Creepier Belief system (2 Viewers)

[shining path]

So if you took a population of white people who average 5'10" for men, and breed them with a population of Japanese whose males average 5'5", you'd get a super race of Anglo-Japanese supermen who average 6'2"?

If by "homogenous" populations you mean "heavily interbred", then sure, bringing some fresh genetic material in will result in healthier offspring because you start masking deleterious recessive genes.  But for a given trait, mixing two populations whose average values differ generally results in intermediate offspring. (This of course goes for traits that vary continuously like height, mass, etc.)

No, but you would end up with a population that is, on average, larger than the 5'10" people.I wasn't specifically referring to small interbred populations. Large, geographically-separated populations will exhibit this behavior also.

Can you at least provide some documentation? Hybrid intermediacy in continuous traits is a pretty well-documented biological phenomenon.

especially in Alabama...

Especially in Alabama, yes.

 

[tangfoot]

Can you at least provide some documentation?

I'm searching right now. Unfortunately, I've discarded all my Anthro notes, so I have to google for it.It may require an email to my former professor, but unless he was lying (there's actually a good possibility of that) I should be able to provide something.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I would never presuppose to tell you I have facts to back my faith in all instances.

Not to go after you, but what proof do you have in SOME instances then?

Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, as were a number of disciples who we have historical documents from and relating to. We know that there was a cencus in the the year in which Mary and Joseph are supposed to have gone to Bethlemehm to register. We know that there are reports of this man, Jesus, purporting to work miracles and be held in high esteem by local people as reported by Josephus. We know that he was executed according to Roman law. We then have all of the synoptic gospel and epistles of the New Testament (mainly Pauline, but also written by several other writers) that were in no way refuted. We have no other choice but to believe them if they are purporting to be eyewitness accounts. I find it odd that the Jews and the Romans would not want to eliminate these accounts that led to the formation of a new religion. Yet, history is strangely silent on these accounts.Now for another approach. Why do you belive anything that has happenedbefore the advent of television and recording capabilities? You place a certain amount of trust in those that record history. Yet for some reason, this particular set of historians are rendered implausible by those that don't view the bible with a sense of historicity. Pick and choose all you want, but I tend to believe the accounts.For more information, I will have to dig through my bible tonight and cross reference that with some notes I took in college.

 

[Bubba]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

because he can throw lightning bolts at us, or turn us into salt...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

 

[Jericho]

Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure

Unconfirmed.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure

Unconfirmed.

Throw out Josephus then, any other historians you don't like. Please provide a list so I know who to believe and not believe.

 

[Jericho]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Note that I am not a new-earth guy, but I have always been fascinated by how scientists date extremely ancient objects. There has to be a pretty significant margin of error, no?

The margin of error for the age of the earth is around 45 million years -- i.e., 1%.If you're really interested in this stuff, read the Isochron dating FAQ at talk.origins.

 

[tangfoot]

Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, as were a number of disciples who we have historical documents from and relating to. We know that there was a cencus in the the year in which Mary and Joseph are supposed to have gone to Bethlemehm to register. We know that there are reports of this man, Jesus, purporting to work miracles and be held in high esteem by local people as reported by Josephus. We know that he was executed according to Roman law. We then have all of the synoptic gospel and epistles of the New Testament (mainly Pauline, but also written by several other writers) that were in no way refuted. We have no other choice but to believe them if they are purporting to be eyewitness accounts. I find it odd that the Jews and the Romans would not want to eliminate these accounts that led to the formation of a new religion. Yet, history is strangely silent on these accounts.

None of this has anything to do with him being holy, or the son of god.You realize that, right?If a zealot comes out and says he's the son of god, why should I bother to refute him? The Jews and the Romans simply didn't believe him. Why should they bother to refute it?One quesiton, Mr. Bible Guy: If Jesus is the son of God, was conceived divinely, why do two separate Gospels derive Jesus bloodline THROUGH JOSEPH?

 

[ScottNorwood]

What's a gospel?

 

[Bubba]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

and who's to say you're not a complete idiot anyway?

 

[Jericho]

I would never presuppose to tell you I have facts to back my faith in all instances.

Not to go after you, but what proof do you have in SOME instances then?

Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, as were a number of disciples who we have historical documents from and relating to. We know that there was a cencus in the the year in which Mary and Joseph are supposed to have gone to Bethlemehm to register. We know that there are reports of this man, Jesus, purporting to work miracles and be held in high esteem by local people as reported by Josephus. We know that he was executed according to Roman law. We then have all of the synoptic gospel and epistles of the New Testament (mainly Pauline, but also written by several other writers) that were in no way refuted. We have no other choice but to believe them if they are purporting to be eyewitness accounts. I find it odd that the Jews and the Romans would not want to eliminate these accounts that led to the formation of a new religion. Yet, history is strangely silent on these accounts.Now for another approach. Why do you belive anything that has happenedbefore the advent of television and recording capabilities? You place a certain amount of trust in those that record history. Yet for some reason, this particular set of historians are rendered implausible by those that don't view the bible with a sense of historicity. Pick and choose all you want, but I tend to believe the accounts.For more information, I will have to dig through my bible tonight and cross reference that with some notes I took in college.

It depends on what is reported. Somebody saying "Henry VIII was beheaded", okay, I'll buy that. People got beheaded back then, sounds fine to me. You tell me that this Jesus character walked on water or turned water into wine, I'm going to need a little more than that.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

First the acount of Josephus -At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.He had no reason to believe in the divinity, but his address does confirm that a person resembling the Bible figure did exist at that time and suffered the fate recorded in the Bible.

 

[Spartans Rule]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

But the world is filled with complete idiots who do things that defy logic.

 

[shining path]

Note that I am not a new-earth guy, but I have always been fascinated by how scientists date extremely ancient objects.  There has to be a pretty significant margin of error, no?

The margin of error for the age of the earth is around 45 million years -- i.e., 1%.If you're really interested in this stuff, read the Isochron dating FAQ at talk.origins.

and the talk.origins links begin to flow...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

Ah, there's the rub, I am talking about my God, and there is no other God but my God. If you couch your question in the form that there are many gods, I would have a dilemma, but my faith precludes all Gods but one.

 

[Jericho]

Note that I am not a new-earth guy, but I have always been fascinated by how scientists date extremely ancient objects.  There has to be a pretty significant margin of error, no?

The margin of error for the age of the earth is around 45 million years -- i.e., 1%.If you're really interested in this stuff, read the Isochron dating FAQ at talk.origins.

and the talk.origins links begin to flow...

Nobody can kill a good evolution debate like Maurile. :kicksdog:

 

[Jericho]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

Ah, there's the rub, I am talking about my God, and there is no other God but my God. If you couch your question in the form that there are many gods, I would have a dilemma, but my faith precludes all Gods but one.

I asked you a question. Quit dancing and answer it. A God appears. You don't know its nature. All you know is it created the world. What do you do?

 

[shining path]

Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure

Unconfirmed.

Throw out Josephus then, any other historians you don't like. Please provide a list so I know who to believe and not believe.

A lot of the questions surrounding these kinds of accounts stem from the possiblity that they may have been inserted by later (Christian) transcribers.

 

[The Football Freak]

First the acount of Josephus -At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.He had no reason to believe in the divinity, but his address does confirm that a person resembling the Bible figure did exist at that time and suffered the fate recorded in the Bible.

I'm not up on Josephus. Who exactly was he? What other historical texts did he write? Was he referenced by other historians? When did he live? Where did he live? Was he a christian?

 

[ScottNorwood]

For those people that do believe in creationism, do you also find scientologists to be kooky, moreso than believers in evolution?

 

[tangfoot]

What do you do?

Disappear in a puff of logic.

 

[Bubba]

First the acount of Josephus -At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.He had no reason to believe in the divinity, but his address does confirm that a person resembling the Bible figure did exist at that time and suffered the fate recorded in the Bible.

who could need more proof than that?

 

[shining path]

First the acount of Josephus -At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.He had no reason to believe in the divinity, but his address does confirm that a person resembling the Bible figure did exist at that time and suffered the fate recorded in the Bible.

I'm not up on Josephus. Who exactly was he? What other historical texts did he write? Was he referenced by other historians? When did he live? Where did he live? Was he a christian?

McDowell quotes two lines of evidence for the historicity of Jesus from Jewish sources.1. Josephus provides independent confirmation to the life of Jesus. The most important non-Christian witness to the historical Jesus is Josephus, who wrote five works in Greek: Life, his autobiography; Contra Apion, a defense of Judaism; The Jewish War, an eyewitness account of the revolt against Rome (66-74 CE); Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades; and The Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews from Adam to his generation. McDowell cites two references to Jesus in The Jewish Antiquities; I will discuss them in reverse order.(a) The reference to James as the brother of Jesus. Josephus described how the high priest Ananus took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus in 62 CE to organize a mob to stone James. McDowell mentions this passage because Josephus identifies James as "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ:"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought it before the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.[17]According to Josephus scholar Louis Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged."[18] However, since there a few scholars who deny the authenticity of this passage, let's consider the arguments for and against authenticity.Of course, McDowell does not consider any of those arguments in ETDAV, but in his book He Walked Among Us (co-authored with Bill Wilson) he presents three arguments in favor of the authenticity of this passage.[19] Let's consider each argument in turn:(1) "The phrase 'James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ' is too noncommittal to have been inserted by a later Christian interpolator who would have desired to assert the messiahship of Jesus more definitely as well as to deny the charges against James." This is probably the single most important argument in favor of authenticity; in my opinion, McDowell and Wilson are right about this. The phrase is incidental to the story. If this passage were an interpolation, it is surprising that so little is said about Jesus and James.[20](2) "Origen refers to this passage in his Commentary on Matthew 10.17, giving evidence that it was in Josephus prior to his time (approximately A.D. 200)." This is true but inconclusive. The fact that the passage was referenced by Origen around 200 is simply inconclusive as evidence for the authenticity; that still leaves well over a century when the passage could have been interpolated.(3) The passage identifies 'Jesus' as the one 'called the Christ,' which "betrays an awareness that 'Messiah' was not a proper name, and therefore reflects Jewish rather than Christian usage." Unfortunately, this is also inconclusive. From the fact that Josephus needed to distinguish this Jesus from other people in his book named Jesus, it does not follow that the phrase "called the Christ" was the most likely way Josephus could have identified Jesus. Josephus could have also said, "the one who was crucified by Pilate," since Josephus' earlier reference to Jesus (see below) did mention that point.[21]McDowell and Wilson also have occasion to consider an objection by G.A. Wells to this passage, that "it is unlikely that Josephus would have mentioned Jesus here simply--as it were--in passing, when he mentions him nowhere else."[22] In response, McDowell and Wilson argue that Wells' "statement demonstrates that even he recognizes that the James passage is incomplete without the Testimonium."[23] However, it is false that the James passage is incomplete without the Testimonium. Just read the passage: the meaning of the passage is quite clear without reference to the Testimonium. Moreover, McDowell's and Wilson's rejoinder completely neglects the primary flaw in Wells' objection. Even if we assume that the Testimonium is completely inauthentic, there is simply no reason to expect Josephus to have said anything more about Jesus.But the above objection is hardly the only objection to the authenticity of this passage, and it is certainly not Wells' only objection. In Wells' 1982 book, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Wells objects that "the Greek does not have 'so-called' but 'him called Christ,' and this, so far from being non-Christian, is the exact wording of Mt. 1:16."[24] Furthermore, in Wells' later books, he presents additional objections to the authenticity of the passage.[25] So while I think McDowell's and Wilson's conclusion concerning this passage is correct, their discussion is incomplete. Readers interested in a complete summary of the debate concerning this shorter passage will need to go elsewhere.

Link

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure

Unconfirmed.

Throw out Josephus then

There are two passages in Josephus that mention Jesus -- "Jesus, if one may call him a man," and "James, the brothr of Jesus" (or something like that) -- and there are serious questions about the authenticity of both passages. They appear to have been added or changed by a later editor.But even if they are authentic, Josephus wasn't reporting anything he saw first-hand. He was reporting stories that he'd heard about from others. His book came out in 93 A.D.Also, strictly speaking, "Jesus of Nazareth" is unconfirmed because Nazareth itself is not confirmed to have existed in the first century. The "Nazareth" in "Jesus of Nazareth" appears to have been a mistranslation by the early Greeks for "Nazarene," the Hebrew word for a messianic sect of Judaism.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, as were a number of disciples who we have historical documents from and relating to. We know that there was a cencus in the the year in which Mary and Joseph are supposed to have gone to Bethlemehm to register. We know that there are reports of this man, Jesus, purporting to work miracles and be held in high esteem by local people as reported by Josephus. We know that he was executed according to Roman law. We then have all of the synoptic gospel and epistles of the New Testament (mainly Pauline, but also written by several other writers) that were in no way refuted. We have no other choice but to believe them if they are purporting to be eyewitness accounts. I find it odd that the Jews and the Romans would not want to eliminate these accounts that led to the formation of a new religion. Yet, history is strangely silent on these accounts.

None of this has anything to do with him being holy, or the son of god.You realize that, right?If a zealot comes out and says he's the son of god, why should I bother to refute him? The Jews and the Romans simply didn't believe him. Why should they bother to refute it?One quesiton, Mr. Bible Guy: If Jesus is the son of God, was conceived divinely, why do two separate Gospels derive Jesus bloodline THROUGH JOSEPH?

This will have to do for now - (not my writing, pulled from bibleanswers.com)Matthew 1 and Luke 3 offer different genealogies for Jesus. Onlywhen they arrive at King David do these two genealogies merge (Matt. 1:6;Lk. 3:31).The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 established his LEGAL lineage andright to the throne of David. It is Joseph's ancestry which constitutedthis Jewish requirement. Although Jesus was not literally from the body ofJoseph, he was regarded as the carpenter's son (Matt. 13:55). Anyoneclaiming the right to inherit the throne of David would have his lineagescrutinized to see if such a claim would be legitimate. So, as Matthewintroduces Jesus Christ as "the Son of David" (a Messianic expression), heprovides the lineage which establishes his case (Matt. 1:1).The genealogy of Jesus which is found in Luke 3:23-38 is the PHYSICAL linageof Jesus - the ancestry of Mary. (Read Luke 3:23 carefully: Jesus wasassumed to be the son of Joseph, but he was really the "son of Heli,..."Therefore, Heli was Mary's father.Matthew 1:1-17 is the lineage of Joseph, through whom the kingly descent asthe "Son of David" was validated (Matt. 1:1). Luke 3:23-38 is a differentlineage - the flehsly lineage of Jesus through his mother, Mary. It recordsthe physical descent of Jesus from Mary, through David's son Nathan, andfinally through Adam (Lk. 23, 31, 38).Luke 3:23 does not say that Heli is the father of Joseph. It says thatJesus..."being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,......"While it was assumed (from every outward appearance) that Jesus was thefleshly son of Joseph, he was in fact the descendant of Heli (due to beingborn of a virgin, Lk. 1:30-35). Thus, Heli is actually the father of Mary,Jesus's mother. (Jacob was the father of Joseph, Matt. 1:16).Please note that these two lineages (Joseph, Matt. 1; Mary, Lk. 3) meet inKing David: the legal descentof Jesus Christ coming through King Solomon, David's son (Matt. 1:6-7),while thephysical lineage of Jesus came through Nathan, another son of David (Lk.3:31).

 

[Dickies]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

Ah, there's the rub, I am talking about my God, and there is no other God but my God. If you couch your question in the form that there are many gods, I would have a dilemma, but my faith precludes all Gods but one.

How do you know this?

 

[shining path]

Favorite new phrase of the afternoon: Christian interpolation. Doesn't that sound vaguely prurient? You Christians and your dirty little interpolating ways.

 

[Bubba]

Favorite new phrase of the afternoon: Christian interpolation. Doesn't that sound vaguely prurient? You Christians and your dirty little interpolating ways.

are angel pants involved?

 

[Jericho]

What do you do?

Disappear in a puff of logic.

 

[tangfoot]

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 offer different genealogies for Jesus. Only when they arrive at King David do these two genealogies merge (Matt. 1:6; Lk. 3:31).

Stupid question time:If Jesus is the son of god, why does it matter what his relation is to Jewish law?Is it merely to backfill the messianic prophecies?For once, I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'd simply like to know.Also, you didn't answer my question how a historical version of Jesus has anything to do with his holiness.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

Ah, there's the rub, I am talking about my God, and there is no other God but my God. If you couch your question in the form that there are many gods, I would have a dilemma, but my faith precludes all Gods but one.

I asked you a question. Quit dancing and answer it. A God appears. You don't know its nature. All you know is it created the world. What do you do?

I am not dancing as I am secure in my faith. You are the one making up fairy tales now. There is no God but God. I cannot answer your question because it is impossible to answer that question. You choose not to accept religion, fine. I choose to accept it, after about 15 years spent denying it and then coming to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. I cannot answer your question because i truely belive there is and has always been only one God.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

For those people that do believe in creationism, do you also find scientologists to be kooky, moreso than believers in evolution?

no, I do have more respect for evolutionists than for con-artists.

 

[Jericho]

Why did we never invite Bubba to an evolution debate before? This is way more fun.

 

[The Football Freak]

So then Josephus is main proof for his existence, and that proof is two lines, and those lines may or may not have been added. Well now I know, thanks for the info!

 

[shining path]

Favorite new phrase of the afternoon: Christian interpolation. Doesn't that sound vaguely prurient? You Christians and your dirty little interpolating ways.

are angel pants involved?

And is it something the whole family can enjoy?

 

[Jericho]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

Ah, there's the rub, I am talking about my God, and there is no other God but my God. If you couch your question in the form that there are many gods, I would have a dilemma, but my faith precludes all Gods but one.

I asked you a question. Quit dancing and answer it. A God appears. You don't know its nature. All you know is it created the world. What do you do?

I am not dancing as I am secure in my faith. You are the one making up fairy tales now. There is no God but God. I cannot answer your question because it is impossible to answer that question. You choose not to accept religion, fine. I choose to accept it, after about 15 years spent denying it and then coming to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. I cannot answer your question because i truely belive there is and has always been only one God.

So your answer is that you will assume that the mystery God is your one God and you will immediately worship it.That was like pulling teeth. Ugh.Anyway, I find that to be a highly immature reaction to what would be an interesting scenario.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 offer different genealogies for Jesus. Only when they arrive at King David do these two genealogies merge (Matt. 1:6; Lk. 3:31).

Stupid question time:If Jesus is the son of god, why does it matter what his relation is to Jewish law?Is it merely to backfill the messianic prophecies?For once, I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'd simply like to know.Also, you didn't answer my question how a historical version of Jesus has anything to do with his holiness.

It doesn't and that is where faith enters in. I guess I have come to the conclusion that if the gospel writers were truthful in the parts that can be historically verified, why would they then lie about the aspects of his holiness? Certainly it couldn't have been because they wanted to be martyred for following the guy.As for the Jewish tie in, remember that as a Christian, I am really a neo-Jew. It is also highly coincidental that some hundred plus old testament prophecies all converged on the figure of Christ. True, you may say that the writers of the Bible just made it that way, but we are dealing with multiple writers across a span of time that didn't have a complete bible to work from. I am not even sure when the first bound bible was created, probably sometime after 400 AD.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

So then Josephus is main proof for his existence, and that proof is two lines, and those lines may or may not have been added. Well now I know, thanks for the info!

No those lines were there, there are other lines addressing his divinity that might have been later added by Christian interpreters. Note that I pulled the version that was not interpreted. I think MT is referring to the account which calls him the Christ and speaks of his divinity. The account I posted is not in question.

 

[Bubba]

I am not even sure when the first bound bible was created, probably sometime after 400 AD.

let's carbon date it...

 

[Dickies]

I am not even sure when the first bound bible was created, probably sometime after 400 AD.

let's carbon date it...

:rotflmao:

 

[Jericho]

I am not even sure when the first bound bible was created, probably sometime after 400 AD.

let's carbon date it...

Or mate it with a housecat.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

Ah, there's the rub, I am talking about my God, and there is no other God but my God. If you couch your question in the form that there are many gods, I would have a dilemma, but my faith precludes all Gods but one.

I asked you a question. Quit dancing and answer it. A God appears. You don't know its nature. All you know is it created the world. What do you do?

I am not dancing as I am secure in my faith. You are the one making up fairy tales now. There is no God but God. I cannot answer your question because it is impossible to answer that question. You choose not to accept religion, fine. I choose to accept it, after about 15 years spent denying it and then coming to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. I cannot answer your question because i truely belive there is and has always been only one God.

So your answer is that you will assume that the mystery God is your one God and you will immediately worship it.That was like pulling teeth. Ugh.Anyway, I find that to be a highly immature reaction to what would be an interesting scenario.

does it look like Jesus, Jim Cazaviel, or George Burns?

 

[The Football Freak]

So then Josephus is main proof for his existence, and that proof is two lines, and those lines may or may not have been added. Well now I know, thanks for the info!

No those lines were there, there are other lines addressing his divinity that might have been later added by Christian interpreters. Note that I pulled the version that was not interpreted. I think MT is referring to the account which calls him the Christ and speaks of his divinity. The account I posted is not in question.

Wasn't Jesus the most popular name back then? I do remember reading that. And Jesus was closely followed by James and John. Ahhh, I hate those floating facts that you know but can't quite attribute.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?

If you had concrete proof of the God that I worship is true, you would be a complete idiot to not freely worship him. Your question defies logic.

That's not what I asked. "A" God does not necessarily mean "your" God.Besides, why would you have to be a complete idiot? I've read some Bible stories. This God character sounds like he could use a swift kick in the rear.

Ah, there's the rub, I am talking about my God, and there is no other God but my God. If you couch your question in the form that there are many gods, I would have a dilemma, but my faith precludes all Gods but one.

I asked you a question. Quit dancing and answer it. A God appears. You don't know its nature. All you know is it created the world. What do you do?

I am not dancing as I am secure in my faith. You are the one making up fairy tales now. There is no God but God. I cannot answer your question because it is impossible to answer that question. You choose not to accept religion, fine. I choose to accept it, after about 15 years spent denying it and then coming to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. I cannot answer your question because i truely belive there is and has always been only one God.

So your answer is that you will assume that the mystery God is your one God and you will immediately worship it.That was like pulling teeth. Ugh.Anyway, I find that to be a highly immature reaction to what would be an interesting scenario.

How is this an immature reaction? I know what I believe....you are the one who lacks faith here. From what I gather, I know what you don't believe, I freely admit that much of what I believe is faith and more of what I believe is based on faith than anything experiential. The problem is that these debates always require Christian believers to prove unprovables to some extent. Call me immature if you will, but perhaps you should get around to figure out in what you place faith.

 

[shining path]

Why did we never invite Bubba to an evolution debate before? This is way more fun.

And he seems to be behaving himself, more or less. Do you think it's safe to broach the subject of his suspected identity?

 

[Jericho]

does it look like Jesus, Jim Cazaviel, or George Burns?

Alanis Morissette.

 

[Bubba]

The problem is that these debates always require Christian believers to prove unprovables to some extent.

go figure...

 

[tangfoot]

I know what I believe....you are the one who lacks faith here. Call me immature if you will, but perhaps you should get around to figure out in what you place faith.

Incorrect. He has faith, just not YOURS.IMMATURE! IMMATURE!