And there's the magic weasel statement to get out of the paradox.
Still On Pace For The End Of The World?
17,009 Views |
232 Replies |
Last: 8 yr ago by FlyFish95
quote:can I use St.John Chrysostom and St.Jerome?
And there's the magic weasel statement to get out of the paradox.
quote:*snicker* open mind.. *snicker*
You are not alone.....after all your response was predicted 2000 years ago....a suggestion...keep your mind open
quote:
Matthew 16:28 and Luke 9:27 are favorites "gotcha" verses for those who don't know how to rightly divide the Word.
I've heard the pathetic arguments that try to ignore a clear and direct statement while simultaneously failing all that is predicted. Where are the angels? Where is the gathering of the elect? It's a gotcha question precisely because you haven't got an intelligent answer.
quote:Uh more dumb statements and weak attacks from a simple mind. I'm not enamored with dawkins, and I've repeatedly stated I don't care much for him on theology. I do think he's a great science writer, and recommend him only in that context. Since you can't be convinced science isn't a conspiracy against god, your distaste for him on either matter is predictable and the attack simply doesn't hold. My eisegesis isn't the least miscalculated and fits perfectly with what is clearly stated, your's is the desperate attempt to dodge clear scripture. But go ahead, offer your opinion borrowed from someone likes ken ham or ray confort or some other moron you adore.
Given the depth of your understanding of theology comes from the likes of Lewis and Chesterton, all the while being enamored with Dawkins, your miscalculated eisegesis of scripture is predictable.
quote:
quote:I've heard the pathetic arguments that try to ignore a clear and direct statement while simultaneously failing all that is predicted. Where are the angels? Where is the gathering of the elect? It's a gotcha question precisely because you haven't got an intelligent answer.
Matthew 16:28 and Luke 9:27 are favorites "gotcha" verses for those who don't know how to rightly divide the Word.
The coming of the Kingdom of God does not mean the return of Christ. Several places in scripture (both NT &OT) indicate that the Resurrection and arrival of the Holy Spirit is the Kingdom of God.
quote:Just like you've been convinced. By others who've been convinced. Handed down to them by others who've been convinced for generation after generation. . Just a long history of humans convincing humans with no proof to back up their false truth claims.
I dont expect to convince you, or anyone else.....what I said is that Jesus chastised those of His day for not recognizing the signs of the times they were in, quoting directly from His Word.....He gave signs of His return as well, you can take them for whatever worth you assign to them
All u need is a preacher in a pulpit. Then have him charismatically lead humans who for the most part have been taught to believe since an early impressionable age. That's how a book written by humans is considered more than it really is. Just a book written by humans.
Trust the prophesy err... predictions written by humans.
quote:That goes for another part of the bible. 6 day creation.quote:
It's like people forget the within the lifetime of his followers part when they mention the is stuff
They just inject time period jumps within the same statement.
But, but.. A day to God could mean billions of years. Blah blah blah. A day is a day. That's what the men meant when they made it up. A freakin 24 hour earth day.
So full excuses.
quote:You would have a point if that exact same scripture didn't provide it's own definition of what a day is.
That goes for another part of the bible. 6 day creation.
But, but.. A day to God could mean billions of years. Blah blah blah. A day is a day. That's what the men meant when they made it up. A freakin 24 hour earth day.
So full excuses.
quote:Fair enough. How many years was it, Bobcat? Since Christians and bible scholars alike seem to have many interpretations.quote:You would have a point if that exact same scripture didn't provide it's own definition of what a day is.
That goes for another part of the bible. 6 day creation.
But, but.. A day to God could mean billions of years. Blah blah blah. A day is a day. That's what the men meant when they made it up. A freakin 24 hour earth day.
So full excuses.
Did I claim to witness it first hand?
It's unfortunate that you can't read a book without getting hung up on the first chapter
It's unfortunate that you can't read a book without getting hung up on the first chapter
Isn't the 1st chapter absurd enough to realize there is no need to keep going?
I grew up catholic so I'm unfortunately familiar with the rest of it.
If it's clearly stated, why is the length of those days even debated?
I grew up catholic so I'm unfortunately familiar with the rest of it.
If it's clearly stated, why is the length of those days even debated?
quote:Those Matthew and luke aren't the only places it's stated and aren't even the best examples, tampa should know that. Look in context in mark and the other statements in Matthew.
The coming of the Kingdom of God does not mean the return of Christ. Several places in scripture (both NT &OT) indicate that the Resurrection and arrival of the Holy Spirit is the Kingdom of God.
Tampa only pointed to those verses out of either ignorance, or a desire to avoid a more obvious failing when he tried to argue his point as if the bible wasn't quite explicit in other places.
But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Matthew 24: 25-34)
It's clear as day that isn't the cross and Resurrection.
And again in mark:
24 "But in those days, following that distress,
"'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]
26 "At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
28 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
The Day and Hour Unknown
32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert[e]! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
From the very same passage that Christians use to say the hour is unknown (in reference to the second coming) jesus says this generation shall not pass.
If you want to get sciencey, here are some questions for you:
1. Light is the only substance in the universe which is both matter and energy. Why would a Bronze Age nomads like Moses choose light, not rock or water or fire, as the building block of all creation?
2. The 12 stones for the foundation of the New Jerusalem in Reveltation 21 are jasper (quartz), sapphire, chalcedony (agate), emerald, sardonyx (red onyx), sardius (carnelian), chrysolyte (peridot), beryl (aquamarine), topaz, chrysoprase (turquoise), jacinth (red zircon), & amethyst. It has no diamonds, rubies or garnets. The first list is anisotropic gems, which shine like crazy in the presences of light. The second list are isotropic gems which turn black in cross polarized light. The distinction of isotropic vs anisotropic gems was recently discovered by scientists in the last century. How did John the Apostle know this 2000 years ago?
Provide sufficient answers to those (that is, more than "it was a lucky guess" ) and I will entertain your talking points about the Creation timeline.
1. Light is the only substance in the universe which is both matter and energy. Why would a Bronze Age nomads like Moses choose light, not rock or water or fire, as the building block of all creation?
2. The 12 stones for the foundation of the New Jerusalem in Reveltation 21 are jasper (quartz), sapphire, chalcedony (agate), emerald, sardonyx (red onyx), sardius (carnelian), chrysolyte (peridot), beryl (aquamarine), topaz, chrysoprase (turquoise), jacinth (red zircon), & amethyst. It has no diamonds, rubies or garnets. The first list is anisotropic gems, which shine like crazy in the presences of light. The second list are isotropic gems which turn black in cross polarized light. The distinction of isotropic vs anisotropic gems was recently discovered by scientists in the last century. How did John the Apostle know this 2000 years ago?
Provide sufficient answers to those (that is, more than "it was a lucky guess" ) and I will entertain your talking points about the Creation timeline.
Technically, you're correct that other sub atomic particles also display a wave-particle duality, energy equivalence can shift and objects mass and theoretical substances may also be energy and matter, but you know what I meant. Pardon my verbage. It's been a decade since I took 414.
So back to the question:
During the Bronze Age Fire (along with Water Earth and Air) was commonly accepted as one of the four elements. Moses had access to the finest Egyptian education, but he recorded that light (which is both matter and energy, unlike the other Bronze Age elements) was the foundation of composed of both energy and matter. Why?
So back to the question:
During the Bronze Age Fire (along with Water Earth and Air) was commonly accepted as one of the four elements. Moses had access to the finest Egyptian education, but he recorded that light (which is both matter and energy, unlike the other Bronze Age elements) was the foundation of composed of both energy and matter. Why?
quote:So I take it that you dispute that light is both energy and matter?
Nice try on the googling terms to make it sound like you know stuff about light, energy, and matter, but you're still missing something incredibly fundamental.
Or are you just trying to change the subject to some technical nuance because you don't want to admit you have no answer?
quote:Jewish prophets: 1
For many days the Children of Israel will sit with no king, no officer, no sacrifice, no pillar, and no ephrod or teraphim. -- Hosea 3:4
Christian prophets: 0
quote:Matter and energy are equivalent. Light isn't unique in this. That's what Einstein showed us. Matter is just frozen light, light is just matter on the move. It's two sides to the same coin. E=mc2 (there is actually a momentum part of this equation that's often ignored) is telling us that all matter, and all energy are two sides of the same thing. They are equivalent.
So I take it that you dispute that light is both energy and matter?
oops, you're right I did write matter. Yea, light has momentum but no mass.
quote:But momentum is mass times velocity.
oops, you're right I did write matter. Yea, light has momentum but no mass.
Where's physics clown when you need him?
I'm here to make fun of the "we know the day and time" fools, particularly Winags!!!!!
Quit mucking up my thread with science blegh. Take it to the physics board!!!!!
Quit mucking up my thread with science blegh. Take it to the physics board!!!!!
Why did you stop at verse 34?
quote:
At what point do we say enough is enough? The answer is clearly never, because 2500 years later nothing has happened but people still say "soon". It should be obvious that any reasonable definition of "soon" was exhausted over a thousand years ago. It's unfalsifiable, but any normal prediction implying urgency would have been discredited after the initial generations (children's)^10 children grew old and died waiting. Come on, people... That should tell you something.
To be honest, isn't that same answer you gave when I questioned at what point would the lack of information regarding the creation of the universe point towards intelligent design?
Also, have you read on after verse 34? Why hasn't any mentioned the very next thing Jesus says?
Featured Stories
See All
12:48
2h ago
1.8k
20:35
2h ago
1.2k
Running through College Football Playoff scenarios with SEC Mike
by Billy Liucci
21:11
21h ago
2.0k
Payne makes Reed debut as Aggies host East Texas A&M on Friday night
by Olin Buchanan
38:43
1d ago
2.8k