Jim Larmore

Hi Sven, long time no converse. Hows it been going?
If you think about your question just a little its ludicrous. Whether satan deceived me or not he still exists and he is still deceiving isn't he? I don't pretend to know everything that has to do with the Bible. I'll admitt my statement on satan is speculative but it does have some evidencial support. By that I mean it makes sense and I don't know of anyone who could deny that evil exists in our world. If you accept that there are two forces in our universe of good and evil then it only makes sense that the source of this evil is satan and the source of all good is God.

I take the Bible and try to understand it from a open mind not a skeptical one that looks at any opportunity to invalidate or obfuscate. Prophecies are a big plus to help build my faith in the Bible.

I did my tour on the Ev/Cr board. I may come over there and lurk but I can't seem to make myself understand nor will I articulate with a bunch of guys over there that are so willing to accept/ swallow hook line and sinker unassisted abiogenesis.
Talk about faith, now that takes faith

Jim Larmore

No I don't really , but I do hope I can at least raise some questions in your minds.

Its too bad you have come to the conclusion you have as it will one day come back to haunt you. There will always be a way to find things to invalidate anything if you look for it long enough. The Bible is not a myth as many would have you believe. I used to be agnostic too but I came to my senses. I know some of things in the Bible are hard to understand how they happened. I know they go beyond what we know of in the physical sciences, but so does unassisted abiogenesis and theres a ton of guys who believe in that. This all just didn't happen by mistake, there was an intelligent designer to all of what we see in life and the cosmos.
If I've offended you by being condecending I apologize but from where I'm sitting the condecesion flows inordinately more from yours and others like your's side than it does mine. I have never once supposedly been gently and or tactfully corrected or refuted on this forum. So save the pleas for less condescension for the real shredders on this forum who will be addressing me very shortly if you'll just stay around and notice.

Vicki

Jim, I expect to see "statements" like this in GRD, but in BC&H?!...you must be joking!

Celsus

You didn't answer any of my questions, how disappointing.
You're losing sight of your original claim. Daniel, notably, isn't one of the Nevi'im, and secondly, none of that supports your contention that it was canonised by the second century BCE. Perhaps you can tell us how the additions to Daniel crept in on a "canonised" book? Or another angle to take is demonstrating that Found at Qumran = Canonical? How do you rule out Enoch? Josephus refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes in mention of the "prophecy". The claim by Jesus tells us only what Jesus thought of the book. It only works for those who consider Jesus divine (note where you are posting mate).
Assenes? What's an Assene? Right anyway, so the Genesis Apocryphon, Noah, Enoch, etc. are also sacred writings, correct? After all, Abraham, Noah and Enoch were all holy men, considered prophets even. What is wrong with this argument?

Joel

Amaleq13

Do you have a reference for this custom?

Assuming it is true, you've only traded an apparently arbitrary choice of "Messiah onset" for an apparently arbitrary choice of birth year though discussing this new choice is straying further from the OP. You seem to be accepting Matthew's range (before Herod's death - 4BCE) over Luke's more specific claim (Quirinius' reign - 6CE) to obtain this age. Surely not just because it makes the math work? You also seem to somehow go beyond the general range established by Matthew to specifically identify 4BCE. Again, do you have reasons other than making the math work?

Really? How so? As he is depicted in the Gospels, Jesus clearly had a unique vision of what his mission as messiah was and his ministry certainly wasn't the focus. Paul doesn't even feel compelled to mention it at all. He does, however, mention the true duties of Jesus' mission as messiah and they began on the cross and ended with the resurrection. If we are to determine the "Messiah onset" by identifying when Jesus took on his messianic duties, you would think the resurrection would be the most obvious point.

In fact, Mark's Gospel tells us he kept his messianic identity a secret. If making his identity as the messiah known is how we are to determine the "Messiah onset", his entry into Jerusalem would appear to be the most obvious point.

No problem. Don't forget to the include the context!

spin

He tends not to answer much at all. To be expected. Why be disappointed?!


spin

Anat

Amaleq, the age range of 30-50 is given in Numbers 4 for the service of various lineages of Leviites. What this has to do with a Messianic claim, I have no idea. (Hint: the Messiah is supposed to be an heir of the Davidic monarchic lineage - which is of Judah, not Levi. Kings were annointed as young as the age of 6.)

Sven

Since it's not "you guys", but biblical scholars, which are theists themselves, your accusation looks, well, empty.

post tenebras lux

But what if someone doesn't 'accept that there are two forces in our universe of good and evil'? What if someone does not accept that there is such a thing as objective good or objective evil?

What sort of statement about Satan would make sense - and not appear speculative in that case?

Also, when you mention a word such as evil in a context such as I don't know of anyone who could deny that evil exists in our world, could you be so kind as to define what you mean by evil as I suspect that, either I will deny that what you call evil actually does exist in this word, or I will feel that what you define as evil does not correlate to bad or not good out in the real world.

Luxie

Sven

Mostly well, thanks.

No, even positing an entity which has the power to deceive us is ludicrous.

Umm, that's your claim. And even if he exists, so what? This does not mean in any way that any other of the stories of the bible is true.

Support which can be explained as well without referring to satan.
Demon possessions: Psychology, misdiagnosis, etc.
Evil in the world: Shit happens. The universe does not care for humans.
So using Occam, Satan is simply unnecessary.

And how do you possibly know who of us is deceived by satan and who is not? Please answer this question.

Prophecies which as well could have been put there by Satan, to deceive you believing in a false god. How do you rule this out?

So we are back equating evolution with abiogenesis.
I did not ask you to discuss the latter, but the former. What we (some people) think about the likelihood of other subjects is entirely irrelevant.
There's a thread waiting for you there, already bumped a number of times.

If you informed yourself about the research done on abiogenesis, you'd see that this does not take faith, but "only" some extrapolation from known data.

Since neither evolution nor abiogenesis are "mistakes", your "argument" vanishes into thin air - where it came from.