killing in the name of

Originally posted by Penguin
Whereas you would not even attempt to resist him because you would believe his was the voice of God since you have no way of differentiating the 'real' voice of God from an illusion of it or from Satan posing as God.

Googlefudge's natural reaction to a voice in the head is to assume a hallucination. Yours is to assume the voice of God (particularly if it feels like the last time you 'heard' God)

--- Penguin.

I try not to assume.

Originally posted by RJHinds
His Atheism may allow it's master to enter him and take over. And as we all should know, Satan was a murderer from the beginning.

Jesus said, "He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from
his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

(John 8:44 NKJV)

unconfirmed new testament propaganda spoken by a confirmed false prophet.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I try not to assume.

So I'll ask you again, how would you confirm that the instruction to kill, if given in the same manner as previous communications you may have had and that you believe to be from God, is really from God and not an hallucination?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
So I'll ask you again, how would you confirm that the instruction to kill, if given in the same manner as previous communications you may have had and that you believe to be from God, is really from God and not an hallucination?

--- Penguin.

I believe I would receive convincing confirmation of some sort from the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe I would receive convincing confirmation of some sort from the Holy Spirit.

Well that looks like we are back at step 5 of our circle of argument again:

1. When asked if you would follow a command from God to kill, you say that yes you would.
2. I ask you how you can tell a communication from God apart from a hallucination of a communication from God, with enough confidence to comply with a communication telling you to kill.
3. You say the whole question is hypothetical and therefore does not need an answer.
4. I point out that if you believe the Bible, you must believe that such communications have happened in the past and therefore could happen to you and therefore the question is not really hypothetical and deserves an answer.
5. You say that you believe that God would communicate a way
6. Goto 2.


So again, we return to step 2 and I ask how can be sure enough that you are not simply hallucinating the confirmation?

We know that people imagine communication from God: it happens in all religions. Horrible acts have been done in the mistaken belief that they are God's will. If it is a private 'revelation', you cannot trust it without external verfication. A command to kill, heard solely by you, is too important to just obey without question.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
unconfirmed new testament propaganda spoken by a confirmed false prophet.

What is the confirmed false prophecy?

Originally posted by Penguin
Well that looks like we are back at step 5 of our circle of argument again:
[i]
1. When asked if you would follow a command from God to kill, you say that yes you would.
2. I ask you how you can tell a communication from God apart from a hallucination of a communication from God, with enough confidence to comply with a communication telling you to kill.
...[text shortened]... to kill, heard solely by you, is too important to just obey without question.

--- Penguin.

If the communication is from God the outcome will be good. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the communication is from God the outcome will be good. HalleluYah !!! 😏

So if you get urge to go on a killing spree, you will go ahead no questions asked with no verification required as to the source of the urge. You will assume it must have been from God but you won't actually know until afterwards if everything turns out fine.

If however the urge wasn't instilled by God, then innocent people are dead and you killed them.

You're a scary person.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
So if you get urge to go on a killing spree, you will go ahead no questions asked with no verification required as to the source of the urge. You will assume it must have been from God but you won't actually know until afterwards if everything turns out fine.

If however the urge wasn't instilled by God, then innocent people are dead and you killed them.

You're a scary person.

--- Penguin.

No more scary than God is to those who refuse to obey and repent of their sins.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is the confirmed false prophecy?

a confirmed false prophet. he claimed to be the messiah and failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
a confirmed false prophet. he claimed to be the messiah and failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy.

If Yahshua is not the Christ then there is no one that could ever fulfill all of the
messianic prophecies. The prophecy of the seventy sevens (Daniel 9) pinpoints
the time of the appearing of the Messiah to 27 A.D. when he was baptized by
John the Baptist and annointed by the Holy Spirit. Although some scholars
dates are slightly different, the result is that the Christ was due to appear at
about the time of Yahshua (Jesus). So there is no one that the Jews are
looking for that can fulfill that messianic prophecy.

Although you claim Yahshua (Jesus) did not fulfill a single messianic prophecy
there are many books by scholars stating otherwise. You can even google it to
see what I mean. Those that He did not fulfill at His first coming He has made
a promise to fulfill at His second coming.

Here is one example:
http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
If Yahshua is not the Christ then there is no one that could ever fulfill all of the
messianic prophecies

you're more right than you think. no messiah can fulfill the messianic prophecies because one of them require the defeat of the assyrians and they are not around as a kingdom anymore.

. The prophecy of the seventy sevens (Daniel 9) pinpoints
the time of the appearing of the Messiah to 27 A.D. when he was baptized by
John the Baptist and annointed by the Holy Spirit. Although some scholars
dates are slightly different, the result is that the Christ was due to appear at
about the time of Yahshua (Jesus). So there is no one that the Jews are
looking for that can fulfill that messianic prophecy.

it sure was expected and many "messiahs" sprung up in the region. unfortunately, they all turned out to be false along with daniel.

Although you claim Yahshua (Jesus) did not fulfill a single messianic prophecy
there are many books by scholars stating otherwise. You can even google it to
see what I mean. Those that He did not fulfill at His first coming He has made
a promise to fulfill at His second coming.

Here is one example:
http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

they're all wrong. the messianic prophecies are clearly described in the old testament and none of them were fulfilled by christ or any other "messiah"

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you're more right than you think. no messiah can fulfill the messianic prophecies because one of them require the defeat of the assyrians and they are not around as a kingdom anymore.

[quote]. The prophecy of the seventy sevens (Daniel 9) pinpoints
the time of the appearing of the Messiah to 27 A.D. when he was baptized by
John the Baptist and anno ibed in the old testament and none of them were fulfilled by christ or any other "messiah"

pure unsubstantiated mere opinion masquerading as fact. Christ was and is the
Messianic King.

Alfred Edersheim located 456 passages to which the “ancient Synagogue referred as
Messianic,” and there were 558 references in the most ancient rabbinic writings
supporting such applications. (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1906, Vol. I, p.
163; Vol. II, pp. 710-737)

One only needs to read Isaiah 53 and the game is over.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you're more right than you think. no messiah can fulfill the messianic prophecies because one of them require the defeat of the assyrians and they are not around as a kingdom anymore.

[quote]. The prophecy of the seventy sevens (Daniel 9) pinpoints
the time of the appearing of the Messiah to 27 A.D. when he was baptized by
John the Baptist and anno ibed in the old testament and none of them were fulfilled by christ or any other "messiah"

I am not sure what prophecy you are referring to, but if it has not been fulfilled,
don't worry, be happy, for it will be fulfilled in time if necessary. I think the ones
called Assyrians were defeated at one time just like Israel. However, we now have
the Nation of Israel again fulfilling biblical prophecy. I understand the people
are also called Syrians and there is a nation called Syria today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people

Your claim was that He claimed to be the messiah and failed to fulfill a single
messianic prophecy. You did not claim that one prophecy had not been fulfilled.
So my point was to show that the people of his time believed He had fulfilled some
of the messianic prophecies. They believed He was at least responsible for some
of the blind regaining their sight and the lame being able to walk. He is even
reported to have rode into Jerusalem on a donkey on purpose to fulfill that
prophecy. Even the Roman governer recognized Him as the King of the Jews by
having an inscription made to that fact and placing it over His head at the crucifixion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not sure what prophecy you are referring to, but if it has not been fulfilled,
don't worry, be happy, for it will be fulfilled in time if necessary. I think the ones
called Assyrians were defeated at one time just like Israel. However, we now have
the Nation of Israel again fulfilling biblical prophecy. I understand the people
are also called Sy ...[text shortened]... ws by
having an inscription made to that fact and placing it over His head at the crucifixion.

You still have no concept of what constitutes evidence.

Assuming just for a moment that you have a proper bona-fide reliable source for claiming that
a Roman governor recognized JC as the king of the Jews... So what?

If President Obama where to recognize a person as King of the Jew's and have a monument
built in their honour would that make them the King of the Jews? Or mean that they were the son
of god?

Everything you have about JC was written by people after his death either by people who knew the
prophecies they wanted to fulfil or by people reporting what those people were saying.

Which means that the fact that he 'fulfilled' various 'prophecies' is entirely unremarkable.

In fact even if JC was real and did do some of these things.... HE knew the prophecies that the
messiah was supposed to fulfil and thus that he then went and did some of them is neither surprising
nor evidence of any prophetic ability of those who made the prophecies.


If I prophesies that you will do something, tell you what the prophecy is, and give you an incentive to do it...

Do I have magic powers if you then do it?



The biblical 'prophecies' fulfilled or not are not in any way shape or form evidence that JC was the son of god.
Particularly as it can't actually be proved that the guy existed or did anything the bible claims he did.


To have evidence for something you need facts that can only be explained by that something.

Given how trivially easy it is to postulate not just alternative but more likely explanations for ALL of your claims
of evidence none of it can be considered to be evidence for the existence for god or JC.