To each his own, you seem like a good dude, night.

quote:

---

quote:

---

2) have you pondered the question of "What if I'm wrong"?

---

This very question is why I'm an atheist. Have you asked yourself this question?

---

indeed. what if the ancient greeks were right. what if you don't have money to pay the boatman when you die?

quote:

---

So in essence, Christians need links, non believers just need to sound condescending and tell others to find their own damn links.

---

He's done this before. Though he's not a believer, he said there were plenty of theologians who rejected the Pauline Epistles, yet still clung to the principles of the faith (salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ). I asked him to share such theologians (who agree with all the principles of the Christian faith, yet rejected the Pauline epistles). He simply stated multiple times, "Google it, they're out there".

quote:

---

2) have you pondered the question of "What if I'm wrong"?

---

What if Jesus isn't God, but you worship him as if he is?

Oh Winags??????????????????/

Where are you?????????????

quote:

---

quote:

---

The second temple was still standing when jesus made this claim, so there was a temple mount for him to refer to as part of that prophecy. Even if the temple was destroyed at the time, you would still have no argument since he claimed this would all take place within the lifetime of the people there. So the prophecy fails even if he expected a third temple to be rebuilt soon.

---

---

As Mrs. Lovelight has posted, you're now clinging to preterism. The first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC and the second temple was destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans (as you already know). The prophecy doesn't state the temples will simply be destroyed as they were during the Babylonain invasion or the Jewish-Roman War. The abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15 (also also referenced by the prophet Daniel) states the anti-Christ will reside in the third Temple and re-instate animal sacrifices and proclaim himself as God. This didn't happen in 586 BC nor 70 AD, as the first and second temples were destroyed (along with other properties) as acts of war. The coming third temple won't be destroyed in such matter, but occupied by the anti-Christ.

You have moved the goal posts a bit, and now you're clinging to preterism? If you are going to deny the Bible completely, do so. However, you're erroneously trying to use scripture to refute scripture.

And now for the coup de grce, Matthew 24 contains the fig tree prophecy (restoration of Israel, which came to fruition in 1948 and was even further solidified after the six days war of 1967, with the reclaiming of Jerusalem). The siege of Jerusalem wasn't until almost 40 years after the Olivet Discourse which is the passage we're seemingly refuting.

You might be a nice guy away from the R&P Forum, but on here you come across as an angry atheist. Did you have a bad religious experience or something that has triggered such an intense hostility for the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I will pray for you. Please don't bank your entire eternity that there is no God nor need for salvation in the perfect and sinless blood of Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

He's done this before.

---

Ah no. I didn't ask for a single link in this thread you are both talking out your ass.

quote:

---

Though he's not a believer, he said there were plenty of theologians who rejected the Pauline Epistles, yet still clung to the principles of the faith (salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ). I asked him to share such theologians (who agree with all the principles of the Christian faith, yet rejected the Pauline epistles). He simply stated multiple times, "Google it, they're out there".

---

Is the best you can do is lie? I gave you theologians, you rejected any who were not fundamentalist christian, I never said there were fundy christian theologians who thought this. Fundy Christians are the way they are because they refuse to acknowledge basic facts. That's why you think the world is 6k years old. Your mind is immune to data!

So I will merely post my response that I gave last time one the thread you tried this crap and then you tucked tail and ran from:

"As explained in the thread earlier that you ran away from there are a wide variety of catholic and protestant Christians who understand these things. That your particular brand of unthinking YEC southern evangelical is not among them is no grounds not to explore the facts. Basically, you have unthinkingly decided that the large majority of christians are some sort of heretic and can't be trusted


My claims are not baseless at all, in fact they are the majority scholarly opinion on the matter. Your complete and total ignorance of your own holy book is embarrassing. Further, I provided the reason that the scholars reject the claims of pauline authorship. Your mind, so weak from struggling with constant fundamentalism was incapable of exploring the evidence on it's own merit, but rather needed to be told by another non-thinking christian that it's true. Those catholics and protestants who read stuff were simply dismissed as heretics. . "

Try again. I'll address the rest later, back to work.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Try again.

---

---

Okay. Then please provide the names of the "well known theologians" that are accepted as Christian orthodoxy (salvation by faith alone through Jesus Christ alone) that also believe the Apostle Paul was a sham?

Also, could you please provide proof that the anti-Christ didn't destroy the 2nd temple, but instead inhabited it and re-instated animal sacrifices as he proclaimed himself as God? I believe the Bible is clear this will happen with the third temple, and the previous two temples were simply destroyed as acts of war. You have stated otherwise, so I'd like proof that the abomination of desolation prophecies of Matthew 24 and Daniel 12 are already past (and thus in your mind are "failed prophecies" since it didn't occur with the terminal generation).

(Rather than googling Preterism or resorting to your usual "poopy pants" name calling rebuttals, it would be nice for you to show me from scripture where you have proven the failed prophecies of Matthew 24). Thanks, sir.

quote:

---

Okay. Then please provide the names of the "well known theologians" that are accepted as Christian orthodoxy (salvation by faith alone through Jesus Christ alone) that also believe the Apostle Paul was a sham?

---

I never said paul was a sham, I said they rejected the pauline authorship of the questionable epistles just like the majority of scholars do. Do you have an ounce of honesty in your body? You have rejected them since they are catholic or liberal protestant. You don't think Catholics believe this, and catholics think they do. And you still never addressed one single point about why they are rejected by a majority of scholars. You simply cannot believe anything not told to you by someone more intelligent than ray comfort. You have simply defined all non-fundies as people who "reject salvation by faith alone through jesus alone) when I used the word christian to people who call themselves christians. You moved the goal post to fundies, and you never addressed a single point because you cant. Biblical scholars are mostly Christians for crying out loud! If we went down the list of names you'd find more Christians than agnostics, you have simply redefined christian to only your sect. of fundy.

Your specific claim was that it was merely some secular scholars who rejected some Pauline epsistes. That's clearly false, and you've done nothing to defend that. You simply moved the goalposts.

So if I give you a name like Raymond E. Brown you will complain that he thinks to much, even though he is in no way secular. It's asinine. These scholars work at seminaries, you've simply decided they are "secular" since they think. I'm not getting into a catholic and thinking protestants aren't christians debate. Take that up with another thread. It's a dishonest and unintelligent moving of the goalposts.

It's funny you call me angry but all you have is empty attacks. You are angry because I point out your stupidity. That the earth really isn't 6k years old ruins your fairy tale and you hate hearing it. You hate hearing about how time and again the bible is proven wrong and you haven't got an answer so you are the angry one. Angry you can't demonstrate the world is young, genesis was real, the exodus was real, miracles are real, hell is moral, slavery should be condoned and on and on. It's not my anger, it's yours.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Okay. Then please provide the names of the "well known theologians" that are accepted as Christian orthodoxy (salvation by faith alone through Jesus Christ alone) that also believe the Apostle Paul was a sham?

---

I never said paul was a sham, I said they rejected the pauline authorship of the questionable epistles just like the majority of scholars do. Do you have an ounce of honesty in your body? You have rejected them since they are catholic or liberal protestant. You don't think Catholics believe this, and catholics think they do. And you still never addressed one single point about why they are rejected by a majority of scholars. You simply cannot believe anything not told to you by someone more intelligent than ray comfort. You have simply defined all non-fundies as people who "reject salvation by faith alone through jesus alone) when I used the word christian to people who call themselves christians. You moved the goal post to fundies, and you never addressed a single point because you cant. Biblical scholars are mostly Christians for crying out loud! If we went down the list of names you'd find more Christians than agnostics, you have simply redefined christian to only your sect. of fundy.

Your specific claim was that it was merely some secular scholars who rejected some Pauline epsistes. That's clearly false, and you've done nothing to defend that. You simply moved the goalposts.

So if I give you a name like Raymond E. Brown you will complain that he thinks to much, even though he is in no way secular. It's asinine. These scholars work at seminaries, you've simply decided they are "secular" since they think. I'm not getting into a catholic and thinking protestants aren't christians debate. Take that up with another thread. It's a dishonest and unintelligent moving of the goalposts.

It's funny you call me angry but all you have is empty attacks. You are angry because I point out your stupidity. That the earth really isn't 6k years old ruins your fairy tale and you hate hearing it. You hate hearing about how time and again the bible is proven wrong and you haven't got an answer so you are the angry one. Angry you can't demonstrate the world is young, genesis was real, the exodus was real, miracles are real, hell is moral, slavery should be condoned and on and on. It's not my anger, it's yours.

---

So, no selfies with the anti-Christ re-instating sacrifices at the second temple?

quote:

---

Tampa is a YEC?

---

I'm not sure. There are some brilliant men that subscribe to the 10K YEC (Raymond Damadian, Robert Gentry, Ian Macreadie, John Baumgartner, and Arthur Wilder-Smith to name a few). I'm certainly not a Darwinian evolutionist, and believe that man brought sin into the world, and prior to that there was no death. (YEC is interesting, but certainly not contingent upon man's greatest need - salvation found exclusively in Jesus Christ).

quote:

---

Also, could you please provide proof that the anti-Christ didn't destroy the 2nd temple, but instead inhabited it and re-instated animal sacrifices as he proclaimed himself as God?

---

It's not required. Jesus makes very specific claims that would happen this generation. It doesn't matter whether you hold those things to have occurred at the time or shortly after, or later on than his speech. There is nothing preventing jesus from thinking that an anti-christ would be in the very temple that was destoryed, just because it failed to come to pass doesn't change the prophecy that happened before. You think C.S. Lewis was unaware of other interpretations besides preterism? Honestly? It doesn't get you out of the obvious failing of the text. He says it would happen this generation, and throughout the NT we see that the christians expected his return within their lifetime. Why would they expect this if they thought a third temple had to be built first?

quote:

---

I believe the Bible is clear this will happen with the third temple, and the previous two temples were simply destroyed as acts of war. You have stated otherwise, so I'd like proof that the abomination of desolation prophecies of Matthew 24 and Daniel 12 are already past (and thus in your mind are "failed prophecies" since it didn't occur with the terminal generation).

---

The second temple was standing when jesus gave this speech. He did not require a third temple to achieve an abomination and desolation. So those need not be already passed. It's for that very reason people consider that prophecy fulfilled. If you disagree that it's fullfilled, take it up with augustine or the like (I don't care about anti-christs being there or not), it makes no difference to the prophecy since it happened before destruction and still claims this generation shall see his return. I already stated this. And common jewish interpretation of ezekial is that the third temple will not be built until after the messiah returns. But that's neither here nor there since it doesn't take away the obvious failing. Jesus made very specific claims that didn't come to pass.

Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heavenwith power and great glory.....Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place

Nothing about when you think a temple needs to be rebuilt matters, the immediacy and urgency of jesus return in crystal clear. It was clear to the early church, and it doesn't require any kind of committal to a preterist view. He said this would happen in his followers lifetime and they believed him.

quote:

---

(Rather than googling Preterism or resorting to your usual "poopy pants" name calling rebuttals, it would be nice for you to show me from scripture where you have proven the failed prophecies of Matthew 24). Thanks, sir.

---

I already did. And it's funny someone as ill informed and attacking and unintelligent as you would make such remarks.

quote:

---

So, no selfies with the anti-Christ re-instating sacrifices at the second temple?

---

Addressed separately. How about making one intelligent comment about how you are laughably wrong about all scholarly criticism of pauline epistles being secular? Or are you just going to continue your baseless attacks?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I already did. And it's funny someone as ill informed and attacking and unintelligent as you would make such remarks.

---

---

If I simply agreed with you, would I then become informed and intelligent?

quote:

---

If I simply agreed with you, would I then become informed and intelligent?

---

No. If you were actually a curious and intelligent man that would do it. Nothing you can do about your natural gifts and you choose to be ignorant. You choose to ignore science, you choose to not read anyone who doesn't already agree with you. You simply attack baselessly and dodge. There are plenty of intelligent and informed posters on this board that disagree with me. You simply aren't one of them, one by birth, the other by choice.

Good to see my thread stayed on topic.

quote:

---

Good to see my thread stayed on topic

---

I'm sure winags will be bye any minute to get me back on topic

quote:

---

quote:

---

Good to see my thread stayed on topic

---

I'm sure winags will be bye any minute to get me back on topic

---

Nah....he's still trying to figure out why he's still here after last nights blood moon.

I'm sure I am going to regret weighing back in on this thread, but I just can't resist! Question for you evolutionists. And this is a very honest question and not intended to be condescending. How does evolution explain how humans "evolved" intelligently enough to design a spacecraft that can carry a man to the moon or a probe to Mars, yet no other species can even design a tool as simple as a cart or wheelbarrow to help them carry their burden. Or how can humans design/engineer 100 story plus buildings that house 1,000s of people yet no other species can figure out how to even build the most basic shelter. I really am curious how evolution explains how only one species could have possibly evolved so much more intellectually than any other species.

.... or a beaver space shuttle?

Yep I have been stung by many a bee and ant and have fished on the top of many a beaver damn. I guess with your logic I guess sometime in my lifetime I can expect to see some type of cart up on my stream in the Rockies helping the beaver get those aspen trees down the hillside. Not trying to be a butt, but you know where I was going with my question. Why is there no other species on earth even remotely as intelligent as humans were in the earliest record of history. They at least were able to design basic tools and shelter?

I understand that logic Astro. I really do. But why is it that way? Doesn't that lend support to the theory that maybe we were created differently than the rest of the animal kingdom. And were given the capability to learn and expand or knowledge and improve our lot in life?

Opposable thumbs.

OK Sapper. Then why are humans the only species with the capability to learn and expand their knowledge and improve their circumstance and also be gifted or "evolved" with opposable thumbs. Using the beaver damn analogy, I would imagine a beaver damn 10,000 years ago is designed the same as one is today yet a human shelter 10,000 years ago was very rudimentary compared to the domiciles of western civilization of today. Why do humans have opposable thumbs and the capability to expand their knowledge as opposed to primates that have opposable thumbs but still live in trees as they did 10,000 years ago? Is it just luck, randomness, or maybe was there some force that caused it to be that way or in my belief a Creator that designed us that way? I don't get hung up on some of the literal interpretations of the creation story in the Bible, and I really think that some elements of evolution are possibly true and I also believe God took millions if not billions of years to create our planet and universe. I believe God is a timeless being, in fact the creator of time, and based on that, my view of an extended, evolving creation fits right in line with scientific theory. Could it be so unimaginable to think that a Creator used whatever theory you adhere to on how the universe was formed, used evolution for the animal kingdom, but still created man uniquely and placed him on earth to have dominion over all of the earth. If you don't get so caught up in the poetic imagery of the first few chapters of Genesis, it becomes very logical in my mind. But then again, I'm just a lowly,old, business major Aggie and not an intellectual scientist. I really mean that sincerely and not sarcastically!