The Prophecy of Jeremiah 31:33 & 34

reply to post by thegoodearth


Actually, this thread is presumably about The prophecy of Jeremiah, so it fits fine here in this forum. Members' personal predictions would go in this forum: Dreams and Personal Predictions, not the Gray Area.

Carry on.

reply to post by yeahright


Stand corrected- thanks

reply to post by adjensen

Well, obviously, Sir, you are having some 'difficulty' in presenting a cogent argument against me; so I will see what I can do to help you.

No, that's alright.

No need to thank me. I'm feeling particularly charitable today.

This, basically, is your argument: Everything you have read, and everything you have heard, has been written or said by people who say that they are right and that I am wrong; that they are telling the Truth and that I am lying. And, on that basis, you have come to the utterly brilliant conclusion that I must be wrong and that I must be a liar; a corollary to which is that anything that I say must be, in one way or another, a lie. And even the pope--but only after consulting Wikipedia--has stated ex cathedra that you are right.

Now why are these people right and telling the Truth, while I am wrong and lying?

Well, because they say so; and, just look around you. Look at how many of them there are.

It is simply not possible that they could be either wrong or not telling the Truth.

That is the gist of your argument; the form of which is reminiscent of the Hebrew dialogue which goes as follows:

"Lama? Cacha. Lama cacha? KOVA."

which, translated, is "Why? Because. Why because? HAT."

But, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that I have been through all of this before...

In another life. And with regards to another argument.

Just assume for the moment that I was Galileo Galilei in a previous life...

And that my argument then was that the sun is the center of the solar system and that the earth and the planets revolved around the sun, the earth rotated on its axis; but that the moon revolved around the earth.

In what way is your 'argument' in any way different than the 'argument' that was used against Galileo?

And, now what do you believe is the truth?

What Galileo said, or what the Ptolemaists said?

So let me suggest that, at most, 400 years from now, the number of people who believe what is now universally believed about the Doctrine of "resurrection" will be approximately the same as the number of people who now believe that the earth is the center of the solar system.

Understand?

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
So let me suggest that, at most, 400 years from now, the number of people who believe what is now universally believed about the Doctrine of "resurrection" will be approximately the same as the number of people who now believe that the earth is the center of the solar system.

Understand?

Understand what? I never accused you of lying about your beliefs. I think that you are wrong in your conclusions, but they are your opinion, and one cannot lie about one's own opinion (well, you could, I suppose, but what's the point?)

But one can lie about Muslim bigotry in Dead Sea Scrolls research, or lie about people accusing them of 'hate speech' for making non-threatening and nonsensical statements of belief, and those are the sorts of things I'm still waiting for a cogent reply regarding.

But, as for your claim above, there is no reason to believe this to be true, as the current proponent seems to be limited to you, who has demonstrated himself to be a very poor evangelist. In addition, your conclusion is contrary to both your belief that the end of the world is nigh, and that no one can understand your perspective without your dreams to guide them.

To the contrary, I would suggest that, within a very short time of the end of your evangelical efforts, no one will have the slightest interest in the "Doctrine of Rebirth", because you won't be around to spout your confused Gnosticism in every ATS thread that has a passing relevance to it.

Originally posted by adjensen
But one can lie ...about people accusing them of 'hate speech'

In the interests of justice, I'm obliged to point out that Michael may be telling the truth on this one.
Michael has alluded to, but does not dwell on, the fact that his website link has been removed from his signature.
If this was on the grounds that the link breached Terms and Conditions, then these allusive references would be explained.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Wrong.

We do not allow anyone to link to a site/blog of theirs in a signature until (1) they've been here as a member in good standing for at least 6 months and (2) they ask for, and are granted, permission for said link by the ownership.

The relevant section of the T&C is

19) Advertising: You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on the Websites within posts, private messages, avatars and/or signatures without prior written permission from TAN. You will not choose a username that is the same as a website domain, subdomain, or URL for which you are associated. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.