I believe...God is a man

[gillibean]

I am not the one who is telling you that you do not accept evidence, Jesus is. He said this in Luke 16:31:
"Then Abraham said to him, 'If your brothers do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone were to rise from the dead.'"
Man by nature does not accept proof of God. It is God that has to draw man to Him in order that man can come to faith.

Jesus is dead. Words in a an old book mean nothing to me.

 

[luc154]

Jesus is dead. Words in a an old book mean nothing to me.

You believe that Jesus is dead, you don't know that.

 

[gillibean]

You believe that Jesus is dead, you don't know that.

Even your bible says he died. That much I actually believe. I think it's quite likely that a man preaching some of those things was crucified by the romans. Regardless, words in an old book mean nothing to me without empirical evidence.

 

[luc154]

Even your bible says he died.

So that part of the Bible you believe?
Do you also believe the part where it says that Jesus resurrected?

 

[gillibean]

So that part of the Bible you believe?
Do you also believe the part where it says that Jesus resurrected?

I believe that the bible was based in part on actual events. Few historians argue that Jesus never existed at all. I don't believe he was resurrected because I don't believe in god.

 

[luc154]

I believe that the bible was based in part on actual events. Few historians argue that Jesus never existed at all. I don't believe he was resurrected because I don't believe in god.

Not believing in the resurrection doesn't mean that there was no resurrection.

 

[gillibean]

Not believing in the resurrection doesn't mean that there was no resurrection.

I don't believe in it because there is no proof whatsoever. I can believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn till I'm blue in the face but that doesn't make it real. Belief in god (or anything else) is without proof irrational. End of story.

 

[luc154]

I don't believe in it because there is no proof whatsoever. I can believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn till I'm blue in the face but that doesn't make it real. Belief in god (or anything else) is without proof irrational. End of story.

The invisble pink unicorn didn't leave us a Bible with hundreds of fulfilled prophecy, historical reports, wisdom literature, eye witness accounts, did he?

 

[pladecalvo]

I am not the one who is telling you that you do not accept evidence, Jesus is. He said this in Luke 16:31:
"Then Abraham said to him, 'If your brothers do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone were to rise from the dead.'"
Man by nature does not accept proof of God. It is God that has to draw man to Him in order that man can come to faith.

If you are going to quote scripture your first task is to show that the Bible is true and accurate. Can you do that.....other than by 'faith' of course?

Not believing in the resurrection doesn't mean that there was no resurrection.

....and believing in gods doesn't mean that there are gods.

 

[gillibean]

The invisble pink unicorn didn't leave us a Bible with hundreds of fulfilled prophecy, historical reports, wisdom literature, eye witness accounts, did he?

They are not historical reports. They are not eye witness accounts.

 

[pladecalvo]

The invisble pink unicorn didn't leave us a Bible with hundreds of fulfilled prophecy, historical reports, wisdom literature, eye witness accounts, did he?

Nor did the Bible! If you want to talk prophecy why not start a thread about it. I'll take you on........but before you do, you need to consider those prophecies that were wrong. Just ONE failed prophecy is enugh to show that the Bible is not accurate and reliable, so you could well be on dangerous ground with this one.

 

[luc154]

They are not historical reports. They are not eye witness accounts.

I can give you lots of historical reports, somehow I don't believe you would read up on them.

 

[luc154]

Nor did the Bible! If you want to talk prophecy why not start a thread about it. I'll take you on........but before you do, you need to consider those prophecies that were wrong. Just ONE failed prophecy is enugh to show that the Bible is not accurate and reliable, so you could well be on dangerous ground with this one.

Give me one failed prophecy.

 

[gillibean]

I can give you lots of historical reports, somehow I don't believe you would read up on them.

The historical reports only show that the bible is based in part off real events. There's no reason to read them since I'm not questioning that. If I were questioning that part, i'd read them all.

What is it you are trying to prove with these historical reports?

 

[pladecalvo]

I can give you lots of historical reports, somehow I don't believe you would read up on them.

I'm sure we would....if they come from reliable sources and not just from Bible apologist sites like 'goddidit.org' or 'answersingenisis.com'.

 

[gillibean]

Give me one failed prophecy.

The problem with prophecy is that you can interpret any way you want. Even if you were given an example, you'd likely just twist it around so that you don't have to admit to being wrong (whether this is done consciously or unconsciously I dont know)

 

[luc154]

The problem with prophecy is that you can interpret any way you want. Even if you were given an example, you'd likely just twist it around so that you don't have to admit to being wrong (whether this is done consciously or unconsciously I dont know)

There is only one way to interpret prophecy.

 

[gillibean]

There is only one way to interpret prophecy.

That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. You give 10 people one prophecy they will come up with 13 different interpretations.

 

[Obdurate]

42, if one of them is me.

 

[luc154]

That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. You give 10 people one prophecy they will come up with 13 different interpretations.

Ofcourse, but there will be only one that is biblically correct.