Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The final anti-Christ

How the Bible states that the day was lengthened is irrelevant to whether or not the story. Many people still speak of the sun moving across the sky, from east to west; it is just a figure of speach based on our earthly perception not a scientific statement.

You seem to dismiss miracles a priori so of course no matter what anyone says, the story is impossible to you. Miracles are, however, very consistent with the God of the Bible, not contradictory.
 
Well, it's now moving into the playing with words realm
where reality is expected at the end of a logic argument.

It's like talking about how light looks in a dark room where
people insist on "all there ever was was darkness" and the
position where others talk about light as actual reality is
perceived as imaginary, especially because their reports
seem to differ.

Now I have one question too, Brad, 448 posts to argue about
that? Is your time worth nothing to you? Let's be realistic for
a second, light doesn't exist for you. And your point is?
 
Geo said:
Well, it's now moving into the playing with words realm
where reality is expected at the end of a logic argument.

It's like talking about how light looks in a dark room where
people insist on "all there ever was was darkness" and the
position where others talk about light as actual reality is
perceived as imaginary, especially because their reports
seem to differ.

Now I have one question too, Brad, 448 posts to argue about
that? Is your time worth nothing to you? Let's be realistic for
a second, light doesn't exist for you. And your point is?


Funny you should ask me what my point is :o

Can anyone decipher Geo's response here? Any volunteers? :-?
 
BradtheImpaler said:
Geo said:
Well, it's now moving into the playing with words realm
where reality is expected at the end of a logic argument.

It's like talking about how light looks in a dark room where
people insist on "all there ever was was darkness" and the
position where others talk about light as actual reality is
perceived as imaginary, especially because their reports
seem to differ.

Now I have one question too, Brad, 448 posts to argue about
that? Is your time worth nothing to you? Let's be realistic for
a second, light doesn't exist for you. And your point is?


Funny you should ask me what my point is :o

Can anyone decipher Geo's response here? Any volunteers? :-?


Well it doesn't make that much sense Brad, but I think there is definitely the suggestion that Geo, "is in the light", and you are, "in the dark". Of course, if someone is in so much "light", you would expect that they could put together some clear and rational argument.

I guess I am probably in too much "darkness" to understand him... :)
 
Yeah Brad, your point. Why are you here? What's your subject,
or if you don't have one, what do you know from experience.
So we can talk about that.
 
Free said:
Many people still speak of the sun moving across the sky, from east to west; it is just a figure of speach based on our earthly perception not a scientific statement.



"God made two great lights the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." (Genesis 1:16 NIV)

Some would object that the moon isn't exactly a "light", it only reflects the light of the sun. However, perhaps the words of the Bible here are only a, "figure of speech".

I will suggest a possible problem-

"The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted." (Isaiah 30:26 NIV)

The sun is something like 400,000 times brighter than the full moon. In the verse quoted, the sun is 7 times brighter, and results in the moon being 400,000 times brighter!
 
How the Bible states that the day was lengthened is irrelevant to whether or not the story. Many people still speak of the sun moving across the sky, from east to west; it is just a figure of speach based on our earthly perception not a scientific statement.

You seem to dismiss miracles a priori so of course no matter what anyone says, the story is impossible to you. Miracles are, however, very consistent with the God of the Bible, not contradictory.

I'm not dismissing the miracle a priori. I would hope no one would do such a thing. If a miracle was to happen like stopping the Earth from spinning there should be evidence of such a thing happening.

No where else in recorded history do we ever see such a thing happening. If the Earth did really stop then other cultures would have had evidence of such a thing. Yet we see no record of such miracle happening. For example the Chinese, and Myan people have very meticulous Astronomical records yet no evidence of a long day occuring.

Not to speak of all the geological effects that stopping the Earth from spinning would naturally incurr. There would be terrible windstorms and tidal waves. Yet none of this happened.
 
Geo said:
Yeah Brad, your point. Why are you here? What's your subject,
or if you don't have one, what do you know from experience.

I know from experience that when guys like you realize they don't have a case they tend to shift to a personal attack mode, asking things like -

"Why are you here?" :D

So we can talk about that

Also changing the subject like you are attempting to is a good clue you have just realized you made a mistake. So let's get it out in the open. Are you saying that you do not interpret scripture?
 
Are you saying that you do not interpret scripture?

What was I saying regarding that? Please read again

P.S. Also check the top left of this page the name of this forum
and let me know your relationship to the subject.
You want to convince me for some reason that is not obvious,
that you talk about something you personally can relate to or
have intention to discuss.

If so, how do you relate and why?

Let me put it in other terms. Let's say this would be a forum
about Internet Marketing. Wouldn't it be more than obvious to
the marketers if someone tries to construct a personal opinion
about marketing that is neither a marketer himself, has any regard
for marketing and judges everything he says from the angle of a
"save the whales activist".

This thread is called "The final anti-Christ" so there is a minimum
knowledge required about "Christ" and "anti-christ" to participate.
You cannot just open your mouth and be a critic that has an opinion.
You need either a foundation or an experience in these subjects,
now which one is it?
 
BradtheImpaler said:
I know from experience that when guys like you realize they don't have a case they tend to shift to a personal attack mode, asking things like -

"Why are you here?" :D
I guess I'm guilty also because I often ask the same question.

BTW Geo, nice analogy in the above post. I try and avoid subjects I know little about. Someone that doesn't know Jesus will have little clue what an antichrist is or how to identify The Antichrist.
 
BradtheImpaler said:
The vehement (and oftentimes, downright nasty) argumentation between Christians on dozens of essential doctrines on this forum and many others has only convinced me more and more that there is no real common Spirit involved there. (that is, some supernatural Spirit that is leading and guiding Christians into "all truth") There is a spirit (small "s") of comraderie based on several of the most fundamental doctrines, but no greater amount of "oneness" than can be naturally attributed to any religious group which Christians would claim did not possess the Spirit.



"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other, they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side." - Celsus (2nd century)

:D
 
DivineNames said:
BradtheImpaler said:
The vehement (and oftentimes, downright nasty) argumentation between Christians on dozens of essential doctrines on this forum and many others has only convinced me more and more that there is no real common Spirit involved there. (that is, some supernatural Spirit that is leading and guiding Christians into "all truth") There is a spirit (small "s") of comraderie based on several of the most fundamental doctrines, but no greater amount of "oneness" than can be naturally attributed to any religious group which Christians would claim did not possess the Spirit.

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other, they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side." - Celsus (2nd century)

:D

Perfect little pigs

As usual, DivineNames lies.

  • "Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side." -- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
This too is actually a bogus quote. The words above were actually written by R.J.Hoffmann in the 1980's in his reconstruction of Celsus, p.91. But if you check you find Celsus wrote something rather different. I went and located the 'quote' in Hoffmann, and then cross-referenced it back to the real quote in Origen Contra Celsum, book V, chapter 64. Here's Hoffmann:-

  • Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side. Like so many sirens they chatter away endlessly and beat their breasts. The world (they say to their shame) is crucified to me and I to the world. (Hoffmann, p.91)
Here it is (minus Origen) in Chadwick's standard edition:
  • ... some are called 'branding-irons of hearing' ... some are called 'enigmas'... some called Sirens who are cheats of disgraceful conduct, who seal up the ears of those whom they win over, and make their heads like those of pigs ... And you will hear all those, he says, who disagree so violently and by their strife refute themselves to their utter disgrace, saying 'The world is crucified unto me and I to the world'.
Hoffmann has made three sentences of this material, where in the original are two fragments, and two sentences; and he has split the second sentence into two and combined it with material from the first. In sentence 1 Hoffmann omits the reference to the Sirens and 'sealing ears' (all a reference to the Odyssey) and likewise to transforming them from men into pigs (Circe, again in the Odyssey), and reuses the words. (I think Celsus would be pretty put out to see his classical allusion so cavalierly destroyed!) Where do the words 'perfect', 'little' come from? Why is 'Sirens' put into the next sentence? From where is the 'chattering endlessly' and 'beat their breasts'? - and do Sirens do this, in classical mythology?

The point that Celsus is making depends on the classical allusion. The Christians become less than men (pigs) when they listen to those who charm to deceive (Sirens, Circe), just as Odysseus' men did. Being less than men, of course they take no part in human society - and we find in Tertullian's apology that pagans often accused Christians of being bad citizens because they did not take part in pagan society. This is all good, second-century stuff.

By contrast in modern English to make someone a pig, or a pig of yourself, has a very definite meaning, of excess and selfishness. Is this idea present in Celsus? *His* pig is the victim of deception, not the servant of gluttony.

Unless I am much mistaken, Hoffmann's text does not say what the quotes from Celsus give us. Many of the words are the same - but not in the same places or same contexts. If this is representative - and I didn't choose the passage - in what sense is his book a representation of Celsus, rather than of Hoffmann?

I'm sorry if this seems like a small point. But we can only check whether a translator is doing his job right by examining in fine detail. If Hoffmann wants to write anti-Christian polemic, perhaps he might do so in his own person.

Source: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/celsus/celsus.htm

What else would we expect from the atheists?

:o :o
 
If the quote is inaccurate, then its fair enough to point out the mistake. However, its not really a "lie" is it?

Gary said:
As usual, DivineNames lies.

No Gary, I do not usually lie, and I have not lied here. Please explain what "lies" I have been telling in these forums?
 
bible

Heidi said:
[

Not only that I'm little unsure which bible you are refering to? KJV or NASB or perhaps the mormon bible is what you are refering to?

That's because you're trying to understand the bible through human wisdom rather than spiritual wisdom. Human wisdom is fallible and limited to each person's experiences in life. It therefore is not capable of seeing the bigger picture. But once you receive the Holy Spirit, you will see how every single word in the bible has a meaning and a purpose and it can be related to all future words in the bible. One could spend his whole life studying the bible and still not see all the correlations between the Old and new testaments. :)[/quote]
I believe you were asked WHICH bible were you referring to and for which denomination. Since all of the books of the bible are supposedly inspired from God who inspired the 14 books of the bible (Apocrypha) to be written and then discarded. Since they were discarded by ordinary men are they still relevent?
 
All of the books in the bible are Holy Spirit insipired, which is precisely why the apocrypha are not included in the bible because they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. :)
 
Vic said:
Heidi said:
All of the books in the bible are Holy Spirit insipired, which is precisely why the apocrypha are not included in the bible because they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. :)
Heidi, Jesus and most everyone else back then used the Greek Septuagint. Guess what was in the Septuagint ? 8-)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html

I agree that the New Testament probably often quotes the Greek Old Testament. But that does not prove that the apocryphal books contained in the Greek manuscript of the Old Testament are inspired.

Geisler said:
It is not certain that the Septuagint (LXX) of the first century contained the Apocrypha. The earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from the fourth century a.d. Further, even if they were in the Septuagint of apostolic times, Jesus and the apostles never once quoted them, although they are supposed to have been included in the very version of the Old Testament (the LXX) that they usually cited.

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 161).

:)
 
Geo said:
Are you saying that you do not interpret scripture?

[quote:84d35]What was I saying regarding that? Please read again

You said if you read and believe scripture literally you are not interpreting it. So if you and another Christian differ in your understanding of a certain passage or scripture, he/she must be interpreting it because you are simply "reading literally"?

P.S. Also check the top left of this page the name of this forum
and let me know your relationship to the subject.
You want to convince me for some reason that is not obvious,
that you talk about something you personally can relate to or
have intention to discuss.

If so, how do you relate and why?

I think all I have to give you is my name, rank, and serial number?

Name: BradtheImpaler

(no rank - no serial number :sad sorry)


Let me put it in other terms. Let's say this would be a forum
about Internet Marketing. Wouldn't it be more than obvious to
the marketers if someone tries to construct a personal opinion
about marketing that is neither a marketer himself, has any regard
for marketing and judges everything he says from the angle of a
"save the whales activist".

This thread is called "The final anti-Christ" so there is a minimum
knowledge required about "Christ" and "anti-christ" to participate.
You cannot just open your mouth and be a critic that has an opinion.
You need either a foundation or an experience in these subjects,
now which one is it?
[/quote:84d35]

I have both a foundation and experience. Will there now be a quiz before I can qualify to continue discussion? (I hope it's "multiple choice" :) )
 
Gary said:
As usual, DivineNames lies.

You have accused me off telling lies, "as usual". If that claim were true, you should have plenty of examples which you could cite in support of it.

As it happens, you obviously can't find even one example of where I have been dishonest.

I guess you have proven yourself a liar with that false accusation. :)
 
Regardless of who is involved, I think people should not make claims that people are liars. If A (unwisely and ungenerously in my view) goes ahead and says that B is liar, then A should be prepared to defend that claim if and when "called on it". If A cannot defend the claim, A should retract (at the very least).

What seems to be a lie can simply be an error.
 
Back
Top