19 Apr 17
2 edits
well seeing that FML has nothing more than the usual predictable pedantry, nitpicking, incessant whinging, trollin elements up from the past in order to attempt to vilify his opponents, blatant framing of questions in manner intended to cause confusion and regurgitation of the same bumf again and again I will take my leave gleeful and happy that no claims of uninspiration will be made concerning the Bible on this forum unless there is compelling evidence for those claims. You are free to claim that those who have claimed that the Bible is inspired have not proven the case but you cannot go beyond that or you will be asked for as burden of proof. 😵
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe burden of proof regarding the supposed divine inspiration of the Bible rests with you and not with people who feel they have no reason to accept or believe your claims.
I will take my leave gleeful and happy that no claims of uninspiration will be made concerning the Bible on this forum unless there is compelling evidence for those claims.
19 Apr 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyou don't say, bye FML I am going to watch the European ladies chess championship - have a pleasant day.
The burden of proof regarding the supposed divine inspiration of the Bible rests with you and not with people who feel they have no reason to accept or believe your claims.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCome sir, don't be a plank.
Is there or is there not a difference between making truth claims and finding no compelling evidence in the proof of others? Yes there is!
In Scots law for example we have a verdict of not proven. What does this mean? It means that the prosecution has not been able to provide compelling evidence of the defendants guilt. Does that mean they they ...[text shortened]... t it has not be proven to be inspired.
Bunkum? more like absolutely unassailable sound logic.
If Mr X believes aubergines can talk and Mr Y challenges this, the burden of proof is on Mr X to substantiate this belief, not on Mr Y to substantiate his challenge or disbelief.
You current strategy of being non-committal, so as to dodge evidencing something you clearly believe, is wimpy to say the least.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Fulfilled prophesies don't evidence the 'divinely inspired' nature of the bible. Take for example Jesus being born in Bethlehem, merely as a means to strengthen the parallels between Jesus and King David.
"Why would a Roman/local regulation have mandated people to go back to their birthplaces for counting, instead of simply counting everyone in ...[text shortened]... seph-Have-To-Go-To-Bethlehem).
Facts manipulated, to fulfil prophecies, evidence very little.
Fulfilled prophesies don't evidence the 'divinely inspired' nature of the bible.
Fulfilled prophecy adds to an accumulated case that we are on the right track to take the Bible as God speaking to man.
Take for example Jesus being born in Bethlehem, merely as a means to strengthen the parallels between Jesus and King David.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, parallels between Jesus and King David are perfectly valid.
All the positive men of faith in times past were sign-posts and previews of the ultimate Perfect One - God incarnate as a man - Jesus Christ.
That there are parallels between Moses and Jesus, Aaron and Jesus, Joshua and Jesus, David and Jesus, Elijah and Jesus, Elisha and Jesus, Jeremiah and Jesus, etc, etc., is to be expected.
I don't see these parallels to serve as excuses to disbelieve in the coming of Christ - the Son of God.
Jesus certainly, if merely a man, could not [edited] orchestrate His own birth to be associated with a Messiah on the Dividic throne of Israel. Of course the prophecy itself of Micah 5:2 says that the One born has His going forths from "days of eternity".
David was great. But David did not have his goings forth from eternity. That could only be true of God Himself.
" For thus says the high and exalted One, Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy ... (Isaiah 57:15)
Israel highly regarded King David. But of the shepherd boy king it could not be said that he "inhabits eternity".
This Messianic King has his days from eternity -
"From you [Bethlehem Ephrathah] will come forth to Me He who is to be Ruler in Israel;
And His goings forth are from ancient times. from the days of eternity. "
This born child is therefore the eternal uncreated God become a man.
Didn't He act like it ?
"Why would a Roman/local regulation have mandated people to go back to their birthplaces for counting,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is another issue of which I would have to re-research. It seems a very minor one.
The Roman government wanted to keep track of everyone under their imperial rule.
instead of simply counting everyone in place with their birth details, as we do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is much more minor of a point.
It is not nearly as significant to me as the personality an power of the one born in Bethlehem according to predictions that even Christ's eventual opposers were familiar with.
...No credible article I've ever read showed a plausible advantage for the Romans to making people go back to their ancestral home."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
The "coincidence" of someone like Jesus of Nazareth being born in Bethlehem I think, should be given more attention.
Have you been listening to Richard Carrier ?
I found on Christian Thinktank, long articles on the Roman census, which when I get time
will read.
Someone put in this question to which Glenn Miller responds -
"I have a question concerning the examples provided to show how the Roman Empire carried out registrations in client kingdoms.'
The response is in a long article called -
" Does the data about Apamea and the Ciete support the view that Rome carried out registrations in client kingdoms? "
It is more technical than I want to digest at this moment.
But I will put it on my "should read" list.
And here is Glenn Miller's other very lengthy and technical article on:
The Lukan Census -- Updated
http://christianthinktank.com/qr1.html
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Cont. with the Ghost
(http://ask.metafilter.com/121168/Why-Did-Mary-And-Joseph-Have-To-Go-To-Bethlehem).
Facts manipulated, to fulfil prophecies, evidence very little.
I have not read this. And I am pretty sure you haven't read many things though you've read some things.
It is not as if belief in Inspiration hinges on the ONE event of the prophecy of Micah 5:2 and Christ's birth in Bethlehem.
Even if you had some arguable issues about the New Testament fabricating the time and place birth of Jesus and its surrounding events, it would be a kind of "one down, ninety-nine to go" situation. And I really don't think you have "one down" to begin with.
But I am not ready to debate Roman Census history at the moment.
Wild conspiracy theories arguing that facts were always retrofitted to fabricate fulfilled prophecy are not overwhelming to me.
Neither His birth could He orchestrate in Bethlehem if He were only a man, nor the events and timing of His death could He, if only a man with no providence over time.
John the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". All the teachers of the Law of Moses knew he was relating the mission of Jesus to the paschal lamb sacrificed at the Passover at the time of the Exodus.
The sacrificed lamb was to be examined for blemish or defects for four [edited] days.
Jesus was examined by the scribes, Pharisees, and priests for "defects" and sins (of which He had none) for four days [edited] before His crucifixion. My bolding below:
I. IN THE LAST WEEK OF HIS LIFE ON EARTH
The events in chapter twenty-one took place during the last week of the Lord's life on earth (John 12:1). In this period of time He willingly presented Himself to the children of Israel for a thorough examination.
II. AS THE PASSOVER LAMB
BEING EXAMINED BEFORE THE PASSOVER
We have seen that the last time the Lord Jesus came to Jerusalem He came not to work, but to present Himself to those who were to slaughter Him. In 21:23—22:46 the Lord was tested and examined. According to Exodus 12, the passover lamb had to be examined four full days. In the Jewish calendar, four days could also be considered six days, for part of a day was counted as one day. Thus, Matthew says that Christ ascended the Mount of Transfiguration after six days, but Luke says that He did so after eight days (Matt. 17:1; Luke 9:28). During the last week of His life, Christ was examined for six days. Then He was crucified on the day of the Passover. This indicates that He was the real Passover Lamb; the lamb in Exodus 12 was a type.
III. BY THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND ELDERS
OF THE PEOPLE
A. Asking Him about the Source of His Authority
First the Lord was examined by the chief priests and the elders. Matthew 21:23 says, “And as He came into the temple, the chief priests and elders of the people came to Him as He was teaching and said, By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” The chief priests represented the religious power, and the elders represented the civilian power. These two powers came together to test Christ, who was standing before them as the Passover Lamb to be examined by the children of Israel. These Jewish leaders asked the Lord where He had received His authority and who had given it to Him. The Lord Jesus did not answer them directly, but with another question.
Credit - The Life Study of Matthew by Witness Lee.
Anyone wanting to read more - http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=1502E5AD0C
My main point briefly stated here, is that both Christ's birth and His death seem prophetic and impossible for a mere man to have arranged the precise surroundings to "fake" a fulfillment of prophecy.
Its easier to just believe the New Testament and the integrity of the authors.
19 Apr 17
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI have already provided unassailable logic for making truth claims and stated that the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. This runs true for those claiming inspiration and those who claim that the Bible is not inspired or the product of men or written to control other people. These are all truth claims regardless and require a burden of proof. I have also demonstrated admirably and beyond a reasonable doubt that the position of those who oppose the inspiration of the Bible is one of not proven and that you cannot make any truth claims on the basis that the evidence presented to you is not compelling other than to say you are unconvinced.
Come sir, don't be a plank.
If Mr X believes aubergines can talk and Mr Y challenges this, the burden of proof is on Mr X to substantiate this belief, not on Mr Y to substantiate his challenge or disbelief.
You current strategy of being non-committal, so as to dodge evidencing something you clearly believe, is wimpy to say the least.
Someone that lives in a straw house should not be making references to planks. Just saying.
I Sir am a chess player, it is my business to be objective. Why you erroneously mistake this for wussiness is known only to you.
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn other words the burden of proof regarding your claim that the Bible is divinely inspired lies with you.
I have already provided unassailable logic for making truth claims and stated that the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
What a "coincidence" ! What an unusual "coincidence".
The Apostle Peter tells us that the whole matter of Noah's ark and the flood was a pointer in history to the death and resurrection of Christ (First Peter 3:20-21)
But could Moses have known this so as to cause the ark of Noah to land on the dry land on the very day of the calendar that Jesus rose from the dead ? Or is the writing of the book of Genesis[/b as well as the Gospel directed by God ?
The [b]Genesis facts as stated:
"And the ark came to rest in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. " (Gen. 8:4)
From The Life Study of Genesis by Witness Lee, my bolding - my spacing -
E. Life in Resurrection
The Bible is marvelous. Genesis 8:4 says that the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. If you read the Bible carefully along with history and the best lexicons, you will find that, at the time of the Passover in Egypt, the seventh month was changed to the first (Exo. 12:2). The Jews have two kinds of calendars, the civil calendar and the sacred calendar. The civil calendar was the old one, and the sacred calendar was the new one, which began from the first Passover.
When God told the Israelites to have the Passover, He told them that that month had to be counted as the first month of the year. In Hebrew the name of that month was Abib (Exo. 13:4), which means sprouting, budding, fresh ears of corn. This signifies that, in the eyes of God, the Passover was counted as a new beginning of life. Why do I point this out? Because the Lord Jesus was crucified on the day of the Passover, on the fourteenth day of the month (Exo. 12:6; John 18:28). According to the sacred calendar, He was crucified in the first month, and according to the civil calendar, He was crucified in the seventh month, the same month as when the ark rested upon the mount. The Lord was crucified on the fourteenth day of that month and was resurrected three days later. Thus, according to the sacred calendar, Christ was resurrected on the seventeenth day of the first month.
According to the civil calendar, it was on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the very day that the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. So, in that early type of the ark resting upon the mountain, we were told the exact date of the resurrection of Christ. This is wonderful.
What a truth. What a message -
http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=1802E1AC0F
Originally posted by sonshipWere the people who wrote about Jesus rising from the dead, decades after it was supposed to have happened, aware of Genesis 8:4 or unaware of Genesis 8:4?
But could Moses have known this so as to cause the ark of Noah to land on the dry land on the very day of the calendar that Jesus rose from the dead ? Or is the writing of the book of Genesis as well as the Gospel directed by God ?