CH1Y0
RyoSW
synesthesia_death
RyoSW
synesthesia_death
RyoSW
Nemesis Erinys
RyoSW
CH1Y0
In this world we can, that's the beauty of it.
Revelations is the sensible one not to believe if any though.
RyoSW says:
Perhaps in your world we can, but the truth is the truth.
Even if you deny the truth, it still remains, because truth is objective.
Revelations makes sense, if you take the time to study it. However, there are a lot of things that while we can understand what is said, we don't know how they will represent themselves. The horsemen for example... how will they show up? I believe it will be a literal series of horsemen who will wreak havoc, however they could be representative of some other thing. That's the only confusion I get from it.
Perhaps in your world we can, but the truth is the truth.
Even if you deny the truth, it still remains, because truth is objective.
Revelations makes sense, if you take the time to study it. However, there are a lot of things that while we can understand what is said, we don't know how they will represent themselves. The horsemen for example... how will they show up? I believe it will be a literal series of horsemen who will wreak havoc, however they could be representative of some other thing. That's the only confusion I get from it.
What makes you think that the bible is the truth?
RyoSW says:
The old testament because Jesus validated them, the new testament because of historical evidence and all of it because of divine inspiration. The Nicene council was not just a bunch of religious fools slapping a book together. They scrutinized every book meticulously, throwing out plenty of popular books that contradicted the OT or was too old to have been written in the proper times, ect.
The old testament because Jesus validated them, the new testament because of historical evidence and all of it because of divine inspiration. The Nicene council was not just a bunch of religious fools slapping a book together. They scrutinized every book meticulously, throwing out plenty of popular books that contradicted the OT or was too old to have been written in the proper times, ect.
It is mostly spiritual inspiration, not historical.
Still, it bears lots of flaws...
RyoSW says:
Flaws... do tell.
Also, there are records of Jesus' life in documents kept by Pharisees and Romans. They validate some of the claims of the Gospels, such as Jesus' existence, crucifixion, and the fact that his body was not in it's tomb three days later.
Flaws... do tell.
Also, there are records of Jesus' life in documents kept by Pharisees and Romans. They validate some of the claims of the Gospels, such as Jesus' existence, crucifixion, and the fact that his body was not in it's tomb three days later.
Then for some strange reason, his existence is still doubted by many scholars to the very day. And the sources that mention his existence(aside the biased gospels), are also doubted...
No use in debating his physical existence, we can present sources for both sides; still you will believe that he effectively existed because it fuels your system of belief.
Since it does not do the same for mine, his existence better suits me as an allegorical one(as some sources as the gnostics have also believed).
RyoSW says:
Gnostics denied key things about Christianity and created contradictory and false doctrine. That's why the early Church denied him.
As for the gospel being biased, I have to ask what does biased mean to you? Would you call a history book biased towards Napoleon because it claims he existed?
And excuse me, but even my middle school textbooks taught that Jesus existed. They didn't make any religious claims, just said he existed. As a human being.
Gnostics denied key things about Christianity and created contradictory and false doctrine. That's why the early Church denied him.
As for the gospel being biased, I have to ask what does biased mean to you? Would you call a history book biased towards Napoleon because it claims he existed?
And excuse me, but even my middle school textbooks taught that Jesus existed. They didn't make any religious claims, just said he existed. As a human being.
RyoSW
CH1Y0
Nemesis Erinys
CH1Y0
Nemesis Erinys
RyoSW
...many of the books were written by unschooled men who shouldn't have been able to write what they did.
Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that they didn't actually write it then, rather than assume that a mystical being possessed their bodies and minds and wrote through them?
You say tomato I say tomáto, it's all a question of agency then.
It seems to be a matter of logic.
falsified document = logical
supernatural being possesses body and mind of man to write book = arguable illogical
First one must assume the existence and interest of the divine, that skews the logic somewhat.
RyoSW says:
And if I proved by logic that something divine did exist? X3 Would you think that assuming the divine does exist skew logic then?
And if I proved by logic that something divine did exist? X3 Would you think that assuming the divine does exist skew logic then?
CH1Y0
RyoSW
CH1Y0
Nemesis Erinys
CH1Y0
Nemesis Erinys
RyoSW
...many of the books were written by unschooled men who shouldn't have been able to write what they did.
Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that they didn't actually write it then, rather than assume that a mystical being possessed their bodies and minds and wrote through them?
You say tomato I say tomáto, it's all a question of agency then.
It seems to be a matter of logic.
falsified document = logical
supernatural being possesses body and mind of man to write book = arguable illogical
First one must assume the existence and interest of the divine, that skews the logic somewhat.
RyoSW says:
And if I proved by logic that something divine did exist? X3 Would you think that assuming the divine does exist skew logic then?
And if I proved by logic that something divine did exist? X3 Would you think that assuming the divine does exist skew logic then?
Iconoclast Enthusiast
5,650 Points
-
200
-
100
-
100
RyoSW
Nemesis Erinys
RyoSW
Nemesis Erinys
RyoSW
RyoSW says:
Perhaps in your world we can, but the truth is the truth.
Even if you deny the truth, it still remains, because truth is objective.
Revelations makes sense, if you take the time to study it. However, there are a lot of things that while we can understand what is said, we don't know how they will represent themselves. The horsemen for example... how will they show up? I believe it will be a literal series of horsemen who will wreak havoc, however they could be representative of some other thing. That's the only confusion I get from it.
Perhaps in your world we can, but the truth is the truth.
Even if you deny the truth, it still remains, because truth is objective.
Revelations makes sense, if you take the time to study it. However, there are a lot of things that while we can understand what is said, we don't know how they will represent themselves. The horsemen for example... how will they show up? I believe it will be a literal series of horsemen who will wreak havoc, however they could be representative of some other thing. That's the only confusion I get from it.
What makes you think that the bible is the truth?
RyoSW says:
The old testament because Jesus validated them, the new testament because of historical evidence and all of it because of divine inspiration. The Nicene council was not just a bunch of religious fools slapping a book together. They scrutinized every book meticulously, throwing out plenty of popular books that contradicted the OT or was too old to have been written in the proper times, ect.
The old testament because Jesus validated them, the new testament because of historical evidence and all of it because of divine inspiration. The Nicene council was not just a bunch of religious fools slapping a book together. They scrutinized every book meticulously, throwing out plenty of popular books that contradicted the OT or was too old to have been written in the proper times, ect.
What do you mean by "divine inspiration?"
What historical evidence do you have in mind?
The Council of Nicaea happened over 300 years after Jesus supposedly lived. Who knows what information they missed, or changed, or was changed when they found it, perhaps without their knowledge? It is not only possible but likely that they did not do a perfect job with this. Also, them throwing out books suggests to me that they only put in what they wanted in.
RyoSW says:
Divine inspiration is simply YHWH, as the father, son, or holy spirit, actively guiding the writings of these books to reveal themselves to the human race in a more obvious way.
Historical evidence stated above. I will find it if you wished, but note how now major scientists, historians, or philosophers debate the fact that he existed?
And while it is possible that the Council did screw up, you're going to have to realize a few things. First of all, the content of the books of the bible have all been referenced to older copies before the Council and found to be faithful to the originals.
Secondly, they worked off of the basis of the old testament and the work of the early church patriarchs. If anything, and I mean anything, was either too old to be from them or did not concur with those texts, it was thrown out. There was nothing arbitrary about it.
Divine inspiration is simply YHWH, as the father, son, or holy spirit, actively guiding the writings of these books to reveal themselves to the human race in a more obvious way.
Historical evidence stated above. I will find it if you wished, but note how now major scientists, historians, or philosophers debate the fact that he existed?
And while it is possible that the Council did screw up, you're going to have to realize a few things. First of all, the content of the books of the bible have all been referenced to older copies before the Council and found to be faithful to the originals.
Secondly, they worked off of the basis of the old testament and the work of the early church patriarchs. If anything, and I mean anything, was either too old to be from them or did not concur with those texts, it was thrown out. There was nothing arbitrary about it.
I get that you believe in god and Jesus and the bible and all that jazz. I'm asking WHY? Why do you believe it?
Theologians since the 1900s have declared that the gospels are unreliable, being written long after Jesus' death. (For example, they disagree on where Jesus was born and how Mary and Joseph got there, and there are events mentioned which have been historically placed at dates which would make the some events of the bible impossible.)
RyoSW
CH1Y0
Of course, proof and assumption have the same effect.
RyoSW says:
Wait... logical proof skews logic? I seriously doubt that.
Wait... logical proof skews logic? I seriously doubt that.
Iconoclast Enthusiast
5,650 Points
-
200
-
100
-
100
Iconoclast Enthusiast
5,650 Points
-
200
-
100
-
100
CH1Y0
RyoSW
CH1Y0
Of course, proof and assumption have the same effect.
RyoSW says:
Wait... logical proof skews logic? I seriously doubt that.
Wait... logical proof skews logic? I seriously doubt that.
Indeed, it skews it to a system where the proof fits. Logic is absolutely skewed for it is a linearity.
RyoSW
Nemesis Erinys
I get that you believe in god and Jesus and the bible and all that jazz. I'm asking WHY? Why do you believe it?
Theologians since the 1900s have declared that the gospels are unreliable, being written long after Jesus' death. (For example, they disagree on where Jesus was born and how Mary and Joseph got there, and there are events mentioned which have been historically placed at dates which would make the some events of the bible impossible.)
RyoSW says:
Theologians? Name a couple, so I can research them. Biblical theology and apologetics all refute those positions.
Theologians? Name a couple, so I can research them. Biblical theology and apologetics all refute those positions.
CH1Y0
Keltoi Samurai
Alien Dog
17,850 Points
-
200
-
100
-
100
RyoSW
CH1Y0
RyoSW
CH1Y0
Of course, proof and assumption have the same effect.
RyoSW says:
Wait... logical proof skews logic? I seriously doubt that.
Wait... logical proof skews logic? I seriously doubt that.
Indeed, it skews it to a system where the proof fits. Logic is absolutely skewed for it is a linearity.
RyoSW says:
So let me get this straight... you're arguing that my logic is wrong if it changes public opinion?
So let me get this straight... you're arguing that my logic is wrong if it changes public opinion?
CH1Y0
RyoSW
CH1Y0
RyoSW
CH1Y0
Of course, proof and assumption have the same effect.
RyoSW says:
Wait... logical proof skews logic? I seriously doubt that.
Wait... logical proof skews logic? I seriously doubt that.
Indeed, it skews it to a system where the proof fits. Logic is absolutely skewed for it is a linearity.
RyoSW says:
So let me get this straight... you're arguing that my logic is wrong if it changes public opinion?
So let me get this straight... you're arguing that my logic is wrong if it changes public opinion?
RyoSW
Keltoi Samurai
read your bible.
old testament and new.
view the new through the lens of the old, just like how we view the future through the lens of our past experiences.
( in this post, I will be using Messiah in the Christian sense, where it means "savior" and there is only one, rather than the Jewish translation, which means "anointed one" and there have been many. in the Jewish sense, Yeshua was indeed a Messiah, since he was anointed, but not the King of the Jews since he did not free them from bondage. )
you will see that Yeshua ( btw, the closest english translation of that would be "Joshua," not "Jesus." ) in fact did NOT fit the prophesies. first off, Joseph was descended of the line of Abraham through David, and Yeshua was NOT the son of Joseph, thus not of the line of Abraham through David ( lest they would have included Mary's genealogy, not Joseph's ). second, he did not deliver the Jews from their oppression. had Yeshua been the Messiah, the Jews would have been largely unaffected by the Holocaust of WWII. if Yeshua were the Messiah, there'd be no Christians, or does King of the Jews not ring a bell? does the Queen of England serve as the figurehead of France and Spain? then why is the King of the Jews followed by Christians and Catholics?
also, the prophesies never said anything about the "son of God." he just had to free the Jews and lead them to greatness. nothing about "spiritual freedom," just "freedom."
[opinion]
( I'm reminded of ICP's song "hellelujah" and the part about "This boy is healed. Now to the naked eye, it would appear that this boy has not been healed, but I can assure you, this boy's spirit has been healed. Inside this tangled, mangled frame is a healed little boy. His spirit is healed, Hallalujah!"
lacking the Salvation that was the job of the Messiah, Yeshua's followers decided to say it was never about actual salvation, but instead about spiritual salvation. thus, since the observable thing that was promised never happened, they decided to change the promise to something that could never be proven one way or the other, just to cover their own asses. )
[/opinion]
thus, by data observable in the very basis of the religion, it is a fraud.
[/thread]
old testament and new.
view the new through the lens of the old, just like how we view the future through the lens of our past experiences.
( in this post, I will be using Messiah in the Christian sense, where it means "savior" and there is only one, rather than the Jewish translation, which means "anointed one" and there have been many. in the Jewish sense, Yeshua was indeed a Messiah, since he was anointed, but not the King of the Jews since he did not free them from bondage. )
you will see that Yeshua ( btw, the closest english translation of that would be "Joshua," not "Jesus." ) in fact did NOT fit the prophesies. first off, Joseph was descended of the line of Abraham through David, and Yeshua was NOT the son of Joseph, thus not of the line of Abraham through David ( lest they would have included Mary's genealogy, not Joseph's ). second, he did not deliver the Jews from their oppression. had Yeshua been the Messiah, the Jews would have been largely unaffected by the Holocaust of WWII. if Yeshua were the Messiah, there'd be no Christians, or does King of the Jews not ring a bell? does the Queen of England serve as the figurehead of France and Spain? then why is the King of the Jews followed by Christians and Catholics?
also, the prophesies never said anything about the "son of God." he just had to free the Jews and lead them to greatness. nothing about "spiritual freedom," just "freedom."
[opinion]
( I'm reminded of ICP's song "hellelujah" and the part about "This boy is healed. Now to the naked eye, it would appear that this boy has not been healed, but I can assure you, this boy's spirit has been healed. Inside this tangled, mangled frame is a healed little boy. His spirit is healed, Hallalujah!"
lacking the Salvation that was the job of the Messiah, Yeshua's followers decided to say it was never about actual salvation, but instead about spiritual salvation. thus, since the observable thing that was promised never happened, they decided to change the promise to something that could never be proven one way or the other, just to cover their own asses. )
[/opinion]
thus, by data observable in the very basis of the religion, it is a fraud.
[/thread]
RyoSW says:
You tell me to read my Bible then attack those things that the Bible states?
Again, tell me what prophecies didn't Jesus fulfill?
And nowhere did the OT say that the Messiah would deliver them from the hands of the Romans. In fact, not all of the prophecies about the Messiah saving the people from oppression were made to an enslaved or oppressed Israel.
Similarly, neither did the salvation ever become exclusive to the Jews.
You tell me to read my Bible then attack those things that the Bible states?
Again, tell me what prophecies didn't Jesus fulfill?
And nowhere did the OT say that the Messiah would deliver them from the hands of the Romans. In fact, not all of the prophecies about the Messiah saving the people from oppression were made to an enslaved or oppressed Israel.
Similarly, neither did the salvation ever become exclusive to the Jews.