Jesus' Four Failed Prophecies About Him Returning In The Lifetimes Of His Apostles

[Subduction Zone]

“The demands were clear” only to you, SZ, so this means nothing.
I used the generic ‘you’ because I knew that most people would understand the difference between a generic pronoun and a specific one. I forgot to take into consideration your language comprehension problem. For this I apologize. I’ll try another way: "The person who makes the claim produces the evidence. That’s how it works."
Do you understand now?

I always understand you. You were caught making a demand and now you are trying to change that after the fact. Not very convincing.

No, you can’t. You may think you have evidence that the Bible is a book of myths. But you cannot prove it. Once again you highlight your ignorance concerning epistemology (the theory of knowledge)
But do give it a go, SZ! I would so enjoy watching you trying to prove that the Bible is a book of myths.

Oh please, are you going to try to use an overly limited definition of "prove"? Sorry, but you once again show that you cannot use context properly. When one "proves" something it is almost never "proof" in the mathematical sense. It is proof to the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". This should not have to be explained otyou.

LOL! Just another example of your consistent failure of comprehension.
And another strawman. Tsk!

Oh my, so sad. No sense of humor either and a total inability to understand sarcasm. Your posts are one failure after another. Too bad that you do not know how to properly apply logical fallacies. But at least you are consistent in that.

 

[samtonga43]

I always understand you. You were caught making a demand and now you are trying to change that after the fact. Not very convincing.

You really don’t understand the difference between generic and specific, do you? Ah well, such is the tiny world of SZ!

Oh please, are you going to try to use an overly limited definition of "prove"? Sorry, but you once again show that you cannot use context properly. When one "proves" something it is almost never "proof" in the mathematical sense. It is proof to the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". This should not have to be explained otyou.

Please don't be 'sorry', SZ. You make me laugh, and that's always good. But even more lack of comprehension! What made you think I was speaking of axiomatic proof? That was another false assumption, SZ.
But wait; you seem to be saying that you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a book of myths. Please do, SZ!!. Start right now; the world is waiting! Such proof will make you famous in theological
circles. Atheists of your type will shout from the rooftops: "The Bible is a book of myths -- proved at last!" While intelligent atheists and Christians will shake their heads with pity.

Oh my, so sad. No sense of humor either and a total inability to understand sarcasm. Your posts are one failure after another. Too bad that you do not know how to properly apply logical fallacies. But at least you are consistent in that.

I don’t have the time or the crayons to explain sarcasm to you, SZ. Suffice to say that it should be clever, and therefore amusing. But keep trying!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really don’t understand the difference between generic and specific, do you? Ah well, such is the tiny world of SZ!


Please don't be 'sorry', SZ. You make me laugh, and that's always good. But even more lack of comprehension! What made you think I was speaking of axiomatic proof? That was another false assumption, SZ.
But wait; you seem to be saying that you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a book of myths. Please do, SZ!!. Start right now; the world is waiting! Such proof will make you famous in theological
circles. Atheists of your type will shout from the rooftops: "The Bible is a book of myths -- proved at last!" While intelligent atheists and Christians will shake their heads with pity.

I don’t have the time or the crayons to explain sarcasm to you, SZ. Suffice to say that it should be clever, and therefore amusing. But keep trying!

Feeling sorry for you is all that I can have. And it is laughable that you think you need to explain a concept to me that you never seem to get.

And still running away from a reasonable debate. Though you deny it your actions say that you are afraid of me. You are simply not very believable when you deny it.

 

[Trailblazer]

But wait; you seem to be saying that you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a book of myths. Please do, SZ!!. Start right now; the world is waiting! Such proof will make you famous in theological circles. Atheists of your type will shout from the rooftops: "The Bible is a book of myths -- proved at last!" While intelligent atheists and Christians will shake their heads with pity.

Lol, disproving the Bible would make SZ almost as famous as proving God doesn't exist...
Glad you two are having fun. I am too darned tired to have fun today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, disproving the Bible would make SZ almost as famous as proving God doesn't exist...
Glad you two are having fun. I am too darned tired to have fun today.

You don't seem to realize that much of it has been disproved. It never was my goal to disprove all of it. Sadly your credibility has fallen lately.

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't seem to realize that much of it has been disproved. It never was my goal to disprove all of it. Sadly your credibility has fallen lately.

If you believe you have disproved the Bible please show me how you did that. I am not saying that I believe the Bible is all literally true, as I do not believe that the myths such as Adam and Eve, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, Noah's Ark, and parting the waters of the Red Sea (to name a few) are literally true, but I believe that Jesus existed and that the teachings of Jesus are true.

I think people need to separate fact from fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you believe you have disproved the Bible please show me how you did that. I am not saying that I believe the Bible is all literally true, as I do not believe that the myths such as Adam and Eve, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, Noah's Ark, and parting the waters of the Red Sea (to name a few) are literally true, but I believe that Jesus existed and that the teachings of Jesus are true.

I think people need to separate fact from fiction.

Are you not listening? I specifically stated that I could not refute the entire Bible nor am I interested in doing so. The myths that you do not believe in have been disproven. Jesus probably existed, but there is no reason to believe half of the stories of the Bible, but I did not even claim that I could refute the mythical parts of the Jesus story. I can refute the Noah's Ark myth, the Garden of Eden myth, and give a good case for the Exodus being mythical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you not listening? I specifically stated that I could not refute the entire Bible nor am I interested in doing so.

Yes, I heard that, but if you cannot discredit the entire Bible that means some of the Bible is still valid, so Christianity is not a wash.
So now what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I heard that, but if you cannot discredit the entire Bible that means some of the Bible is still valid, so Christianity is not a wash.
So now what?

No, it does not. That is a false dichotomy. It is as false as the creationists' belief that if you refute one part of the Bible you have refuted all of it. Whether any part of the Bible is valid or not depends upon several factors. Almost the whole thing coulld be bunk or up to say 70% of it could be valid. There is a lot of gray area.

There are very good arguments against the traditional view of Jesus's death on the cross. Historians will be out that it is highly unlikely that he would have been taken down. For Rome to use crucifixion Rome had to decide that he was a risk. Trying to blame it on the Jews in the crowd does not make much sense. Once a person is crucified the Romans left the person up on the cross. That was a clear threat against others that felt the same way. It was a daily reminder of the cost of doing certain "crimes".

That casts doubt on the whole resurrection story, but it does not quite refute it.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it does not. That is a false dichotomy. It is as false as the creationists' belief that if you refute one part of the Bible you have refuted all of it. Whether any part of the Bible is valid or not depends upon several factors. Almost the whole thing coulld be bunk or up to say 70% of it could be valid. There is a lot of gray area.

There are very good arguments against the traditional view of Jesus's death on the cross. Historians will be out that it is highly unlikely that he would have been taken down. For Rome to use crucifixion Rome had to decide that he was a risk. Trying to blame it on the Jews in the crowd does not make much sense. Once a person is crucified the Romans left the person up on the cross. That was a clear threat against others that felt the same way. It was a daily reminder of the cost of doing certain "crimes".

That casts doubt on the whole resurrection story, but it does not quite refute it.

How can you refute the resurrection story, would that not be like trying to prove a negative?
As a Bahai, I don't have ti worry about whether it is true or not, because the authoritative Baha'i view is as follows:

"........Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you refute the resurrection story, would that not be like trying to prove a negative?
As a Bahai, I don't have ti worry about whether it is true or not, because the authoritative Baha'i view is as follows:

"........Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

No. It is not. There are quite a few huge holes in the Bible story.

For example if there were Roman guards at the tomb what do you think would have happened?

 

[Trailblazer]

No. It is not. There are quite a few huge holes in the Bible story.

For example if there were Roman guards at the tomb what do you think would have happened?

I know there are holes in the Bible story but I believe it was a fictional story and of that I have no doubt. I do not know that story very well or what kind of guards there were. What do you think would have happened if there were Roman guards?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know there are holes in the Bible story but I believe it was a fictional story and of that I have no doubt. I do not know that story very well or what kind of guards there were. What do you think would have happened if there were Roman guards?

Let's set up some background. The Romans were ruthless dictators. Which is why they would not have taken Jesus down in the first place. Leaving him up was part of the punishment. By the way, the fact that a limb of a crucified Jew does not refute this. The Hebrews used crucifixion as a punishment themselves at times. The Hebrews would have followed their own law and they would likely take a person down for a holiday. The Romans, not so much.


But let's say that they took him down and for some odd reason that Romans decided to guard the tomb. Sooner or later either the guard would not come back or the next guard would have found the empty tomb too. The disciples would have been arrested themselves. But we here nothing about that. That contradiction alone makes the resurrection story very very dubious. You might look at some of the links that @joelr has supplied on this matter.

 

[samtonga43]

Feeling sorry for you is all that I can have. And it is laughable that you think you need to explain a concept to me that you never seem to get.

And still running away from a reasonable debate. Though you deny it your actions say that you are afraid of me. You are simply not very believable when you deny it.

What a weak, tired predictable response.

 

[samtonga43]

Lol, disproving the Bible would make SZ almost as famous as proving God doesn't exist...
Glad you two are having fun. I am too darned tired to have fun today.

Sorry about your tiredness, Tb. I am enjoying reading your posts and I appreciate your informative posts. I will respond later to your previous post in our conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a weak, tired predictable response.

You make weak tired and predictable replies yourself. That is all that you get. When you continue to demonstrate cowardice by running away while trying to taunt others you will only get laughed at.

When you are over your fear of me perhaps we can have a discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry about your tiredness, Tb. I am enjoying reading your posts and I appreciate your informative posts. I will respond later to your previous post in our conversation.

LOL! You responded to a clearly false post that she realized was wrong as being "informative". I know, you like any post that attacks me. Otherwise you would be attacking her.

 

[samtonga43]

LOL! You responded to a clearly false post that she realized was wrong as being "informative". I know, you like any post that attacks me. Otherwise you would be attacking her.

I used 'posts' (plural). Do take time to read before rushing to respond with your silly remarks.
And do something about that persecution complex. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used 'posts' (plural). Do take time to read before rushing to respond with your silly remarks.
And do something about that persecution complex. You are embarrassing yourself.

Oh so cute!

 

[samtonga43]

You make weak tired and predictable replies yourself. That is all that you get. When you continue to demonstrate cowardice by running away while trying to taunt others you will only get laughed at.

When you are over your fear of me perhaps we can have a discussion.

Feeling sorry for you is all that I can have. And it is laughable that you think you need to explain a concept to me that you never seem to get.

And still running away from a reasonable debate. Though you deny it your actions say that you are afraid of me. You are simply not very believable when you deny it.

SZ, you would not recognize a reasonable debate if you were a spectator, so there's really not much hope that you may ever be invited to participate.

Now, listen carefully, SZ. Ready?.....
No one, absolutely no one in this forum is afraid of you. Honestly, they are not.
Your constant repetition of this phrase is a bit worrying, actually. You are out of synchrony with the way things are in the real world. Why do you think that I, or anyone else, would ever be afraid of you?

I forgot to ask; when will you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a book of myths?