It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Researching the historical jesus?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
P.S. If history doesn't do "proof" then every post you've made in this thread trying to state there is no proof of Jesus' existence just went out the window.


Wrong.
Do you have problems reading English?

History does not do "proof".
History does evidence.

I have never claimed "proof".
I have discussed EVIDENCE.
You don't seem to grasp this basic concept.

If YOU believe Jesus existed, then provide some EVIDENCE.

But -
there IS no contemporary evidence for Jesus, so you are forced to play word games in the hope readers won't notice this glaring lack of evidence.


Originally posted by Valhall
I've got 4 gospels,


Religious preaching written by unknown persons who never met any Jesus and which contradict on basic details.



Originally posted by Valhall
multiple epistles (written by at least one man who spent some time with Jesus),


False.
Not one of the NT books was written by anyone who met any Jesus.

If YOU believe otherwise, please provide the EVIDENCE - why is that so hard?



Originally posted by Valhall
and references from non-scriptural writers.


All late, and merely repeating Christian views. I listed this alleged "evidence" here on this thread - you ignored it.

If YOU believe there is evidence, then PRODUCE it !
Why can't you do that?



Originally posted by Valhall
You've just the argument that just fell through the floorboards...because history does NOT do "proof".


You really have NO IDEA what this issue is about, do you?

You don't have the FAINTEST IDEA what this distinction between evidence and proof is, do you?


Iasion




posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion


I have never claimed "proof".
I have discussed EVIDENCE.
You don't seem to grasp this basic concept.


Unfortunate for you I grasp it far better than you. I have evidence of Jesus' existence. You have no evidence of your statements against either the writing of Peter or the writing of Josephus...you only have speculation. See, that's where you're really tripping yourself up. You're revealing to the public in your statements in this thread that you cannot discern speculation from evidence.

I have evidence (the writings referring to Jesus' existence). You have speculation (we vote we want to call this a forgery).



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

You really have NO IDEA what this issue is about, do you?

You don't have the FAINTEST IDEA what this distinction between evidence and proof is, do you?



Yes, I understand. I have evidence that Peter knew Jesus through the writings contained in the New Testament. I have evidence Peter wrote the epistles of Peter because he said hey it's me! I'm writing a letter to you!

You have speculation (hey, guys, I speculate this wasn't Peter - just got this gut feel...let's say he didn't write it, ok?) See evidence it wasn't Peter would be something like he was seen fasting in the desert without a quill and ink on the date the file was created. Then I'd say - wow! that's odd, a bit of evidence he might not have been able to have typed up that little letter.

See...I understand.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
I don't believe you.


Why am I not surprised.



Main Entry: schol·ar
Pronunciation: 'skä-l&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English scoler, from Old English scolere & Anglo-French escoler, from Medieval Latin scholaris, from Late Latin, of a school, from Latin schola school
1 : a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL
2 a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field b : a learned person

www.m-w.com...


Originally posted by Iasion
Please list the papers you have had published.


None yet. This is not required to be a Scholar


Originally posted by Iasion
please tell us the university where you lecture.


University of Delaware, but teaching, not lecturing.


Originally posted by Iasion
Please list the books you have written.


Shadows and Light


Originally posted by Iasion
Please give your real name so I can check your published papers.


You're funny


Originally posted by Iasion
Please list some scholars who consider you a scholar.


You mean the names of my friends and associates? Again you're joking.


Originally posted by Iasion
You don't FIND the evidence of forgery?


None so far.


Originally posted by Iasion
I POSTED the evidence from Kummel - right here in this thread -
but you couldn't FIND it? Even though it was right under your nose?


I says I have found no evidence, not that I don't think Kummel thinks Kummel found evidence.


Originally posted by Iasion
You pretend to be a scholar -


Many of us are scholars. Those who aren't have decided to work and family are a higher priority.


Originally posted by Iasion
but then you claim you CAN'T FIND the evidence - evidence that is POSTED HERE on the thread, evidence that is available online, evidence that is found in any NT commentary.


You're being redundant again.


Originally posted by Iasion
How pathetic -
what you really mean is - you IGNORE the evidence, you REJECT the evidence, you won't even LOOK at the evidence.


I looked at it. This time and when we'd discussed this before about a year ago.


Originally posted by Iasion
I POSTED the evidence right here.
You pretended you cound't even FIND it.

A more perfect example of a closed-mind could not be imagined.


So you're saying I'm a closed-mind? You're right if you're saying I'm not imagining things.


Originally posted by saint4God
Surely I have.



Originally posted by Iasion
Well,
your posts show ignorance of basic NT scholarship - e.g. you seem to have NO IDEA that 2 Peter is a pseudo-graph.

Have you read Brown? Ehrman? Metzger? Fitzmyer?


Have you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John? Do you think that merely reading something is compelling enough to change someone's mind? If so, everyone who read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John would be Christian, would they not?


Originally posted by Iasion
Please list the modern NT scholars you have read.


Why read what other people think of historical documents instead of actually reading the historical documents themselves? Need you someone to interpret them for you?

[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
You provide cut and paste from a website you think is true.


You have NO IDEA what earlychristianwritings is, do you?
You are completely un-ware that this site is like the Encyclopedia Britannica of NT studies.

Furthermore -
you have NO IDEA who Kummel is, do you?
One of the greatest NT scholars - and you don't even know his name !

You pretend to be a scholar, but you have no idea who the real modern NT scholars are and what they wrote.



Originally posted by saint4God
Let me break it down for ya. If people doubt the accuracy of Josephus,


But that's the problem !
We are NOT "doubting the accuracy" of Jospehus.
You simply do not grasp the issues at all !

Later Christians TAMPERED with Josephus.

We are not discussing the accuracy of what Josephus wrote.
We are discussing the CHANGES made by later Christians (not Josephus.)

You seem unable to tell the difference.

The accuracy of the original words of Jospehus about coins - HAS NOTHING to do with later tampering by Christians to add support for their faithful beliefs.

Why on earth do you confuse these two completely different issues?


Iasion



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Alrighty, I'm tired of the condescending tone, have a good day. I think my point has already been establish and have no interest in watching a skirting around the fact that in the New Testament there is written testimony of someone who was with Jesus. Specifically an eyewitness, one who was with Christ on the mountain, and heard the voice of God declaring Jesus the son of God.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

Did you know that the NT has many exact prophecies about Mohamed?
This proves Mohamed is Lord.


Iasion



Iasion, when you show back up, please be sure and list one of the "so called" MANY EXACT PROPHESIES ABOUT MOHAMED in the New Testament.


[edit on 31-8-2007 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by saint4God
You provide cut and paste from a website you think is true.



You pretend to be a scholar, but you have no idea who the real modern NT scholars are and what they wrote.



Originally posted by saint4God
Let me break it down for ya. If people doubt the accuracy of Josephus,


But that's the problem !
We are NOT "doubting the accuracy" of Jospehus.
You simply do not grasp the issues at all !

Later Christians TAMPERED with Josephus.

We are not discussing the accuracy of what Josephus wrote.
We are discussing the CHANGES made by later Christians (not Josephus.)

You seem unable to tell the difference.

The accuracy of the original words of Jospehus about coins - HAS NOTHING to do with later tampering by Christians to add support for their faithful beliefs.

Why on earth do you confuse these two completely different issues?


Iasion


I also think Josephus was tampered with, maybe by Constantines' "bishops".
However Jesus doesn't condone lying.
The end does not justify the means.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Iasion, when you show back up, please be sure and list one of the "so called" MANY EXACT PROPHESIES ABOUT MOHAMED in the New Testament.


Here are a few :


Ahmed is a form of the name Mohammed, both meaning "the praised one". In the Greek tongue, we are told, this would be "periklytos". Now we find in John's Gospel, Chapter 14:16:
"I will pray the Father and He will give you another "parakletos", to be with you for ever."


A prophecy pertaining to Mohammed, is in the Gospel according to John 1:19:
"And this is a record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 'Who art thou?' And he confessed and denied not, but confessed, 'I am not the Christ.' And they asked him, 'What then? Art thou Elias?' And he said, 'I am not.' 'Art thou that prophet?' And he answered, 'No.' Then they said unto him, 'Who art thou?' ... He said, 'I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah.'"


And one from the OT -
The most popular of all alleged prophecies about Mohammed, is found in the book of Deuteronomy 18:15-22:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you from your brethren - him you shall heed - just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see his great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the Lord said to me, 'They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' - When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the Word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.'" (My emphasis).


These prophecies are just as valid as the alleged prophecies of Jesus in the OT.

The Jews who WROTE the OT do NOT believe there are prophecies about Jesus there-in.

Just like Sun Matrix will reject the prophecies above.


In other words - none of these prophecies stand up to scrutiny - only faithful believers faithfully believe these claims.


My point is that ANY almost religious document can be seen to have prophecies of anyone you want.

I had NEVER heard of these prophecies of Mohamed in the NT - but I knew there would be some, because that is they way the mind of faithful believers work - whether Muslim or Christian. Sure enough, 5 minutes of looking turned up a few.

You could find prophecies of Condaleeza Rice in Moby Dick if you looked hard enough - that's my point - prophecies are BELIEFS only held in the minds of true believers.

Many religions claim prophecies - but they only believe their OWN, and reject all other religions' prophecies as false.

This shows clearly it's all about BELIEFS.

Prophecies are BELIEFS, that's all.

They are not real.

Iasion



[edit on 1-9-2007 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Unfortunate for you I grasp it far better than you.


Bollocks.

You were so ignorant of historical principles that you thought history does "proof".

It does not.

This is a basic error that even high school students should not make.

I see you have given up on "proof" in history now, without admitting you were wrong.

Now you start quibbling about "evidence" vs "speculation" without addressing ANY of the evidence or arguments I posted.

That's all you've got, isn't it?
Silly word games.

Because you have no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.



Originally posted by Valhall
I have evidence of Jesus' existence.


So you keep saying.
Why can't you post it?

All we've seen so far is Christian beliefs.



Originally posted by Valhall
You have no evidence of your statements against either the writing of Peter or the writing of Josephus


I posted a concise summary of the reasons why 2 Peter is considered a forgery, as expressed by one of the most well-respected NT scholars - right here in this thread.

You ignored it completely.


In other words -
when I posted evidence for my position,
you ignore it, and claim I present no evidence.

You are a bald-faced liar.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
no matter which way you pull it seems there is points that are good on most parts no matter what it is war abortion sex and God there will always be points that argue both points but the only things is you can say what you wanna say all you want and no matter what you say there will always be only one truth only one correct answer and regardless of how much you can back up what would be the wrong answer will never ever make it correct the world is clearly colored and clearly has laws....one day no matter what you will come to a place where you will have to face God........period the rest has already been said.....that is simply my peace that must be said here.....



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

I posted a concise summary of the reasons why 2 Peter is considered a forgery, as expressed by one of the most well-respected NT scholars - right here in this thread.

You ignored it completely.


In other words -
when I posted evidence for my position,
you ignore it, and claim I present no evidence.

You are a bald-faced liar.



Yeah, I read that and then I asked you to provide evidence.

Thank you very much for showing everyone that I was, in fact, correct and you haven't got the foggiest clue what the difference between evidence and speculation is. Do not give me an ARGUMENT and then delcare it EVIDENCE. An argument supports a position, or an interpretation. An argument is NOT EVIDENCE and you have yet to produce any evidnece. Then YOU have the audacity to call me a liar.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralT.
I also think Josephus was tampered with, maybe by Constantines' "bishops".


I really like how you're able to respectfully disagree. I think many ATS'ers can take lesson from this.

Question if I many, let me try to relate back a bit to the coinage in Antiquities. The dating on the coins as recorded by him are conducive to the year Jesus was purported to have been born (thereabouts). How would you explain this to be so?

Jesus seems to be the toothpick at the bottom of the pile in regards to many recording in the region. When you remove him from the equation, pretty much most of what Josephus recorded makes no sense. In otherwords, it'd have to be more than tampering...it's have to be an all-out false document. Do you believe this to be the case?


Originally posted by GeneralT.
However Jesus doesn't condone lying.
The end does not justify the means.


On this we agree.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
You were so ignorant of historical principles that you thought history does "proof".

This is a basic error that even high school students should not make.

You are a bald-faced liar.


I'm sure on your planet (which appears to be Mars), this is what is considered a 'civil' discussion, but on Earth it amounts to pointless name-calling and makes the speaker look more foolish than the one s/he is addressing.

If you have an ounce of consideration for human life, I respectfully request an apology to Valhall for this malignant address.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Many times in this thread and others, I have referred to modern NT scholars such as Brown, Metzger, Ehrman and Kummel.

There is no doubt I meant "scholar" as :
* acknowledged and published expert, a learned person

Saint4god claimed to also be a "scholar", so I asked him to support this assertion.

Instead, he came back with a definition
1 : a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL
2 a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b : a learned person


Note well -
there are TWO definitions of "scholar".

One simply means a "pupil" or "student", which can apply to any student, even primary school students.

The other meaning is a "learned person" who has done "advanced study" - an acknowledged and published expert.

Is Saint4god a "learned person" who has done "advanced study", like, say, Ehrman, Brown or Metzger?

Has he published in peer-reviewed journals?
No.

Has he been acknlowledged as "learned" by known scholars?
No.

Has he published any books on the subject?
No.

Saint4god is merely a STUDENT, a PUPIL - he is as just as much a "scholar" as anyone here who studies, just as much a "scholar" as any high-school or primary student.

But clearly he wanted us to believe he meant "scholar" as in "learned person" or acknowledged expert.

Dishonesty and silly word games.



Originally posted by saint4God]
None yet. This is not required to be a Scholar


If it is not required, why say "none yet"?

Once again, you attempt to equivocate between
"scholar" meaning "student" - which you are, which does not required published papers
vs,
"scholar" meaning acknowledged expert - which you are not, and which DOES require you to publish

We know you are a pupil - so what?
Many people here are students - so what?

You are playing word games to try to pretend you are an acknowledged expert, a "learned person".



Originally posted by saint4God]
University of Delaware, but teaching, not lecturing.


So,
you do not have tenure.
What do you teach? Bible study at night classes?



Originally posted by saint4God]
Shadows and Light


I can find no evidence of any such book.
According to your MySpace, you are still writing it.
Is this really your evidence for being a "scholar", a learned person?
An un-finished, unpublished book on who-knows-what?



Originally posted by saint4God]
You're funny


Real scholars (learned experts) are known to the community - Brown, Metzger, Ehrman - yet you hide behind anonymity on a web-site.



Originally posted by saint4God]
Iasion wrote:
Please list some scholars who consider you a scholar.

You mean the names of my friends and associates? Again you're joking.


No,
I mean learned experts - published scholars who have reviewed your work.
But you think I asked for FRIENDS and ASSOCIATES' comments?

So, you can't tell the difference between
* learned expert scholars
and
* friends and associates
?

No wonder you think you are a "scholar" - in your book, EVERYONE is a scholar - even your friends.



Originally posted by saint4God]
Iasion wrote:
You don't FIND the evidence of forgery?

None so far.


There we have it.
He cannot "find" the evidence.
Even though I posted it here in this thread.

A real scholar has to deal with the evidence against his theories.

Here we see Saint4god simply IGNORE Kummel's summary of the argument why 2 Peter is a pseudo-graph.

Without the slightest sense of shame, saint4god simply ignores the conclusions of modern NT scholars.

No answer for Kummel's reasons - just a stupid claim "I can't find the evidence" even though it's right in front of him.

If saint4god was a real scholar, he would answer Kummel's arguments - the fact he refuses to do so shows clearly that saint4god is an apologist, a true believer, a faithful preacher.

He even calls HIMSELF a "saint" on his MySpace !

He is a much a saint as he is a scholar.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Dishonesty and silly word games.


You believe publishing a paper somehow gives someone infallible credibility? I used a dictionary, not sure what book you're using. As I said, many of us are scholars. I was in no way of dishonest and your statement is incorrect.


Originally posted by Iasion
If it is not required, why say "none yet"?


I may if the spirit moves me. Uncertain the future is.


Originally posted by Iasion
We know you are a pupil - so what?


Which is what I said about your 'scholars', so what?


Originally posted by Iasion
Many people here are students - so what?


Thank you, you've made my point.


Originally posted by Iasion
You are playing word games to try to pretend you are an acknowledged expert, a "learned person".


I'm using a book called a "dictionary".



Originally posted by Iasion
So,
you do not have tenure.
What do you teach? Bible study at night classes?


No. That would be a hoot though, having the college endorse me teaching a Bible class. I'll just let you make more assumptions instead of answering your question. It's more fun.


Originally posted by Iasion
I can find no evidence of any such book.


Not my problem ^_^


Originally posted by Iasion
According to your MySpace, you are still writing it.


Not sure if I want to publish it or work on it more. Kudos for doing some homework, glad you have some interest



Originally posted by Iasion
Is this really your evidence for being a "scholar", a learned person?
An un-finished, unpublished book on who-knows-what?


The world may never know



Originally posted by Iasion
No,
I mean learned experts - published scholars who have reviewed your work.


What does 'learned expert' mean to you?


Originally posted by Iasion
So, you can't tell the difference between
* learned expert scholars
and
* friends and associates
?


I'm not sure if you knew this before or not, be we live in a political/business world, where we are dependent on "angel investors" and associates/friends to get their 'buy-in' to publish things, review them and push them forward.


Originally posted by Iasion
No wonder you think you are a "scholar" - in your book, EVERYONE is a scholar - even your friends.


As I said before, there's very little difference (if any) between many of us and those who publish a paper.


Originally posted by Iasion
There we have it.
He cannot "find" the evidence.
Even though I posted it here in this thread.


If I post the Bible, is that evidence enough for you? Heh.


Originally posted by Iasion
A real scholar has to deal with the evidence against his theories.

Here we see Saint4god simply IGNORE Kummel's summary of the argument why 2 Peter is a pseudo-graph.


Not ignored, and have heard it before. It's gnostic propaganda.


Originally posted by Iasion
Without the slightest sense of shame, saint4god simply ignores the conclusions of modern NT scholars.


'Scholars' without agenda eh? Without their own inserted opinion huh?
You're got to stop, this is too funny.


Originally posted by Iasion
If saint4god was a real scholar, he would answer Kummel's arguments - the fact he refuses to do so shows clearly that saint4god is an apologist, a true believer, a faithful preacher.


Call me what you want, I know what I am.


Originally posted by Iasion
He even calls HIMSELF a "saint" on his MySpace !


Because it is true.


Originally posted by Iasion
He is a much a saint as he is a scholar.


Certainly.

Hey, here's an idea, how about saying something on topic?

[edit on 2-9-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

Ahmed is a form of the name Mohammed, both meaning "the praised one". In the Greek tongue, we are told, this would be "periklytos". Now we find in John's Gospel, Chapter 14:16:
"I will pray the Father and He will give you another "parakletos", to be with you for ever."


I certainly have no business letting you get away with this nonsense. We know this can't be referring to Mohammed because of what it says at the very end of Revelation. 1st John pretty much covers it.


1 John 4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. ext




A prophecy pertaining to Mohammed, is in the Gospel according to John 1:19:
"And this is a record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 'Who art thou?' And he confessed and denied not, but confessed, 'I am not the Christ.' And they asked him, 'What then? Art thou Elias?' And he said, 'I am not.' 'Art thou that prophet?' And he answered, 'No.' Then they said unto him, 'Who art thou?' ... He said, 'I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah.'"


Opps, sorry, not Mohammed


14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. 15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.




And one from the OT -
The most popular of all alleged prophecies about Mohammed, is found in the book of Deuteronomy 18:15-22:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you from your brethren - him you shall heed - just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see his great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the Lord said to me, 'They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' - When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the Word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.'" (My emphasis).


Sorry, wrong again. This prophecy is about Jesus. The person speaking is Moses. I don't feel like listing all the things that Jesus and Moses had in common(unless you need clarification) Let's keep it simple.....did Mohammed perform any miracles???? NOPE.



These prophecies are just as valid as the alleged prophecies of Jesus in the OT.

The Old Testament prophecy you listed was clearly referring to Jesus. (Ask any Bible Scholar).........so you are left holding an empty bag again.



The Jews who WROTE the OT do NOT believe there are prophecies about Jesus there-in.

Which only proves the accuracy of the Bible. Their eyes were blinded to the Messiah as was written.



In other words - none of these prophecies stand up to scrutiny - only faithful believers faithfully believe these claims.

Please feel free to produce an inaccurate prophecy. I can produce hundreds of completely accurate ones.........Starting with the Nation of Isreal being reborn.



My point is that ANY almost religious document can be seen to have prophecies of anyone you want.

I'm willing to talk specifics.



I had NEVER heard of these prophecies of Mohamed in the NT - but I knew there would be some, because that is they way the mind of faithful believers work - whether Muslim or Christian. Sure enough, 5 minutes of looking turned up a few.


You should have asked........I would have helped you.......here's one.


Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Text




Prophecies are BELIEFS, that's all.

They are not real.


You might want to tell that to the people of Iraq as they have been experiencing the fulfillment of Jeremiah 50 and 51 since Gulf War 1.

You haven't shown me much but a bunch of false babel. I suggest you run back to the sandbox and play.







top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join