bfniii

whatever. i visited your SAB reference, i visited the links from the tyre thread.

i am fully aware of their reasons. this is another jackism as i have pointed out before. i responded to your point about jews by citing the existence of christianity meaning the jews are not the only people with an opinion on isaiah 53 or whatever other reason exists for the rejection of Jesus as messiah. what you should have done next is to expound on why YOU think christians are wrong. that's how a normal debate goes. if you would like an example, please check out the responses between myself and john broussard. that's a good model for you to follow. but you don't do that. you create an unnecessarily long debate by repeating your original statement over and over ad nauseum. what's worse is that you have been continually repeating this behavior since the beginning of the thread even though it has been pointed out to you. hence the term jackism. feel free to spare all of us this behavior anytime.

Jack the Bodiless

Fossils that predate the "creation of the Earth", artifacts that couldn't possibly have survived the Flood, and so forth. Take this to E/C if you really want to pursue it.
What about the "long canonization process" that scrolls supposedly have to undergo before inclusion in the DSS?

...Hyperbole, of course. We don't even know what the criteria for inclusion in the DSS was: it could have been part of a library containing every document they had, regardless of provenance.
...After a LOT of goading. And you're still demanding that I repost already-posted Biblical quotes on this thread before you'll consider addressing them.
The Jews overwhelmingly rejected Jesus because he didn't fulfil THEIR expectations of the Messiah, derived from THEIR holy books. To explain why, I'd have to quote THEIR reasons from THEIR website, in total, which would be ILLEGAL.

I didn't write that law.

(Edited to add: MY reasons for rejecting Christianity go far, far beyond the alleged failure of Jesus to fulfil Jewish messianic prophecies, in which I have little personal interest, as I consider Judaism to be bunk also. So I have little incentive to become a "straw Jew" for your amusement: try a real one).
I take it that this dismissal is your latest attempt to evade the failure of Ezekiel's prophecy regarding Nebuchadnezzar, your inability to justify Biblical punishments for the crimes of others, your inability to demonstrate any example of erroneous Biblical interpretation by myself, your recognition that muddling up your responses has left you in an unrecoverable position, and so forth?

Then I accept your tacit admission of defeat, and we can conclude discussion of those issues.

John A. Broussard

Sure. It was a question following from your statement, "true christians labor from hope of life in the form of heaven."

Are you then saying that christians no longer believe in hell? Or are you saying that "true" christians no longer believe in hell?

Or, are you saying that christians are so pious that they don't need to be concerned about hell?

Or are you saying there is no hell?

Just what are you saying about hell--if anything?

Thanks.

Jack the Bodiless

Even if nothing else emerges from this stonewalling, I'm really curious about this:
I'm familiar with natural phenomena which are said to have inspired the story, but I don't see how they could be fitted into the actual account, so that the Egyptian priests could trigger them on cue.

How exactly would mere mortals using Bronze Age technology trigger a volcanic eruption on demand, for instance?

bfniii

so you can bring it up in a blatant, condescending insult to the ridiculously dogmatic and anachronistic christians but i should take my responses elsewhere?

as i said, the existence of any other documents in the caves does not mean that daniel didn't go through such a process. it's an inconclusive point.

yup. it could have been. so do you have any evidence that daniel was written in the 2nd century other than this speculation?

this is somewhat ancillary but i'll point it out anyway. your first quote explicitly stated that i refuse. your second quote stated that i did indeed go there. draw your own conclusion.

not all the jews! again, the first christians were jews. there are still jews becoming christians. they're called jews for Jesus or completed jews. i happen to know one personally. therefore, i stand behind the statement that just because SOME jews say Jesus didn't fulfill messianic expectations doesn't mean that He didn't. if you don't want to address your reasons why you believe Jesus failed, great. if you do want to, great.

funny. this is a quintessential jackism. the topic i addressed had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with anything in your response. i cited your behavior of repeating arguments instead of addressing rebuttals. how do you respond? do you cut and paste examples of how i'm incorrect? no. do you address my posts with john broussard? no. do you even try to defend yourself at all? no. you change the subject to draw me away from your behavior by arrogantly proclaiming you have won an ongoing debate.

bfniii

there was no need to trigger them on cue if they were simply aware of their environment. they merely leveraged from the event. if those particular conditions didn't exist, they could have pulled other tricks out of the hat based on other peculiar conditions.

bfniii

i personally don't know any christians that don't believe in hell.

a christian should not be worried about it if they have accepted Jesus. i don't see that as piety. just certainty based on what the bible has told them.

i hope that helps.

bfniii

yes to both. the addition of morality to our lives is intimately related to freewill. God wants us to freely choose to accept Jesus in order to go to heaven. in order for us to choose, we need choices. morality is the mechanism for those choices. a way for us to define what it is we choose.

sure. teachers do it all the time. there are times when a teacher will ask a student to do something the wrong way (or allow it to be done the wrong way) so that they will understand the difference between correct and incorrect. i myself, having taught, have a pretty good idea what mistakes a student will make even before they begin. even though people are different, there are fundamental similarities that gives teachers a kind of prescience if you will. allowing a student to make a mistake is often an effective tool for prevention of future mistakes. i happen to know several teachers and they would all agree. i think many parents would agree as well.

the punishment you speak of is not so much of a punishment. it's just a consequence of the choices we make. the only true, permanent punishment is rejection of God.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, because that's precisely what the E/C forum is FOR.

Besisdes, these replies are already getting very long. Including all the evidence which contradicts the Genesis accounts would fill entire books.
It gets discussed quite often on this forum, but I'm not the resident expert. Spin knows all about it: try a search on "Daniel" under his username. I am, however, well aware that it's the accepted scolarly position. IIRC, the "prophecies" are somewhat inaccurate for the time that Daniel supposedly lived, become progressively better until the 167-164 BC period is reached, are then very symbolic of that period, and then Daniel "loses it" completely when the author moves into his own future and predicts a long life for Antiochus Epiphanes (who soon died).

I don't recall the actual verses, but spin knows them.
...Go where? I have yet to see evidence that you HAVE gone to the "Jews for Judaism" site.
I thought these posts were becoming too long already?

I have sufficient material already, I don't need more. If YOU don't want to address Jewish reasons why they believe Jesus failed, great. If you do want to, great. Maybe on a separate thread, as I suggested?
...Defend myself? Against what charge?

YOU are the one who is evading rebuttals and withdrawing from the debate in defeat. This is obvious from your conspicuous failure to reply to post #113 above, in which I AGAIN addressed your points and tried to direct you to Ezekiel 26:7-11 and many OTHER issues you are STILL not addressing.

Simply describing your own poor conduct and swapping names around won't disguise this to anyone else reading this thread.
Leveraged from WHAT event? You still haven't DESCRIBED events that could be "leveraged" in this way.

Note that THEY faced the more difficult task here. MOSES chose each "plague", they responded. THEY had to suddenly stage an appropriate event to respond with, without foreknowledge.

I suspect more evasion here. You can't actually figure out an answer to this.

Sven

If he had said: "You may want to eat from this tree, but it may have consequences for you", they still would have had the choice. But he actually said: "Don't do it."

So this all boils down to: God wanted the fall to happen?
You really argue he said: "Don't do it" and actually meant: "Please do it, it's what I want."?
And why did he punish the snake for convincing Eve to do it?

I can only repeat what Jack said: You really should read Genesis at some time. Some snippets:

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children. [...]
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, [...]
23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden

If this isn't a punishment, I don't know how you define it.

If you want to claim it isn't a punishment because it's simply the consequence of A&E choice, this doesn't make sense either: You just argued above that god wanted them to make this choice.

P.S.: Shall I take your lack of answer to the E/C related topics as an admission that you are afraid to debate them against all the epxerts in the E/C forum?