. Which may be good enough for you- but don't expect it to convince the outsider.

I expected no less a response from a Jew.
Joining up with others to try and diminish Christianity- and then calling everything against you 'antisemitism'.

Christianity doesn't fret over you all; God isn't begging any of you to come to Him. I'm a Reformed Christian, you can leave it these 'evangelists' to try and convince you

He draws whom He draws
And
You were all made to be an example of what not to be :wave2: