Certain People's Perspectives

@divegeester said
I am not “getting worried” about your “spiritual muscle”, which may feel to you as though it carries some authoritative clout and which is no doubt regarded with some level of mirth within your little religious group, nor am I “getting worried” about your version of god “getting me”, nor am I “getting worried” about you coming out of your “used to be” tough guy retirement and duffing me up.

You really are three dimensionally unimpressive.

Interesting that you keep asserting the phrase "your version of god".

I don't think you have one. I don't believe you can produce a coherent description of God.

@secondson said
Jesus.

If I presented you with a book and asserted it was divinely inspired, and as by way of evidence to substantiate this assertion, said it was divinely inspired because a character in that book said it was, would you accept that evidence?

@secondson said
Interesting that you keep asserting the phrase "your version of god".

Why is it "interesting"? You've already proclaimed that we worship different Gods

@secondson said
Interesting that you keep asserting the phrase "your version of god".
I don't think you have one.

I don't care.

@secondson said
Jesus.

Incredibly divine ? Just why did your god put two different stories about his birth in the "divinely inspired" book ??
One of the stories is clearly a lie !
Is your god a liar ??

@ghost-of-a-duke said
If I presented you with a book and asserted it was divinely inspired, and as by way of evidence to substantiate this assertion, said it was divinely inspired because a character in that book said it was, would you accept that evidence?

Not necessarily.

It would not be because YOU presented the book. There would have to be something more. No?

I'm not aware of any other book in existence that contains direct quotes attributed to God. Do you?

I'm being precise here. The point is, that truth would make the Bible a one of a kind book, and in a world of books written by man that would make the Bible a very unusual book, that is if in fact it was inspired.

A serious student of literature would find it difficult to ascribe to the Bible a common relationship with any other book. A serious student of history, archaeology and anthropology will find no other book written that compares with or contains information that is as accurate, complete and precise as that which is in the Bible.

Consider the table of nations for example.

Of course the critics will disagree, but they have lost the debate, except in their own circles where their bias is shared.

Then there is the evidence of the new birth. It can only be known through direct experience. Probably impossible to provide evidence for that, and certainly cannot be experienced by one that has made up their mind to the contrary.

Regeneration of the spirit is a concept exclusive to the Bible. It's not "enlightenment", and can only be explained by and within the context of God's Word.

Being "born again" is the heart of the matter because the Christian experience is a matter of the heart primarily.

The conversion of the heart precedes the "renewing of the mind".

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Precisely speaking, no other book in the world can or does make such a claim. The experience of it is the evidence.

@caissad4

Incredibly divine ? Just why did your god put two different stories about his birth in the "divinely inspired" book ??
One of the stories is clearly a lie !
Is your god a liar ??

You did the easy part. You made the assertion. Now demonstrate that there are two different stories, one of which has to be a lie.

Show me the contradictions.

@sonship said
@caissad4

Incredibly divine ? Just why did your god put two different stories about his birth in the "divinely inspired" book ??
One of the stories is clearly a lie !
Is your god a liar ??

You did the easy part. You made the assertion. Now demonstrate that there are two different stories, one of which has to be a lie.

Show me the contradictions.

caissad4 can't prove there's a lie in the Bible, so all that's left is to lie about it.

@sonship said
@caissad4

Incredibly divine ? Just why did your god put two different stories about his birth in the "divinely inspired" book ??
One of the stories is clearly a lie !
Is your god a liar ??

You did the easy part. You made the assertion. Now demonstrate that there are two different stories, one of which has to be a lie.

Show me the contradictions.

Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).

(The Secular web)

@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Ghost -

Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4).

Luke 2:4 - "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to David's city, which is called Bethlehem, because he was out of the house and family of David, ..."

Ghost -

Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

"Now when Herod had died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. (v.19)

Saying, Arise, take the child and His mother and go into the land of Israel, for those who sought the life of the child have died. (v.20)

And he arose and took the child and His mother and entered into the land of Israel. (v.21)

But hearing that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there; and being warned in a dream, he departed into the parts of Galilee, (v.22)

And came and dwelt in the city called Nazareth that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a Nazarene." (v.23) (Matthew 2:19-23)

Which verse tells me that " ONLY after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth" ?

I do not see that information in v.19 or v.20 or v.21 or v.22 or v. 23.

I do see that they were afraid. Where does it explicitly tell us that they never lived in Nazareth before ?

And if Matthew doesn't explicitly say they NEVER LIVED IN NAZARETH ***BEFORE***, then where is the "contradiction" in these words?

" ... he departed into the parts of Galilee, And came and dwelt in the city called Nazareth, ..." (See Matthew 2:22-23)

Where are the words in Matthew 2:19-23 stating that ONLY after the birth of Jesus did Mary and Joseph EVER live in Nazareth ?

@sonship

Have you decided not to address this part of my post?


'In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).'

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Have you decided not to address this part of my post?

'In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).'

I have not made a decision to NOT speak to that second part. If your FIRST part is invalid, I think this should be cleared up FIRST. "One thing at a time" perhaps?

The word contradict contains "dict" indicating saying. If it never SAYS what you tell us is SAID, then there is no counter saying and no contraDICTion.

The critics at Secular Web have in this case taken silence and used it to generate their imagined contradiction.

@secondson said
caissad4 can't prove there's a lie in the Bible, so all that's left is to lie about it.

You cannot even prove your god even exists.
Exactly what can you prove about your holy book ? Real proof please.
Do you subscribe to the Donald Trump School of Theology ???
A liar calling someone a liar. That is your style.

@caissad4 said
You cannot even prove your god even exists.
Exactly what can you prove about your holy book ? Real proof please.
Do you subscribe to the Donald Trump School of Theology ???
A liar calling someone a liar. That is your style.

SecondSon is a Republican but won’t admit it for some reason.

@caissad4

You cannot even prove your god even exists.

For me to want to draw close to God doesn't require this proof in some mathematical way. It is sufficient for me believe I am certainly on the right track.

Look at the formation of sperm and egg cell into a child in human reproduction. Do you honestly think the process arose by accidents?

I think I'm on the right track to believe in a wise and intelligent Creator whose power and knowledge seem infinite. I may not be able to prove it 100%.

Do you think you're on the right track to believe the cascade of reproductive operations did not involve a planning intelligence ? I don't have that much faith for that.

I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.