Originally posted by AshleyD

That explanation is extremely lacking in my honest opinion.

but no less shaky then the second comming or infact any other bible prediction

such as the 3 rediculously bad examples the op gave

eating raw meat wont kill you, it can make you sick if your unused to it and the risk of disease passing on is increased but thats with any uncooked flesh not just with blood in it

incest leads to an increase in birth defect but does not guarantee it, the chances also go up the older you are

std's have existed almost as long as pentrative sex, before this it was retovirus's passing them on through dna(we still have both of these active today)

the bible can mean anything you want as long as you want it to mean it, this is a blatant fear mongering argumentum ad baculum

repent now all you sinners the scientists agree

when frankly they dont, even used as a loose historical effort to lead arcaheological expeditions its often badly wrong

jerusalem the great capital of a mighty empire ... but everything else says it was just an average town

nazareth doesnt sem to have existed until the second century

i may not always make my point striaght away but i always make it (its fun to do it this way sometimes )

Again, this would have no effect as Joseph, Jesus' step father, was also from the line of David. And again, according to Jewish customs, His step father would have been almost equal to the legal role of a biological father.

its blood lineage

it would have gone to one of marys broithers or uncle or back up to find the next closet male if it were on her side

if it was on josephs side again it would have gone back up and out not to a step son

However, this still discredits nothing. Jesus was to come as a suffering servant the first time.

again apologetic interpretations proven by stuff written after the fact by no-one knows who but in almost every case couldnt have been the disciples unless they doubled thier age expectancy and in lukes case forgot he had even been to jerusalem and the surrounding area

Although He will most definitely reign as King during His future advent, the prophecies make it very clear

no they dont there i no mention of a second comming in the OT, its all added later by our friends above

the original prophecies remain unfulfiled no world peace he didnt lead all the jews back to israel, he didnt build the third temple, and the ones he did fulfill could be any number of other biblical charachters

infact the mentions of jesus returning are that its to kill everyone with a sword with the help of his disciples who many would still be alive

He would be a suffering servant during His first advent. Not to mention, Jesus is also a spiritual King- with God (the King of Kings) as His spiritual Father. You cannot forget where Jesus' true, spiritual kingship comes from: Being the son of God.

but why doesnt god prove him self anymore? why has an unchanging god changed? why does everyone in the bible get to see such great and fantastic proofs of god and jesus but then suddenly stops when paul starts making it all up?

Absolutely not. The dualism of the messianic prophecies is an extremely well known and supported case. But I am surprised you would say such a thing after reaching to the lengths you just did above.

24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, "And shall cut him asunder"
God will come when people least expect him. Then he'll "cut [them] asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
What the Bible says about torture
The Bible's guide to torture
24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

is this the second comming?

19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
19:28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

13:2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare: * is this jesus's second comming where he wont spare sinners or pauls? and not sparing them means they get the full force of whats comming with him...which ever one it is*

2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

fear jesus or he will punish me>?

1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

when jesus is revealed again he is gonna rain down fire?

3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. - more second comming death and destruction

17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. - jesus is comming back to start a war

how are any of these bringing world peace and rebuilding the temple?

Totally incorrect, my dear. It is expressly clear and very famous.

theres a whole bunch of jesus is comming back to kill and start war now lets see the comming back to bring peace to all men

[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by reject
Where did I say eating raw meat will kill you? If stuff doesn't flush out with the blood...its really not healthy even if you cook them.

eating most wild stuff raw carries certain risks

this isnt a big bible said so it must be magic

its commmon sense, you also made a drama of the toxins

you were far far more likley from dying eating grain then from the extremly small amount of stress chemicals

how you kill an animal also effect the amount of stress toxins

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by reject
Where did I say eating raw meat will kill you? If stuff doesn't flush out with the blood...its really not healthy even if you cook them.

eating most wild stuff raw carries certain risks

this isnt a big bible said so it must be magic

its commmon sense, you also made a drama of the toxins

you were far far more likley from dying eating grain then from the extremly small amount of stress chemicals

how you kill an animal also effect the amount of stress toxins

there he goes again...did I say eating stress chemicals would kill you?

from your drama, I think YOU'RE stressed

Obi Wan Kenobi to Anakin Skywalker "but I didn't say anything..."

Originally posted by AshleyD

A. Death avoidance was not the only purpose of the laws- it was illness avoidance as well. So the point that it won't kill you- it will only make you sick is moot. It was to protect their health as well- not just their lives.

it will only make you sick in some minor cases

youll get exactly the same reaction from raw meat

a few people will the majority wont ^_^ deer hunters drink the blood of thier first kill it doesnt make em all ill

For instance, the law about not wearing clothes made of mixed material. This has absolutely no medical or sanitary basis as far as I know. It strictly had spiritual implications.

i always thought god had more fasion sense then wearing synthetics

But incest most definitely can lead to birth defects. Again, the laws were there to help the people maintain the best health possible in a very dangerous world with little medical advancement. Of course incest is not the only cause but it is certainly a very likely cause. So, avoid incest to decrease the amount of birth defects.

same still holds older you get more chnace of defects he didnt decide to put a age limit on that though

Yes, and limiting partners was (and still is) in avoiding them. Again, the law was there for health benefits and to decrease the likelihood of illness. Limiting sexual partners definitely helps.

yes but the op attempted to show it as some wonder bible thing future prediction

its general knowledge

hell even rats can smell if thier partners have sexually or genetically heredatory diseases in many cases and to the best of my knowledge they may have chewed a few bibles up but never read one

I'm stopping there since the rest was pretty off topic. lol However, I don't want you to think I'm dodging you or ignoring it. It's just that religious debates on one specific topic (which this thread is) always branch out into debates on 20 more and the thread loses track. However, if you want me to, I will most definitely respond to the rest of your post. Most of that is stuff that has been discussed a million times on here before but I will be most happy to answer it all if you like.

just my way of showing just how shaky bible predictions of anything are

all it takes is a bit of imagination and i can have god flying around in a helicopter

Originally posted by reject
there he goes again...did I say eating stress chemicals would kill you?

from your drama, I think YOU'RE stressed

Obi Wan Kenobi to Anakin Skywalker "but I didn't say anything..."

eating of blood & strangled beasts that weren't thoroughly bled

as an animal is killed it releases stress chemicals into its blood that are toxic and that the majority of pathogens are in it

it more then suggests it becomes poisonous


maybe choosing your words better?

[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
its general knowledge

It is now. lol Not necessarily 3,600 years ago.

all it takes is a bit of imagination and i can have god flying around in a helicopter

If you derail this thread into Ezekiel's wheels, I'll be pissed!

[edit on 11/28/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by noobfun

Yes, and limiting partners was (and still is) in avoiding them. Again, the law was there for health benefits and to decrease the likelihood of illness. Limiting sexual partners definitely helps.

yes but the op attempted to show it as some wonder bible thing future prediction

its general knowledge

hell even rats can smell if thier partners have sexually or genetically heredatory diseases in many cases and to the best of my knowledge they may have chewed a few bibles up but never read onejust my way of showing just how shaky bible predictions of anything are

all it takes is a bit of imagination and i can have god flying around in a helicopter

"yes but the op attempted to show it as some wonder bible thing future prediction"

No, I did not say that about limiting sexual partners

"general knowledge" almost four thousand years ago? OK, if you say so.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by reject]

[edit on 28-11-2008 by reject]

Originally posted by AshleyD

It is now. lol Not necessarily 3,600 years ago.

well its been general knolwedge since long before we knew what casued disease so yes

general knowledge ^_^

no i wont go find gods helicopter but its easy to make anything fit if you want it to

it doesnt make the bible predictions of modern findings even close to creadable without already having faith that is truth and several such as round earth are undone by other verses ... but they never appear on a list

its as bad as bible codes ... really bad


[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]

A correlation between common sense and scientific evidence really just points to the fact that humans are at times a lot smarter than we give ourselves credit for, and have been for a long time.

This isn't a poke at religion, but rather just that the OP's points aren't conclusive as to the veracity of scripture.

On the other hand there are examples of knowledge possessed by ancient people that had nothing to do with common sense and justifiably shouldn't have even been known without the aid of modern science and its instruments. That isn't the topic though, so I'll stop there.

I for one don't need god to tell me blood pudding is gross
Just a wee bit of levity there.

Originally posted by AshleyD

A great discussion where both sides can state their case, sure, but definitely not shaky.

then please show me one that tells of jesus's comming that isnt talking about someone else as is often the case they just edit before or after it says thier name

or that cannot in anyway relate to any of the other bible characters

You know I love your posts so please don't take this as hostility or as in insult, but you're showing great ignorance in this thread regarding the Bible.

i wont, and im always willing to be proven wrong

if we dont question we wont learn hun

the church and tribulation age in what is known as the 'Messianic age.' Your prophetic time lines are way off.

but every mention of jesus next returning is with fire and swords

not peace and rebuilding which he should have already done first time around

Nazareth not existing until the 2nd century- when actually excavations point to an almost continual habitation of the area hundreds of years (or maybe even a couple thousand- I can't remember exactly) into the B.C. area. The point of contention, and what you might be referring to, is whether or not it actually held the name 'Nazareth.'

there are several lists naming anything above small town

not one mentions nazareth, and yet the bible describes it as at least a decent town

Or your claim that the dualism of the messianic prophecies is apologetic reaching when this is actually extremely famous Christian theological knowledge dating back to first century writings. It's one of the cornerstones of Messianic prophecy for Christians.

if you really want to compare first century writtings shall we pull out the ones where they seem to have no knowledge of jesus?

how about the marcenites who were gay for god becasue jesus told them too

for the first 200 years one thing is clear no one had a clue what was happening or supposed to be

Or the blood issue when I already explained the contrast to pagan cultures, spiritual implications, and that not all laws were for medical/sanitary benefit.

which is absolutley nothing like the op presented it is it?

Etc. Etc. Like I said earlier, I avoided it since it was all off topic but it isn't shaky. It is stemming from your lack of knowledge concerning what all the Bible mentions.

nope just me not ignoring the bits that dont fit

Just to be sure: I mean no insult to you whatsoever. It's partially my fault for not going into detail earlier about anything due to burn out on religious topics but I have to strongly disagree with your claim of 'shaky.' Please do not take any offense to it. I can tell by many of your posts that you are incredibly knowledgeable on many subjects and are very smart.

flattery will get you everywhere ^_^

except me admitting im wrong unless its proven, and i dont mean showing contradictor evidence that just shows the bibles flaws not either of us bieng rght hun

[edit on 11/28/2008 by AshleyD]

I am absolutely AMAZED at the arrogance of people and their outright rejection of God.

I can CLEARLY see how it is that in the end days, people are completely blind sided by the coming of Christ and just how, like in Noah's Day, everyone will be caught off guard and only then, will they open their eyes and realize that all of this Jesus stuff was more than just a popular topic to scoff at and mock while in debate.

Oh well, mock on....

Originally posted by jdposey
I am absolutely AMAZED at the arrogance of people and their outright rejection of God.

im totaly bowled over by the arrogance of peoplke who beleive the unprovable then attempt to belittle others for not sharing thier delusion

I can CLEARLY see how it is that in the end days,

but can you prove it beyond saying i beleive so therefore it must be right?

people are completely blind sided by the coming of Christ and just how

you cant even prove he came the first time so i wont worry about the second time

, like in Noah's Day, everyone will be caught off guard

they must have been not sure what by though as there wasnt a flood, well there was a flooding event but that was around 12000 years ago and wasnt a global flood more a few tsunami's and a sea level rise similar to level we are already at now

and only then, will they open their eyes and realize that all of this Jesus stuff was more than just a popular topic to scoff at and mock while in debate.

well jesus said wait here guys ill be right back and that was 2000 years ago

when you can scoff at ALL science including mathematics by insiting things like noahs flood happened and the earth is less then 10,000 years old and evolution has never been proven DISPITE millions of pieces of seperatley verifying and testable evidence

then i think we have more then enough for free reign on a beleif system that has no proof beyond a book

Rom 16:17
2Cor 6:14-17
2The 3:6 3:14
1Tim 6:5
2Tim 2:16

try reading ALL the bible not jut the bits you feel like then practice what it say

Oh well, mock on....

why i can show your unchristian by quoting the bible a much more fitting fate

[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by AshleyD

It is now. lol Not necessarily 3,600 years ago.

well syphalis and yaws has been around in the new world for over 6000 years so im guessing the oldworld std's were well known too

as std's have been around in mammals including people for nearly as long as they have existed im guessing someone noticed it went spotty adn wierd stuf started comming out before 3000 years ago if youll excuse the crudeness