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.

 

Jesus is NOT a copy from Pagan religions! Those are lies! Do research and do not believe!

page: 24
74
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration



How oold is earth,


6 day creation = 6000 years. Genealogies from Adam to Jesus also confirm this.



So the Venus of Willendorf was floating around in space for 20,000 years before finding it's way to earth? That's gotta be the explanation, right? That particular Venus was dated at around 24,000 BC. Unless you don't believe in archeology, but that can't be, because you use it to back YOUR claims of the "bible's literal truths" all the time. Maybe you don't believe in the science of dating the stone. No. That can't be it. You talk about the "science" of DNA, something more complex than carbon-dating, and so if they get DNA right, then by default the dating of the Venus must be spot on. Right?

And I'm going to need non-Creationist sources for your "everybody from two folks" claim.
You understand my need for non-biased science, right?

Still waiting on an answer to who Cain's wife was as well.



edit on 4-12-2011 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 



Genetic evidence indicates we all come from just two people (Adam and Eve).


Rubbish. The human race can be traced back to only one dark skinned female from 200,000 years ago and at some point the human race almost died out and all on earth is now can be traced back to about 2000 Kalahri bushman and the reason for it is that the gene can only be tracked through females.

science.howstuffworks.com...

They call her eve but make no mistake they're only using the biblical name not backing up the bible.

Why do creationists have to lie?
edit on 4-12-2011 by steveknows because: Typo


So how did they determine the 200,000 years ago date? And how is it possible that the human race can come from a female without the seed of a man?


You're debating in this thread and you've not researched the very thing you debate against? Oh you want me to do it for you? You want me to post the link for you 'AGAIN" Ok. Well there's the core of the problem then isn't it.

You just don't get it. Of course there was a man. In fact there were thousands of men and women. But the gene that leads the way is only passed down though the female. And it does not lead to Adam and Eve committing incest in a garden.

science.howstuffworks.com...
edit on 4-12-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


But wait you said "the human race can be traced back to one dark skinned female" but suddenly now your changing your mind and saying there were thousands of men and women... How does that make sense? And there was nothing wrong with incest before leviticus. Also evolution is silly and I'm not going to debate you with that here, but I see how your trying to derail the thread.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by steveknows
 


But wait you said "the human race can be traced back to one dark skinned female" but suddenly now your changing your mind and saying there were thousands of men and women... How does that make sense? And there was nothing wrong with incest before leviticus. Also evolution is silly and I'm not going to debate you with that here, but I see how your trying to derail the thread.


And now you're being an energy vampire and having a lazy approach to what should be a good debate and trying to do the religious thing and confuse the issues. You need to read my posts again and think for yourself and stop playing word games. I was going to say that that kind of game reduces credibility but seriously I think you've none anyway. And I believe you've not clicked on one link.

And no I haven't changed what I said or do you seriously need things spelled out to you?

And don't accuse me of derailing anything as I have gone with the flow of the thread.

I will not spell the science of it out to you as I know you're not interested anyway.
edit on 4-12-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


So the Venus of Willendorf proves the earth is older than 6000 years old? I doubt that. Do you know there are presuppositions with everything secular science has to offer? Even carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate. I would bet that Venus is not much older than 3000 years old. But I don't base my world view on one little statue unlike you seem to do. And if your not willing to look at evidence from creationist then who really is the biased one?

And I decline to answer your question about cains wife. Not because I haven't got an answer, but because skeptics of the Bible have used Cain's wife time and again to discredit the book of Genesis as a true historical record. its pretty sad if that's the only thing you have, I'm not going to cast pearls before swine and fall for your venus fly trap (accuse the pun).



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration



How oold is earth,


6 day creation = 6000 years. Genealogies from Adam to Jesus also confirm this.



So the Venus of Willendorf was floating around in space for 20,000 years before finding it's way to earth? That's gotta be the explanation, right? That particular Venus was dated at around 24,000 BC. Unless you don't believe in archeology, but that can't be, because you use it to back YOUR claims of the "bible's literal truths" all the time. Maybe you don't believe in the science of dating the stone. No. That can't be it. You talk about the "science" of DNA, something more complex than carbon-dating, and so if they get DNA right, then by default the dating of the Venus must be spot on. Right?

And I'm going to need non-Creationist sources for your "everybody from two folks" claim.
You understand my need for non-biased science, right?

Still waiting on an answer to who Cain's wife was as well.



edit on 4-12-2011 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)


The guy is going to say blue if you say black. You're best of debating with someone who wants to debate and put forward a structured concept.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Virgin Birth?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

And I decline to answer your question about cains wife. Not because I haven't got an answer, but because skeptics of the Bible have used Cain's wife time and again to discredit the book of Genesis as a true historical record. its pretty sad if that's the only thing you have, I'm not going to cast pearls before swine and fall for your venus fly trap.


So you admit skeptics use the "Cain's Wife" story as a trap because there is no answer, and then claim to actually have the answer, but aren't willing to share it, which would derail any further claims by future skeptics? Okay.

To add. The Venus of Willendorf isn't the only statue or thing on the Earth predating 6000 years.
There are cave paintings, as well as other bits of art, and I don't think God created multi=million year old dinosaur bone-shaped rocks just for the sake of sticking them in the ground for people to dig up like a mystery/prank.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
To add. The Venus of Willendorf isn't the only statue or thing on the Earth predating 6000 years.
There are cave paintings, as well as other bits of art, and I don't think God created multi=million year old dinosaur bone-shaped rocks just for the sake of sticking them in the ground for people to dig up like a mystery/prank.


Ever watched The Flintstones? That would be a more accurate picture of what was going on before the flood (no wonder they don't show it on t.v anymore).

Your evolution indoctrination has once again deceived you. Making an assumption that dinosaurs and man were some how separate from one another is pure arrogance.
edit on 4-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
A few questions after reading the first and last few pages of this thread, which is quite interesting. I'm about to go to bed, otherwise I would write more an expand upon my questions with my own answers, so I'll have to do that tomorrow.

By the way, I am an ex-Christian Agnostic. But my wife is a Christian, however she has spent much time digging into questions and doubts she's had and we often talk about those topics.

#1: Have those you who are believers ever done research into the origin of the word hell? You may be surprised by what you find, assuming you're willing to go outside your comfort zone. Let's just say that it's actually an uplifting subject.


#2: If all humans descended from Adam and Eve, why aren't humans affected by the same substantial genetic problems that are present as a result of inbreeding?

#3: With regard to the concept of a 6000 year old Earth, why buy into that? The Bible doesn't explicitly state an age for the planet. Wouldn't you rather worship a God who created the universe in such a way that everything science has learned was made that way on purpose, rather than sticking to the extremely narrow and limited scope of knowledge laid out in the Bible? Certainly, given God's immense intelligence and transcendence, not everything was included in the Bible and the other books left out when the cannon was assembled. Why assume that just because it is not written in the Bible then it is not possible?

Good night! Time to get myself some shuteye.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Here is a good video showing how the brainwashing from childhood can make any story true.Instruction Manual for Life._javascript:icon('
')



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I found your reply quite humorous. Just fyi, Al-ilah, simply means, the lord. It does not mean a certain god, just

al - the

ilah - lord.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Why is there such a big group of atheists at ATS? Atheists have no answers,
they can't explain the miraculous, a prayer answered, a memory, etc. Only God
truly loves you, you're His child. Can't you see, humanity has a fallen nature. Where is your hope?

A message from God the Father, He's going to show you, so get ready. Start
praying meaning, talk to God from your heart, you can do this.

Message to Maria/Divine Mercy (maria is a mother and businesswoman from Ireland)

God The Father – Last Call to Atheists


Saturday, November 5th, 2011 @ 01:00 pm



My daughter mankind will now be shown the hand of My mercy as the arrival of My Son becomes imminent.

To all those tortured souls in disarray I say to you put your trust in Me, God the Father. I who created every one of you with love and compassion want to save every precious child of mine.

I do not want to lose one of you including those who sneer at Me. Prepare for the greatest gift which is being prepared for you. I will prevent Satan from snatching you if you will allow Me. I cannot force you to accept this Act of Mercy. What saddens Me is that many of you will reject this hand of My mercy. You will not be strong enough. Yet when you witness the truth as it will be revealed to you during The Warning you will attempt to grasp it like a lifeline.

You must ask Me for the strength to allow Me to save you from eternal damnation. I call on atheists especially one last time. Do not reject the truth when it is proven to you. If you do you are lost to Me forever.

God the Father



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Q_Llama
 




By the way, I am an ex-Christian Agnostic. But my wife is a Christian, however she has spent much time digging into questions and doubts she's had and we often talk about those topics.


First John 2:19 declares, “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” This Scripture makes it abundantly clear there is no such thing as an ex-Christian. If a person is truly a Christian, he/she will never depart from the faith “…for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us…” If a person who claimed to be a Christian denies the faith, he/she was not truly a Christian. “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us…their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” No, there is truly no such thing as an ex-Christian.

A true Christian is a person who has fully trusted in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. A true Christian is a person who understands what the Bible says about sin, sin’s penalty, who Jesus is, what Jesus did for us, and how that provides for the forgiveness of sin. A true Christian is a person who has received Jesus Christ as personal Savior, has been made a new creation and is progressively being transformed into the image of Christ. A true Christian is a person who is kept a Christian by the power of the Holy Spirit. This true Christian can never become an ex-Christian. No one who has truly and fully trusted in Christ as Savior could ever deny Him. No one who truly comprehends the evil of sin, the terror of sin’s consequences, the love of Christ, and the grace and mercy of God, could ever turn back from the Christian faith.

There are many in this world who claim to be Christians, but are not. Being a Christian does not mean simply attending church every and reading the bible. Being a Christian does not mean recognizing that Jesus was a great teacher or even seeking to follow His teachings. Being a Christian means being a representative of Christ and a follower / servant of Christ. There are people who have had some connection to a “Christian” church and then later renounced that connection. There are people who have “tasted” and “sampled” Jesus Christ, without ever actually receiving Him as Savior. However, there is no such thing as true ex-Christian. A true Christian will never, and could never, renounce the faith. Any person who claimed to be a Christian, but later rejects the Christian faith, was never truly a Christian. Ether you are truly born again and are holy spirit filled or you are not.

Many who profess they were christians fall away because the doubt “bit” in their brain eats away at their faith. More than in their brain - it is in their heart. It is not a question of intellect, but of both mental attitude and heart attitude. We can give in or we can persevere. Yes, you may have some doubts and not be absolutely 100% sure about your faith. Many Christians probably feel like this at times. However, maybe ask yourself the question: what is the alternative to believing? Surely it is simply not believing in the Christian message. Personally, I have found nothing else worth believing in that I can find credible or would be willing to trust my life with.

Sure, there are easy options of living for the moment and indulging in some of the pleasures of this world. I quickly came to realise that these things are empty even at the time that we enjoy them, but more so afterwards when their charm has vanished. All the time we turn from God we are hopeless.

Believers are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). We have the Holy Spirit in us producing good fruit (Galatians 5:22-23). A Christian life should be a changed life. Christians are forgiven no matter how many times they sin, but at the same time Christians should live a progressively more holy life as they grow closer to Christ. Yes, a true Christian who falls back into sin is still saved, but at the same time a person who lives a life controlled by sin is not truly a Christian.

Christian DO sometimes get the feeling of doubt, but that is just it, Feelings. It is important that you trust in God's word and not rely solely on your feelings. Feelings, are not evidence. When people rely on emotions, they often end up in error because emotions are fallible and changing. The Scriptures, however, are infallible and can never be wrong (John 17:17; Psalm 119:128; 33:4; 19:8; Romans 3:4). But we must study the Bible diligently with an honest heart, or we will misunderstand it and still be wrong. If your wife is having doubts then she should make sure that she is genuinely seeking after the truth.

(Feel free to email this post to her if you wish). I hope it helps you both.

Kind Regards, RG.
edit on 4-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


nice post and may GOD bless you keep it up



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I have to admit I haven't read all of this thread, so apologies if this has already been addressed.

I wanted to share something that I heard years ago and throw it out there for consideration. I have never actually researched to see if this is true, because I really don't care for religion enough to bother, but anyway, here goes.

The original language (I am sure someone on here will know what it is) of the text that describes the "virgin birth" of Jesus was not necessarily translated correctly. The idea is that the word translated as virgin in subsequent texts, actually means "a mother for the first time" rather than a woman who has never had sex in the language of the original. Close, but slightly different.

Apologies for not having any evidence to back this up - just wanted to inject the idea into this thread as it seems there's been some fairly vigorous debate, and a good debate never suffered from having some more fuel for the fire.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Q_Llama
 


Regarding your personal questions: Because I think you are sincere I will try to answer your questions individually to the best of my ability.



#1: Have those you who are believers ever done research into the origin of the word hell? You may be surprised by what you find, assuming you're willing to go outside your comfort zone. Let's just say that it's actually an uplifting subject.


There are essentially 3 words associated with Hell.

Gehenna
In the OT the word for hell is 'ge-hinnom', meaning "Valley of Hinnom." It was a place to the southwest of Jerusalem. This place was once "called 'Topheth' and derived from an Aramaic word meaning 'fireplace.' It was here that some pagan kings practiced human sacrifice by fire (2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35). This is probably why in the NT the word came to be associated with destruction by fire. The word 'gehenna' is found in the NT 12 times and every instance is spoken of by Jesus. In the NT, "gehenna" is used of a condition and never of a place.

Hades
This word only occurs in the NT, ten times, and corresponds to the OT word "sheol." Jesus uses the word four times: Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23. The other six occur in Acts 2:27,31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14.

It was probably the "subterranean abode of all the dead until the judgment. It was divided into two departments, paradise or Abraham's bosom for the good, and Gehenna or hell for the bad. In particular, in the account of Lazarus and the Rich man of (Luke 16:19-31), it is the place of the conscious dead who are wicked.

Sheol
"The Hebrew word Sheol is probably derived from a root "to make hollow," and was seen as the common receptacle of the dead and in the great many places the word appears in the OT, it is referring to the grave. It is a place and is mentioned in Gen. 37:35; Num. 16:30,33; Psalm 16:10, etc. Sheol has many meanings in scripture: the grave, the underworld, the state of the dead. It was supposed to be below the surface of the earth (Ezek. 31:15,17; Psalm 86:13).



#2: If all humans descended from Adam and Eve, why aren't humans affected by the same substantial genetic problems that are present as a result of inbreeding?


Because genetics are affected by time. As time progresses through-out the centuries the gene pool effectively gets smaller. Thus inbreeding now causes deformity's which it didn't at one point in time. Nowadays the gene pool is far to small for humans to be breeding with family and that is why GOD made it a sin at a certain point in history. The bible tells us it was at Leviticus it became a sin. Adam and eve had perfect genes, and were probably of a higher physical calibre, intelligence, and immune system. This is also the same reason diseases are increasing,



#3: With regard to the concept of a 6000 year old Earth, why buy into that? The Bible doesn't explicitly state an age for the planet. Wouldn't you rather worship a God who created the universe in such a way that everything science has learned was made that way on purpose, rather than sticking to the extremely narrow and limited scope of knowledge laid out in the Bible? Certainly, given God's immense intelligence and transcendence, not everything was included in the Bible and the other books left out when the cannon was assembled. Why assume that just because it is not written in the Bible then it is not possible?


I could ask you the same about evolution. Why buy into that? With a little research evolution can clearly be exposed as being false, also in my opinion all it takes is abit of common sense to see the errors in the theory of evolution but for some the indoctrination is to difficult to overcome. For me to believe that nothing created everything takes more faith than believing in God. Alot of things in modern science has actually been foretold in the bible thousands of years before man. Man cannot make a "law of science". Man cannot enforce a "law of science" either, we can only OBSERVE the laws that God designed into our universe. Try as hard as they may, men cannot disprove the Scriptures. The problem with modern science is that alot of scientists start from a presupposition that there is no God and this is what leads to them making huge errors.

If you do not believe the bible is the inspired infallible word of God then of course you will think the bible is narrow minded and limited in knowledge, that is because you are not giving it a chance. The books in the canon are the books that should be in there God has seen to that. The reason I believe in a young earth is because I have seen the evidence from both sides and the evidence for a young earth made much more sense. creation.com is a good website that show's evidence for a young earth. But ultimately it is up to you who you choose to believe.

Kind Regards, RG.
edit on 4-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snappahead
I have to admit I haven't read all of this thread, so apologies if this has already been addressed.

I wanted to share something that I heard years ago and throw it out there for consideration. I have never actually researched to see if this is true, because I really don't care for religion enough to bother, but anyway, here goes.

The original language (I am sure someone on here will know what it is) of the text that describes the "virgin birth" of Jesus was not necessarily translated correctly. The idea is that the word translated as virgin in subsequent texts, actually means "a mother for the first time" rather than a woman who has never had sex in the language of the original. Close, but slightly different.

Apologies for not having any evidence to back this up - just wanted to inject the idea into this thread as it seems there's been some fairly vigorous debate, and a good debate never suffered from having some more fuel for the fire.


Yes and to 'know' some one at the time of the first writings of the bible was to be getting it on with someone. And Jesus" knew" Mary Magdalene. Scholars believe that she was "the holy grail" and they believe this because there's a chnace that she "held the blood of christ" The lady was pregnant to Jesus.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


You do realize that Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction? And, as such, makes a lot of things up and alters facts to suit the plot to keep readers turning the pages.


edit on 4-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Jesus never said once, that he was God.

Here is the problem,
People look at Jesus like he was God, but he was only a messenger.
If he was God, Why did he become a Jew?
Problems with Christians. If it is not their way, it is Satan, So you actually need to look into astrology, and when you figure out at about 2000 years ago, We entered the sign of pisces, ((Hence, Jesus was a fisherman)) the two fish.. Maybe you will open your mind a little,

Truth is, No one is wrong, and no one is right, As long as you are good, and try your best to pure and helpful, I think everyone will be alright. But Christians... think.. God loves you eternally, But if you deny that love, you will burn in hell forever... Yeah that makes sense.

My two cents.
_javascript:icon('
')



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join