Results 1 to 15 of 426

Thread: Christianity in 30 Seconds

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Christianity in 30 Seconds

    An almighty God decided he was either bored or lonely so he creates a universe of immense size to house one small, third-rate planet where he can create beings whose purpose is to make him feel better by loving and adoring him.

    Since God needed to be sure his created people would only love him because they chose to love him, he gave humans the free choice not to believe him. Unfortunately, the very first human chose to ignore this God, and this God got all pissed and put a curse on the little planet and all its future inhabitants. In fact, he even created a scenario where after the first human chose to disobey, all subsequent humans would be born automatically bound for hell unless they accepted God's bizarre get-out-of-hell-free option. Rather than simply give humans the option to die and no longer exist, this God decided he would forever burn the skin off of those who didn't choose to love and adore him.

    Thus this God, in his infinite love, informed his created people that they need to either love and adore him or they'll go to the hell he created, which basically negates the idea of giving people free will. After all, most humans will make choices they would not otherwise make when someone is holding a gun to their head.

    Of course, this God, knowing everything that will happen in the future, foresees that more than 95% of the people he creates (without asking us if we wanted to be created) will either not be well enough informed to get out of hell or will simply reject the idea of a need for Christian salvation. But the Christian God, knowing this in advance, still decided to create these humans even though he knew he'd end up torturing billions of them in an endless lake of fire, all so he could have a handful of the faithful to give him love and adoration.

    Not yet satisfied, this God decides to create his get-out-of-hell-free card by killing his own creation or by killing his own son. First he has his followers kill and burn animals because he really got off smelling the burning blood. Then he turned his son into one of his creation so he could have him beaten and killed with his blood flowing everywhere. And to top it off, he also said that those who love and adore him should then either symbolically or literally eat the human flesh and drink the human blood of his son in order to fully love and adore this God.

    This God really loves spilling blood and then making people drink it.

    Finally, this God decided to tell his created people of this plan through a cryptic and hard to interpret set of books and then relied on his created people to join together to decide which of those books really came from this God and which ones did not. They couldn't do it based on evidence, however, so they just basically guessed. Because this God didn't decide to make it clear to all humans just how to get their get-out-of-hell-free card, this God allowed the obvious confusion to lead to thousands of different interpretations of this set of books, meaning many who think they have found God's get-out-of-hell-free card actually will still be tossed into the lake of fire by this loving God.

    Oh, and to make it even worse, this God decides to be mute most of the time, and instead asks those who love and adore him to be his spokespeople, thus allowing all kinds of strange things to be said in his name.

    Amen, and pass the plate.

    BTW: Everything I listed here is biblically supported and exists in all major Christian doctrines. Most, however, make it a little more palatable and flowery.

    (I saw this I just had to post this here...

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

  2. #2
    The King Akamu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.

    --- David Coppedge
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    (This post was needed because there is an enormous amount of bloated evolution "theory" flying about these forums-)

  3. #3
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Akamu
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    (This post was needed because there is an enormous amount of bloated evolution "theory" flying about these forums-)
    Scientists disagreeing about what's contained in the theory but not the evolution is how we current modern day humans evolved..nor do I hear any of the scientists stating..."GOD DID IT" either.

    Nothing wrong with scientists disagreeing over the finer points...

    But its a quantum ****ing leap to suggest EVOLUTION is NOT accepted by scientists...fine tune the theory for sure..no problems with that..unlike the primitive religions of morons which cannot evolve beyond what is written in their magic fairy tale books.

    At the end of the day science is an always will be superior to religion because it can evolve.

  4. #4
    The King Akamu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    It's funny how you will only respond to something you "think" you can answer, when your not even completely sure about it.

    Let me just put it to you this way Mr. Evolution, Mr. Atheist, whatever you want to call yourself.

    It can be a 50 / 50 chance...

    Believing in God's word, that being the Bible, repenting for your sins and trying to live a decently honest life, and believing in God. Creationism is much more interesting, and better proven.

    -OR-

    You can run with your Evolution, Atheistic views and the people that back up this evolution stuff (wonder what some of them believe in.) Evolution happens to be an explanation aka "theory" that is not solidly proven.

    Basically you have "faith" in this evolution theory, and I have "faith" in God and his word.

    That is soley for you decide, keep researching-

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    That article shuts them down. Period.

  6. #6
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Akamu
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    (This post was needed because there is an enormous amount of bloated evolution "theory" flying about these forums-)
    That article is completely false. We've seen evolution occur in species today. Mr. Conspiracy Theory, or whatever you want to call yourself, you don't know sh*t about evolution, genetics, and the classification of species. Don't bother trying to argue the subject here. Fact remains, you cannot prove intelligent design, but we can prove evolution. Now, go back to the real story telling...the bible.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Aug 08, 2008 at 09:22.

  7. #7
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    An almighty God decided he was either bored or lonely so he creates a universe of immense size to house one small, third-rate planet where he can create beings whose purpose is to make him feel better by loving and adoring him.

    Since God needed to be sure his created people would only love him because they chose to love him, he gave humans the free choice not to believe him. Unfortunately, the very first human chose to ignore this God, and this God got all pissed and put a curse on the little planet and all its future inhabitants. In fact, he even created a scenario where after the first human chose to disobey, all subsequent humans would be born automatically bound for hell unless they accepted God's bizarre get-out-of-hell-free option. Rather than simply give humans the option to die and no longer exist, this God decided he would forever burn the skin off of those who didn't choose to love and adore him.

    Thus this God, in his infinite love, informed his created people that they need to either love and adore him or they'll go to the hell he created, which basically negates the idea of giving people free will. After all, most humans will make choices they would not otherwise make when someone is holding a gun to their head.

    Of course, this God, knowing everything that will happen in the future, foresees that more than 95% of the people he creates (without asking us if we wanted to be created) will either not be well enough informed to get out of hell or will simply reject the idea of a need for Christian salvation. But the Christian God, knowing this in advance, still decided to create these humans even though he knew he'd end up torturing billions of them in an endless lake of fire, all so he could have a handful of the faithful to give him love and adoration.

    Not yet satisfied, this God decides to create his get-out-of-hell-free card by killing his own creation or by killing his own son. First he has his followers kill and burn animals because he really got off smelling the burning blood. Then he turned his son into one of his creation so he could have him beaten and killed with his blood flowing everywhere. And to top it off, he also said that those who love and adore him should then either symbolically or literally eat the human flesh and drink the human blood of his son in order to fully love and adore this God.

    This God really loves spilling blood and then making people drink it.

    Finally, this God decided to tell his created people of this plan through a cryptic and hard to interpret set of books and then relied on his created people to join together to decide which of those books really came from this God and which ones did not. They couldn't do it based on evidence, however, so they just basically guessed. Because this God didn't decide to make it clear to all humans just how to get their get-out-of-hell-free card, this God allowed the obvious confusion to lead to thousands of different interpretations of this set of books, meaning many who think they have found God's get-out-of-hell-free card actually will still be tossed into the lake of fire by this loving God.

    Oh, and to make it even worse, this God decides to be mute most of the time, and instead asks those who love and adore him to be his spokespeople, thus allowing all kinds of strange things to be said in his name.

    Amen, and pass the plate.

    BTW: Everything I listed here is biblically supported and exists in all major Christian doctrines. Most, however, make it a little more palatable and flowery.

    (I saw this I just had to post this here...

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    That pretty much sums it up. And people actually believe this crap. Talk about gullible.

  8. #8
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Ohh stop now your sounding just as dumb as Lyfe over there. First off, I've gone through that link of yours.

    Not one scientist in that entire piece talks about how EVOLUTION has never occurred, they all agree that it A) has taken place, B) is taking place currently, C) has taken place now even as we speak. None of them also state the "GOD of the Gaps" argument you people are trying to make. Like I said, you want to disagree about variation, geological time scales, dating methods, the actual genetic ancestor to ourselves...that's all perfectly permissible. But understand these disagreements are based on two things A) Evidence, B) Logical conclusions. Scientists disagreeing eventually over EVOLUTION science is only going to lead folks further away..thank goodness from the primitive, ignorant, dumb assertions of the book of fables many folks seem to put so much stock and trust in. If society was to stop as at the technological and medical advance since the bible...we would not have over 95% of the things we have now today.

    Science will always take time to find the ANSWERS..correctly by weighing the evidence we have present. Religion is always going to do nothing more than state for the answers sciences does not currently possess to equate them to GOD or some other deity.

    You cannot prove GOD is not really Zeus in disguise. Or Jesus did walk the earth. You folks make the assertion these things are real. Now if you want to argue over what is "real" and "truth" I direct you both to Socrates and Plato.

    I and other like me on the other hands...state there is no diety not based on anger..but simply because there is no evidence to prove there actually is one. Some of the designs alone on rabbits, the human body...are not the intelligent way they should've been designed had their been a creator involved. You say there is a GOD, angels, demons, heaven, hell...by all means bring back evidence of their being one..instead of handing out beliefs as truth that you know fully well cannot be backed up.

    Science will always be science..whose to say in 100 years..a magician will not be looked at as a prophet.

    Once again go back to the other thread....I've already explained what "theory" means in scientific terms..if you grasped this concept already..then clearly you did not understand it based on your response. Evolution has been proven to occur...PERIOD. Still waiting on some convincing proof and evidence of your GODS, demi-Gods etc..etc..

    I don't have faith in evolutionary theory...I know it is true...because it's a fact..fact's by definition are values which have been proven to be true by venue of evidence and logic.

    You people really do have trouble with the definition of "faith" don't you?

    It is not faith that 1+1=2, it is not faith that there are 12 inches in 1 foot, it is not faith that there are 60 minutes in 1 hour. THESE ARE ALL FACTS.

    It is faith however, when you believe there is a divine creator in the sky that in order to get into paradise you have to watch everything you do and say...that a man died and physically went up into the clouds eventhough after the stratosphere there is no oxygen..that this same man walked on water...turn 2 fish and 3 loaves of bread to feed thousands..that bushes can burn and talk to you...that his spit made a blind man start seeing again...that there is an evil beast that want's your soul..that you have a soul..that 1 man and 1 woman can start an entire population of over 6 billion people...that thunder is GOD banging his hammer...that water can be turned into whine...that any metal can be turned into gold (alchemy)...that since there is a paradise..and GOD has made life so ****ty for u..it's wrong to skip straight to GO..and collect your heavenly reward of paradise...(no suicide)...it's faith when you decide that you will LIVE after your are DEAD..it is faith when you believe a serpent can mouth words to a woman...that Angels knock on people's doors in the middle of the night...that a woman can turn into a pillar of salt for simply looking back..that it's all right for man to have sex with his two daughters eventhough he is drunk.

    Faith is nothing more than the reasoning of fools based on stupidity.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    While science is taking it's time to find these answers, I'm still waiting for one of the wise evolutionist's to disprove 1 prophecy for me. Has not happened yet.

    Plus, if science is the way, why is the world so jacked up? We live in the age of technology. Why is the world worse than it has ever been?

  10. #10
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    While science is taking it's time to find these answers, I'm still waiting for one of the wise evolutionist's to disprove 1 prophecy for me. Has not happened yet.

    Plus, if science is the way, why is the world so jacked up? We live in the age of technology. Why is the world worse than it has ever been?
    Can you prove your god thought? No. They are on equal levels.

    And who says the world is worse? Are you crazy? People living longer, better rights and liberties, social equality making leaps and bounds, etc... Yeah, its a lot better than the days of kings and public stonings that you wished you lived in.

    I'm quite sick of your idiotic statements like that one.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Can you prove your god thought? No. They are on equal levels.
    God's word foretold what our time would be like. In fact, with deeper study of the bible it foretold the leading world power that would even exist in our time. There is no way John or any other bible writer could have known these things unless someone with Knowledge could convey them. That is my proof.

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    And who says the world is worse? Are you crazy? People living longer, better rights and liberties, social equality making leaps and bounds, etc... Yeah, its a lot better than the days of kings and public stonings that you wished you lived in.

    I'm quite sick of your idiotic statements like that one.
    Keep these two bible quotes in mind when reading this excerpt from Wiki.

    PSALMS 90:10 In themselves the days of our years are seventy years;
    And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years,
    Yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things;
    For it must quickly pass by, and away we fly.

    ECCLESIATES 3:11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish.

    This is saying mankinds years on avg are between 70-80 years. And even that most people do not want to die, and want to live forever. The bible says God put these things in motion. Let's see what Wiki says about our current lifespan and if people are satisfied with it.

    History
    Longevity according to the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] was estimated on average to be "threescore and ten", that is 70 years, and "by reason of strength be extended to fourscore", that is 80 years.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] In addition, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], the famous lawgiver of Ancient Greece, in his dialogue with Croesus stated 70 as the allotted length of life for man.[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]] The longest living person as recorded in the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] was [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], who was said to have lived nearly a millennium.
    There are many organizations dedicated to exploring the causes behind aging, ways to prevent aging, and ways to reverse aging. Despite the fact that it is human nature not to wish to surrender to old age and death, a few organizations are against antiaging because they believe it sacrifices the best interests of the new generation and/or that it is unnatural and/or unethical. Others are dedicated to it, seeing it as a form of [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and the pursuit of [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Even among those who do not wish for eternal life, longevity may be desired to experience more of life or to provide a greater contribution to humanity.
    A remarkable statement mentioned by [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (c. 250) is the earliest (or at least one of the earliest) references about plausible centenarian longevity given by a scientist, the astronomer [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of Nicea (c.185c.120 B.C.), who, according to the doxographer, assured that the philosopher [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (c.470/460c.370/360 B.C.) lived 109 years. All other accounts given by the ancients about the age of Democritus appear to, without giving any specific age, agree on the fact that the philosopher lived over 100 years. This is a possibility that turns out to be likely, given the fact that many ancient Greek philosophers are thought to have lived over the age of 90 (e.g., [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], c.570/565c.475/470 B.C., [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of Ellis, c.360c.270 B.C., [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of Cirene c.285c.190 B.C., etc.) and because of the difference that the case of Democritus evidences from the case of, for example, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of Crete (VII, VI centuries B.C.), who is said to have lived 154, 157 or 290 years, as has been said about countless elders even during the last centuries as well as in the present time. These cases are not verifiable by modern means.

    [[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]] Present life expectancies around the world

    Various factors contribute to an individual's longevity. Significant factors in life expectancy include [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], access to [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], diet and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Below is a list of life expectancies in different types of countries:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]: . . . 77-83 years (e.g. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]: 80.1 years, 2005 est)
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]:. . . 35-60 years (e.g. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]: 40.3 years, 2005 est)
    Population [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] can be seen as increasing due to increases in life expectancies around the world:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ][[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]:. . . . . 81.02 years in 2002, 82.31 years in 2005[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]: . . 80 years in 2002, 80.39 years in 2005[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]:. . . . . . 79.25 years in 2002, 79.68 years in 2005[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]: . . . .79.05 years in 2002, 79.60 years in 2005[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]: . . 77.78 years in 2002, 78.65 years in 2005[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]: . . . . . . 77.99 years in 2002, 78.4 years in 2005[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]: . . . . . 77.4 years in 2002, 77.7 years in 2005[[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]]
    The current validated longevity records can be found in the list of [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Notable individuals include:
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (1875-1997, 122 years and 164 days) the oldest person in history whose age has been verified by modern documentation. This defines the human [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], which is set by the oldest documented individual who ever lived.
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (1865-1986, 120 years 237 days, disputed) the oldest male ever recognized by the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]; this is widely questioned by scholars, who believe that [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of dates has occurred and this has compromised the authenticity of Izumi's age.
    • [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (1882-1998, 115 years 252 days) the oldest male widely accepted by scholars.
    So even in today's superb technological society, people are still living on avg between 70-80 years. Just like the bible writer in Psalms said.

    By the way. With all these technological advances we have, we still have world famine on a global worst scale. We still have jobless, homeless, uneducated, unhealthy people on alarming scales. Drugs killing our people. Corrupt leaders in governments. We have seen more deaths in the last 90 plus years due to war than all of the wars from ad 1 to ad 1899. We have nuclear warheads that could wipe out huge chunks of life in an instant, and the fear that a nutbag world ruler might set on off. Meanwhile, scientists continue to help governments build them.

    News flash. The more advancements we make, the more we seem to go backwards. 1 step forward for science, two steps back for man. And they are still figuring things out.

    Meanwhile, the bible stays consistent, with credible answers to why things are, and what will soon be. One just has to wanna peer into it.

  12. #12
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Paul, thanks; but I've studied Christianity, at length, and I can't bind myself to it, because I see no evidence. I'm the type of person that needs evidence, or I can't believe. I also feel that Christianity was forced on my people, in Latin America, and I'm not willing to follow, just because 400 years have passed. I don't think truth is static, that it can be contained in a book or in a person. I'm going to continue trying to live morally and ethically, I'll live and die by my values. However, I cannot do something that's against my conscience. Even if the bible's God is real, I don't know that I want to live forever, especially if it means living with most of humanity, which has turned out to be a very depraved species.

    All right, over and out.

    Just wanted to add that I respect what you have to say about not needing an organization, especially in light of what some of these organizations, like the JW, do to people. Look at lyfe, they've taken this young man and told him that, without the JW organization, there is no way, all when Jesus said "I am the truth (another of God's titles) and the way." I think if you're going to be a real Christian, you have to have that personal understanding, like what you said, Paul. If you don't, you're just sitting on a bench, passively, as opposed to actively, listening.
    Last edited by OGKnickfan; Sep 03, 2008 at 08:09.

  13. #13
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default On the subject of failed prophecies

    Why do you people continue to challenge me as if you are actually going to win? Just like I said to be in a relationship with god, coincides greatly with battered spouse syndrome. Just think about that for a while folks.Getting back to my point about FAILED..that is WRONG/FALSE/INCORRECT biblical prophecy!!!

    In short there is no Old Testament prophecy which point to Yeshua ha Notzri (JESUS) who lived around the first three decades of the first century as a messiah or as a divine person.Let's go through them one by one...(WARNING THIS IS GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN ONE POSTING).Many of the prophecies presented "AS Evidence" could be easily dismissed as mere wishful thinking.

    Let us look at a few:

    Jesus' Pre-Existence

    The prophecy given here is from Micah 5:2. This is the verse as given in his book:[6]

    Micah 5:2
    From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His going forths are from long ago, From the days of eternity.

    The "fulfillment" of this prophecy is supposedly the passage below:

    Colossians 1:7
    And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

    Amazing! AN anonymous author in the New Testament makes for fulfilled prophecy! Even if the author is Paul, the passage is nothing more than an empty assertion. It takes someone really gullible and seeped in the belief of biblical inerrancy to even to begin to consider this to be a case of prophecy fulfillment.

    That is not the only problem with the passage. Modern translations such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) showed no such allusion of the messiah's pre-existence:

    Micah 5:2 NRSV
    from you shall come forth for me, one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

    The passage, as read in the NRSV, simply shows that the messiah's ancestors are ancient. The Good News Bible (GNB) translates this even more clearly:

    Micah 5:2 GNB
    but out of one of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times.

    Jesus Called Immanuel

    Isaiah 7:14
    "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin is with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel".

    SUPPOSED FULFILLMENT...

    Matthew 1:22-23
    And this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin is with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel-which means 'God is with us'".

    Another startling and puzzling assertion. With this passage he claimed that Jesus was called Immanuel. But Matthew's passage was simply a repeat of the passage from Isaiah and nowhere else in the gospels was Jesus ever referred to by that name. Clearly the claim is meaningless and nonsensical.

    Jesus as Priest

    The Old Testament passage is this:

    Psalms 110:4
    "The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, 'Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

    The supposed fulfillment, get this(!), is:

    Hebrews 5:5-6
    "So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high Priest, but He who said to Him, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee'; just as He says also in another passage, 'Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchidezek.'"

    Seated at the Right Hand of God

    Here the "prophecy" is also in Psalms:

    Psalm 110:1
    "The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."

    The supposed fulfillment:

    Hebrews 1:3
    "...When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high

    Again an unfounded assertion by an anonymous author about Jesus sitting at the right hand of God is taken as a "fulfillment". Pure nonsense.

    This is just a handful of the false and stupid New Testament one's..next posting will address some of the one's from the OLD TESTAMENT that many evangelicals used, and still use to fit Jesus's life.

  14. #14
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default A Few Old Testament Failed Prophecies

    A few failed prophecies from the Old Testament

    The Return of Joseph and Mary from Egypt

    Matthew 2:14-15
    And he [Joseph] rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord has spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt will I call my son."

    The Old Testament passage Matthew was quoting came from the book of Hosea. Let us look at that passage in its context:

    Hosea 11:1-2
    When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.

    It takes either a very gullible person, or someone who is bent on believing no matter what, to actually believe that the passage in Hosea above relates to Jesus.

    * In the first place the passage was in past tense ( "I called" as opposed to Matthew's "will I call"). Thus Matthew had tweak the Old Testament passage ever so slightly.

    * And in the second place it is not even a prophecy at all.

    The whole passage talks about the calling out of the Israelites from Egypt as narrated in the Pentateuch. Thus my son in this passage meant the whole Israelite nation.

    The portions clearly could not be applied to Jesus (who was sacrificing to Baal and burning incense to idols on the way back from Egypt? Joseph? Mary? Jesus?) yet the passage is obviously an organic whole. This is also another example of a prophecy taken out of it's context in order to fit something that CAN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

    Herod's Slaughter of the Children

    Matthew 2:16-18
    Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

    A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted because they were no more .

    Let us look at the relevant passage in Jeremiah:

    Jeremiah 31:15-17

    Thus says the Lord:
    A voice is heard in Ramah,
    lamentations and bitter weeping.
    Rachel is weeping for her children:
    She refuses to be comforted for her children,
    because they are not.
    Thus says the Lord:
    Keep your voice from weeping,
    and your eyes from tears;
    for your work shall be rewarded,
    says the Lord:
    and they shall come back from the land of the enemy.
    There is hope for the future,
    says the Lord, and your children will come back to their own country.

    ***Note that here we have another case of taking a quote out of context. This time the whole sense of the passage has been changed. As Jeremiah 31:17 showed Rachel's children, far from being slaughtered, will come back home. Seen in this context it is obvious what is meant by the phrase "they are not" in Jeremiah 31:15. It means that her children are at the moment not physically present in their homeland, they are in the land of the enemy where they shall return. Thus Matthew had given a meaning to Jeremiah 31:15 that it did not have.***

    ***Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem(THE HUGE CONTRADICTION)**

    The passage supposedly prophesying Jesus birth is found in the book of Micah.

    Micah 5:2
    But you O Bethlehem Ephranath, who are little among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler of Israel

    Of course both Matthew (2:1) and Luke (2:4-7) mentioned that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Thus, while we do not doubt that both Matthew and Luke claimed that Jesus was born there, how certain are we that this is actually historical and ACCURATE??

    The accounts of how Bethlehem became the birthplace of Jesus in Luke and Matthew contradict one another. This is a crucial first step; for if the two stories contradict one another, then at least one of these must be false.

    Other passages imply Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus

    The tradition of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem surfaced late (close to 100 CE) and is not found in the earliest gospel Mark (circa 70 CE) nor in the epistles of Paul (circa 50 CE). It is important to appreciate this time frame. It is as though a story about something that happened before the first world war (i.e. before 1914) only surfaced today (2001 CE).

    THE ACTUAL QUOTES AND EXPLANATION!!!

    Both Matthew and Luke stated that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea. But the ways both gospels connect Jesus' birth to that Judean town are contradictory and immediately arouses suspicion.

    * Matthew made Bethlehem the home town of Mary and Joseph from the beginning.

    * Luke made Nazareth their home town and they had to move to Bethlehem because of the census.
    * Other earlier traditions speaks against Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus.

    * The reason why Bethlehem was the place chosen by later tradition (and used by Matthew and Luke) was that it was prophesied in the Old Testament.


    n Matthew, the impression we get is that both Mary and Joseph were already living in Bethlehem during the time of the annunciation and the conception:

    Matthew 1:24-2:1
    When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea...

    Note that no mention is given of any travelling between Joseph taking Mary home as his wife and the birth of Jesus. In fact anyone reading the nativity story in Matthew alone will conclude that Joseph and Mary were natives of Bethlehem as is confirmed by the passage below (after the flight of Joseph and his family to Egypt):

    Matthew 2:19-23
    When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead." Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth

    Especially in the view of the earlier passage, the one above gives definite proof that Joseph wanted to return to his home town of Bethlehem but was prevented from doing so by the fact that Archelaus was the new tetrarch. His making Nazareth a home came after this.

    In Luke, however, we are told that both Mary and Joseph were living in the Galilean town of Nazareth before the annunciation:

    Luke 1:26-27
    In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

    So Luke makes Mary and Joseph natives of Galilee. The event that made them travel to Bethlehem was the Roman census under Quirinius. According to the evangelist, the Roman census require everyone to register in the town of their ancestor. Since David was from Bethlehem, Joseph had to travel Judea to register himself.

    Luke 2:1-7
    In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered.This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

    Luke's version is historically suspect for many reasons. While there was nothing unusual per se about a Roman census (in fact Josephus corroborates the fact that there was a census in Judea when Quirinius was governor of Syria), the method of taking the census, by herding everyone to register in the towns of their ancestors, is unheard of in the history of the Roman Empire.

    The Roman censuses were always taken for economic purposes, to determine the amount of taxable income of the residents of their provinces. The Romans had always taken the census at the place of residence and not in their ancestral hometown.

    Furthermore, the census, if conducted in the manner described by Luke, was extremely impracticable: each and every Israelite will have to recall the residence of their ancestors who lived when Joshua partitioned the land of Palestine among the twelve tribes, i.e. an event that occurred more than one thousand years before the census!

    And finally why would Joseph haul Mary along with him to Bethlehem, when she was already in an advances stage of pregnancy. The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is about one hundred kilometers and would have taken an exhausting ten days or so on donkey-back. The fact that Mary was not even required for the census further compounds this problem.

    In short, Luke's whole scenario is unconvincing and , especially his description of the method of the Roman census, without any historical support.

    Our suspicion as to the basic unhistorical of the account of the birth in Bethlehem is further aroused by the fact that apart from the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, there is no evidence elsewhere in the New Testament to support it. We find in Mark, the oldest of all the gospels, passages that seem to imply the birthplace of Jesus as Nazareth in Galilee:

    Mark 6:1
    He [Jesus] left that place and came to his hometown...

    The original Greek of the words in Mark 6:1 is patrida autou which means one's homeland, native country or hometown. Thus there is no reason to quibble with the translation provided by the NRSV. The whole section covered in the early chapters of Mark show Jesus preaching in the towns and villages of Galilee. So Mark 6:1 is telling us that Jesus' hometown, or native place, must be a town in Galilee. In the first verse referring to Jesus in Mark, this is how he was introduced:

    Mark 1:9
    In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

    Anyone reading these passages in Mark, without any references to Matthew or Luke will doubtless conclude that Jesus was born in Nazareth in Galilee. Furthermore we find that in all the three synoptics, Jesus was henceforth referred to as "the Galilean" or "the Nazarene" with no further reference being made to his birth in Bethlehem.

    There is even one passage in John where, had the evangelist been aware of the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem would certainly have inserted it here:

    John 7:41-43

    Others said, "This is the Messiah." But some asked, "Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?" So there was a division in the crowd because of him.

    Surely John would have shown that the Jews' doubts were based on their own ignorance about Jesus ancestry and place of birth had he believed that Jesus was of the house of David and born in Bethlehem. The above passage strongly suggests that John was relying on a tradition about Jesus that included neither the descendents from David nor the birth in Bethlehem!!!!

    Assuming, of course, that Luke does not have the audacity to invent his whole account of the Nativity, it is probable that both Matthew and Luke received different and, perhaps still amorphous, traditions regarding the birth of Jesus. For instance, it is possible that the tradition stated only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem not how his parents got there. Thus both Matthew and Luke simply added details to the story as they see fit. Could this tradition of the birth in Bethlehem be based on historical fact? It is not impossible, of course, that the tradition could have been grounded on historical fact. But I think it unlikely. For one thing it obviously reached both evangelist in different or indefinite forms, had it been historical one would expect more "meat" in the story. Secondly the birth in Bethlehem supposedly fulfilled an Old Testament passage. This is explicitly stated in Matthew:

    Matthew 2:4-5

    When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet...

    Matthew was quoting from Micah 5:2. What is wrong with this? Let us listen to what theologians Don Cuppitt and Peter Armstrong said in their book, Who Was Jesus?:

    So our first principle of historical criticism must be: be wary of any details in the gospels which have close parallels in the Old Testament.

    The reasoning is simple. The early Christians, not having access to information about the early life of Jesus and not knowing where he was born, searched, or rather ransacked, the Old Testament to look for references to Jesus. And having found the verse in Micah concluded that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem. The fact that the birth in Bethlehem fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy, therefore makes the whole tradition of doubtful historicity.

    I REST MY CASE...IT'S ALL BULL**** FOLKS. PERIOD.

Similar Threads

  1. Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum Hangout
    Replies: 296
    Last Post: Jan 23, 2013, 16:16
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: Jul 27, 2008, 02:29
  3. The Bible - Proof that Christianity is True
    By Paul1355 in forum Hangout
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: Jul 12, 2008, 18:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •