Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[ding]

You ask a very complex question and then dismiss me when I try to answer. Do the 40 miracles have multiple attestation or not?

See post #499.

It's your failure to acknowledge the logical conclusion of your belief that convicts you. You know you can't prove a conspiracy because the facts don't support it.

 

[alang1216]

Nope. Why don't you admit you're a conspiracy theorist?

When you refuse to answer my questions? I think not.

 

[alang1216]

See post #499.

It's your failure to acknowledge the logical conclusion of your belief that convicts you. You know you can't prove a conspiracy because the facts don't support it.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

 

[ding]

When you refuse to answer my questions? I think not.

Can you prove a conspiracy? No. How am I wrong?

 

[ding]

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

That would be truth, logic and love. You can't prove a conspiracy.

 

[alang1216]

Can you prove a conspiracy? No. How am I wrong?

You can't prove that wasn't a conspiracy. Correct?

 

[ding]

You can't prove that wasn't a conspiracy. Correct?

That's where the 24,000 written manuscripts, the behaviors of the early Christians and the behaviors of the apostles come in.

Do you have any documents or testimony from that time that disputed the historicity of the events? Because that's the other piece of evidence I have.

 

[Clyde 154]

I know a great many Christians. Even so, that is a very small percentage. No Christian I know has any anger or resentment towards Darwin. As I've mentioned to you before, only about thirty percent of Christians take all Biblical accounts literally. In the 1970s there was a big push by one denominations (Evangelicals) for everyone to read the Bible literally, but that has since ebbed. As I have also explained, Catholics are all welcome to make their own decision about whether or not to read Biblical accounts literally. Apparently it is a big thing in your denomination or locale, but it never has been in either my denomination or locales.

Since when does a "consensus" establish literal truth? You either subjectively attempt to mold the word around your chosen lifestyle or you objectively take the word of God as truth from God. "All scripture is breathed out BY GOD........." --2 Tim. 3:16-17, The word of God contains everything necessary to make the man of God Perfect in knowing what God demands as Christian Doctrine.

Simply because the majority of people do not wish to take the word of God as a literal truth does not prevent the Word from being true. As its written, "For many are called but few are chosen....." -- Matthew 22:14 God breathed out the following, "Brothers (fellow Christians), I (Apostle of Christ) have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, THAT YOU MAY LEARN NOT TO GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN............so you will not be PUFFED UP (proud and condescending)..." -- 1 Cor. 4:6


There was a belief........consensus among the majority of earths people that suggested the world was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe........turns out that supposed truth was wrong. Another instance........the age of the earth suggested by consensus..........when I was a child it was taught as truth that the earth was 1.5 billion years old..........today the earth has supposedly doubled in age within a 5 decade period....... Fact: Either both suggested ages are false or one the lessons taught to our children is a lie and the other one true. Reality: There is no scientific method to establish the correct age for anything past that which can be observed. There is no source to calibrate theories such as radio carbon dating ....etc., void of actual observation and reproduction via experiment. Who was around at the beginning other than the source of creation?

 

[alang1216]

That's where the 24,000 written manuscripts, the behaviors of the early Christians and the behaviors of the apostles come in.

You may feel this is sufficient evidence but it is not proof.

Do you have any documents or testimony from that time that disputed the historicity of the events? Because that's the other piece of evidence I have.

There was never a census in the Roman world that caused everyone to go to their ancestral home. How would that even work and what would it accomplish? I don't even know where my 'ancestral' home would be. Brooklyn? Do you know why that story exists?

 

[ding]

You may feel this is sufficient evidence but it is not proof.


There was never a census in the Roman world that caused everyone to go to their ancestral home. How would that even work and what would it accomplish? I don't even know where my 'ancestral' home would be. Brooklyn? Do you know why that story exists?

It's evidence. You guys never could figure out the difference between the two. Don't you imagine that if Jesus didn't perform the number and type of miracles attributed to him that that would have been recorded by someone?

You are still trying to argue the miracles never happened without recognizing that means you are arguing it was a massive conspiracy. I say it's because you know you lose that argument because you have no EVIDENCE for that argument.

 

[alang1216]

It's evidence. You guys never could figure out the difference between the two. Don't you imagine that if Jesus didn't perform the number and type of miracles attributed to him that that would have been recorded by someone?

You are still trying to argue the miracles never happened without recognizing that means you are arguing it was a massive conspiracy. I say it's because you know you lose that argument because you have no EVIDENCE for that argument.

I give up. Sleep well.

 

[ding]

I give up. Sleep well.

I usually do.