Clivedurdle

Another go!

This is clear evidence that humans were able to imagine themselves outside of the celestial sphere (with earth in the centre of course) and thus had created very detailed imaginary history of the universe maps.

The various apocalypses must be understood as a subset of this mapping - about what happens at the end of time.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, you have established that science and history do not mean anything to you.

Speculative? Oh my, you are joking, right? Why aren't the Gospels speculative? Are you aware and any Scriptures in Matthew, Mark, or Luke where the authors claim to be eyewitnessess? In addition, who were the Gospel writers' primarily second hand or third hand sources, decades after the supposed facts of course?

You reject common sense, logic, reason, science, and history in favor of faith, emotions, inerrancy, and Biblical predispositionalism, and yet you have the audacity to claim that anything that disagrees with the Bible is speculative and proves nothing. If that don't beat all. Your buddy Pascal believed that only Roman Catholics will go to heaven. Was that speculative?

The claim that a global flood occured is speculative, and does not have any basis in science whatsoever, and yet you believe the claim. No rational person would believe that a global flood occured. It violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, and the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting. You certainly know better than to embarrass yourself by going to the Evolution/Creation Forum and discussing the global flood.

Consider the following claims:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

4 - Jesus never sinned.

5 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind.

Those claims are most certainly speculative, and do not have any basis in history or science whatsoever. Oh, I forgot, history and science do not mean anything to you, only faith, emotions, inerrancy, and Biblical predispositionalism. Inerrancy is nothing more than an appeal to emotions. Inerrantists wanted God to act like they want him to act, so they dreamed up inerrancy, and yet they accuse skeptics of wanting God to act like they want him to act. If, as many Christians claim, God is not obligated to save anyone, he certainly is not obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts. Such being the case, why do inerrantists believe that the Bible is inerrant? The correct answer is, because inerrancy satisfies their emotional need to have God act like they want him to act.

You really do need to tell us why the Bible is not speculative, and why is it not reasonable for skeptics to propose alternative speculations to the Bible's speculations.

rhutchin

Don't know, but I don't see it as relevant and you can ignore that statement as it adds nothing to the issue at hand. His references to the NT are that which are sufficient to address the consistency issue that you raised.

rhutchin

Then, there are no accounts of past events that are not speculative are there?

Chili

No, when he created heaven and earth the earth was a formless wastland to say that unstructured space is a deluge and the two needed to be placed opposite to each other to make sense out of it so that reason can prevail.Not likely if Christ was born. You mean Christ was born of a virgin of virgins so our perception will be immaculate. It is not possible to sin without a law to convict. Shed blood for the atonement of Judaism and spilled water to preserve that which he had = the trunk of Judaism.

Here Johnny is a poem for you on this:

The Oak

Live thy life,
Young and old,
Like yon oak,
Bright in spring,
Living gold;

Summer rich
Then; and then
Autumn-changed
Soberer-hued
Gold Again.

All his leaves
Fall'n at length,
Look, he stands,
Trunk and bough
Naked strength.

Johnny Skeptic

On the contrary, your source claims to know what ancient Jewish scholars saw in the passage. If you do not know which ancient Jewish scholars your source is referring to, and from what time period, your use of the source is not valid. I doubt that your source told the truth.

No they aren't, as the following website that is called "Jews for Jesus" clearly shows:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index....=48&Itemid=373

Clivedurdle

And of course the idea of a second coming becomes redundant with a god doing his stuff somewhere between earth and god and atlas ( what did the Jews think the universe was supported on - turtles?)

Was Paul, Hebrews, Revelation et al talking about a first coming?

Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not, as the following website that is called "Jews for Jesus" reasonably proves:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index....=48&Itemid=373

The website contains many articles about various parts of Isaiah 53 that go into great detail. There is little doubt that Isaiah 53 does not refer to Jesus.

Clivedurdle

Is not the story in Revelation of the Church being the Bride of Christ - I assume there is a correlation between rapture and marriage - evidence that he hasn't been here before?

What is this bouncing bridegroom about who comes goes and comes again?

Clivedurdle

And interestingly, Acts, the doctrines of the Holy Spirit and the Gospels then become necessary plot correction devices to pull it all together - except this was done after wards and imposed on the pre existing ideas, and like plot gaps in Star Trek, does not quite work.