The Circle Dance: Trotting Out Tired Old Timothy ... (tradition, Epistles)

[blueman]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

That is a rather stupid argument. Feel free to pursue it in its own thread. But first, since your soul is at stake, you might wish to focus your efforts on embracing the Book of Mormon - if only because of the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

First of all, it is a legitimate statement I made for the purpose of this debate and it's only stupid, because you don't agree with it. You are a naturalist, so I don't expect you to embraced anything that is spiritually ordained or would be considered super natural. Your mind is already made up when it comes to this issue.

*** EDITED BY MODERATOR *** Joseph Smith's martyrdom is not the topic here.

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by Snowbear

Actually, I was asking why you continue to engage in the biblical debates that ultimately end up frustrating you.

But.... vapid sarcasm is more my style....

Nice rebuttal! I find it simply filarious that someone would accuse you of doing what he has mastered.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

michel: Scott has made clear that there was no intent to plagiarize. I should have checked with you offline before making an accusation that was clearly baseless. I apologize, and will delete the post.

No problem Deut; it happens.

[Master Vigil]

Originally Posted by blueman

Then where does scripture get its inspiration? From man? Even the most hardened skeptic would have to acknowledge that scripture, especially the New Testament Gospels, that it would have been pretty far-fetched in men conspiring to make up stories or legend that they would be willing to die for. It just doesn't make any sense to die for a lie does it? I think that scripture was God-ordained and inspired. The authors of scripture would not all be willing to sacrifice their lives for a fraud.

I have a problem with this. Only that you don't take into consideration the other religious texts, and myths of the age and the one's that pre-date christianity. Are they "too far fetched for man?" If so, why are they less valid than the bible? If not, why are they not as far fetched as the Myth of Jesus? You also don't take into consideration all of those in other religions that die for their beliefs. Are they sacrificing their lives for lies? So which beliefs are true? The one's the early christians died for, or the one's that countless other religious people died for?

[Mister Emu]

I have a problem with this. Only that you don't take into consideration the other religious texts, and myths of the age and the one's that pre-date christianity. Are they "too far fetched for man?" If so, why are they less valid than the bible? If not, why are they not as far fetched as the Myth of Jesus? You also don't take into consideration all of those in other religions that die for their beliefs. Are they sacrificing their lives for lies? So which beliefs are true? The one's the early christians died for, or the one's that countless other religious people died for?

You took one point and split it into two...

It is not that the scriptures are "too far-fetched for man"(Which was not in his post, but I will get to that), or that people died...

It was that it would be extremely far-fetched to hold the opinion that the apostles would have made up legends about Jesus, and then be killed for what they know to be lies...

[Master Vigil]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

You took one point and split it into two...

It is not that the scriptures are "too far-fetched for man"(Which was not in his post, but I will get to that), or that people died...

I apologize.

It was that it would be extremely far-fetched to hold the opinion that the apostles would have made up legends about Jesus, and then be killed for what they know to be lies...

Even so, do you believe that the beliefs of native americans are lies? Is it too far fetched that they would make up myths and be willing to die for them? What makes willingness to die a valid argument for the validity of what they are dying for?

[TashaN]

I think to make it short in here ...

1- Let's see who is the one with no sin? Christians will say Jesus Christ is the the only pure one with no sin.

2- Were the writers of these scriptures prophets "at least" so we trust them that much?

3- All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16. why would you believe such a claim from someone ( Paul ) who never ever met Jesus Christ in his life? and he ( Paul ) was just a jew who used christianity by his own rules and by his own thoughts and explainations (which is able to be right or wrong because he was just a human being like us).

- I wonder if anyone of you heard of many people claiming that Jesus came and talked to them (because they really love Jesus and they want to meet him) but who would believe that?


Peace ...

[michel]

Originally Posted by The Truth

1- Let's see who is the one with no sin? Christians will say Jesus Christ is the the only pure one with no sin.

No, Christians will say Jesus is the only Holy One with no sin.

2- Were the writers of these scriptures prophets "at least" so we trust them that much?

Not all of the writers of Scripture were prophets. In the New Testament, only John was, I believe.

3- All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16. why would you believe such a claim from someone ( Paul ) who never ever met Jesus Christ in his life?

Acts 9 records Paul's meeting with Jesus, as recorded by Luke, not Paul.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Acts 9 records Paul's meeting with Jesus, as recorded by Luke, not Paul.

"Recorded" is the perfect term here. Luke saw nothing and new nothing other than what was claimed by Paul. That he reports Paul's claim is worthless as evidence.