3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head..
Their word for "hand" included the wrist and lower arm area too. They didn't even have a word for "cousin", it was just "brother". We could go on, but the point is the language wasn't necessarily as precise as English.
And again, what translation are you using? What was the Aramaic & Greek?
You and Mauser are getting tripped up in details. How do you explain all of this?
The facts are simple, Christianity as with any other religion, rests on faith. Religion is a matter of faith, not facts, science or philosophical inquiry...
belief in science isnt an act of faith? seriously?
Yes, seriously. Faith and science are opposites. Science requires actual observations, questioning, testing and verifying results, embracing falsification.....faith on the other hand involves believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had a far poorer understanding of the world and its place in the Cosmos.
The facts are simple, Christianity as with any other religion, rests on faith. Religion is a matter of faith, not facts, science or philosophical inquiry...
belief in science isnt an act of faith? seriously?
Yes, seriously. Faith and science are opposites. Science requires actual observations, questioning, testing and verifying results, embracing falsification.....faith on the other hand involves believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had a far poorer understanding of the world and its place in the Cosmos.
No, nothing like the same. Not even close.
so when you reject a notion based on an other than natural basis and accept a notion based on science , havent you exchanged your belief?
I just don’t get it. A real, compassionate god would never allow young children and infants to be sexually abused, period. An infant can’t protect themself but if there was a real god he certainly could protect the kids. Why would god toss an infant under the bus? And potentially ruin their life for decades to follow?
So you are saying God should punish the bad people and bless all the good people? Miracles would only happen to save the good people from the bad people...
I said a real, compassionate god would not allow children and infants to be sexually abused. I never mentioned blessing good people
And yet you think pornography and sexual exploitation of children in schools is ok. That would be ironic lol
The facts are simple, Christianity as with any other religion, rests on faith. Religion is a matter of faith, not facts, science or philosophical inquiry...
belief in science isnt an act of faith? seriously?
Yes, seriously. Faith and science are opposites. Science requires actual observations, questioning, testing and verifying results, embracing falsification.....faith on the other hand involves believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had a far poorer understanding of the world and its place in the Cosmos.
No, nothing like the same. Not even close.
so when you reject a notion based on an other than natural basis and accept a notion based on science , havent you exchanged your belief?
That's not how science works. It's not how logic works. You are imposing your own terms and conditions.
That's embarrassing. Historians have uncovered a memorandum in 1390 by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, stating that the shroud was a fraud and he even knew the artist and how the shroud was painted. Odd that scripture would also omit mention of such an important "historical" piece of "evidence". Irrespective, a blood stained cloth would not prove a resurrection.
These days we have bleeding Mary statues - the miracles continue (well, after someone refills the statues anyway).
Well, this has surfaced before.
I note that you seem to take the “memo” to be legit.
The document you are referring to is unsigned, undated and certainly not corroborated by other outside and independent historians. Perhaps not even written by old Pierre…..bogus, yet you put some stock in it.
Would you have us believe this document should be taken with some degree of seriousness?
The gospels have much more corroboration than this……
That's a bit rich. The shroud came with no certificates, but you are okay with that, or even mention in the bible - you'd think that would add more credibility to the tale. The bible even says that Jesus was covered in strips of linen, with a separate cloth only covering his face, which would be normal for a Jewish burial at the time. Nothing about a bed sheet.
You seem to have a comprehension issue…. What is a “bit rich?”
I was not defending the shroud at all….
As usual, you missed the point.
You missed the point. It's about double standards, unless you also dismiss the authenticity of the shroud. Feel free to dodge.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Tyrone
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
I believe that the shroud has been tested and dates back to the 14th century.
That's embarrassing. Historians have uncovered a memorandum in 1390 by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, stating that the shroud was a fraud and he even knew the artist and how the shroud was painted. Odd that scripture would also omit mention of such an important "historical" piece of "evidence". Irrespective, a blood stained cloth would not prove a resurrection.
These days we have bleeding Mary statues - the miracles continue (well, after someone refills the statues anyway).
Well, this has surfaced before.
I note that you seem to take the “memo” to be legit.
The document you are referring to is unsigned, undated and certainly not corroborated by other outside and independent historians. Perhaps not even written by old Pierre…..bogus, yet you put some stock in it.
Would you have us believe this document should be taken with some degree of seriousness?
The gospels have much more corroboration than this……
That's a bit rich. The shroud came with no certificates, but you are okay with that, or even mention in the bible - you'd think that would add more credibility to the tale. The bible even says that Jesus was covered in strips of linen, with a separate cloth only covering his face, which would be normal for a Jewish burial at the time. Nothing about a bed sheet.
You seem to have a comprehension issue…. What is a “bit rich?”
I was not defending the shroud at all….
As usual, you missed the point.
You missed the point. It's about double standards, unless you also dismiss the authenticity of the shroud. Feel free to dodge.
Nope, I merely pointed out that a reference used by you to make a “point” was simply bogus.
You are the one that chose not to address this objection and the went on about the shroud….. never mentioning that the Pierre d’Arcy doc is undated, unsigned and likely not even written…and perhaps not even composed by Pierre.
You did try a weak attempt to “dodge” the issue….and then you say to me “Feel free to dodge” simply reveals that you are simply dishonest…. Also prone to “just dream up in substantiated baloney.”
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
The facts are simple, Christianity as with any other religion, rests on faith. Religion is a matter of faith, not facts, science or philosophical inquiry...
belief in science isnt an act of faith? seriously?
Yes, seriously. Faith and science are opposites. Science requires actual observations, questioning, testing and verifying results, embracing falsification.....faith on the other hand involves believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had a far poorer understanding of the world and its place in the Cosmos.
No, nothing like the same. Not even close.
I will note again, that you are using your own self serving definition of “faith.”
Seems we have gone over this in the past and you refuse to accept a biblical definition of faith and where faith originates from.
Faith is not “….believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had poor understanding….the Cosmos.”
As I have told you before, you do not characterize Christian doctrine accurately….I conclude you are either ignorant or being purposefully deceitful….. perhaps both.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
The facts are simple, Christianity as with any other religion, rests on faith. Religion is a matter of faith, not facts, science or philosophical inquiry...
belief in science isnt an act of faith? seriously?
Yes, seriously. Faith and science are opposites. Science requires actual observations, questioning, testing and verifying results, embracing falsification.....faith on the other hand involves believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had a far poorer understanding of the world and its place in the Cosmos.
No, nothing like the same. Not even close.
I will note again, that you are using your own self serving definition of “faith.”
Seems we have gone over this in the past and you refuse to accept a biblical definition of faith and where faith originates from.
Faith is not “….believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had poor understanding….the Cosmos.”
As I have told you before, you do not characterize Christian doctrine accurately….I conclude you are either ignorant or being purposefully deceitful….. perhaps both.
God gave Christians a great gift, and that was FAITH.
The facts are simple, Christianity as with any other religion, rests on faith. Religion is a matter of faith, not facts, science or philosophical inquiry...
belief in science isnt an act of faith? seriously?
Yes, seriously. Faith and science are opposites. Science requires actual observations, questioning, testing and verifying results, embracing falsification.....faith on the other hand involves believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had a far poorer understanding of the world and its place in the Cosmos.
No, nothing like the same. Not even close.
I will note again, that you are using your own self serving definition of “faith.”
No, I am not. You first note and your every 'note' following is a poor rationale in defense of faith: just as it is defined in the dictionary in relation to religion and in Hebrews (a self justifying belief).
Originally Posted by TF49
Seems we have gone over this in the past and you refuse to accept a biblical definition of faith and where faith originates from.
We have gone over it multiple times. You were wrong the first time and wrong every time you offered your flawed rationale.
Originally Posted by TF49
Faith is not “….believing what is written in old scrolls by people who had poor understanding….the Cosmos.”
Holy Smokes....something is believed, Be it Christian theology or what is written in the Quran, GIta or whatever.....as there is no evidence to support extraordinary supernatural claims, these beliefs are a matter of faith....they are believed on faith/
Which is why a religion is called a faith.
Originally Posted by TF49
As I have told you before, you do not characterize Christian doctrine accurately….I conclude you are either ignorant or being purposefully deceitful….. perhaps both.
No, that's you. You keep insisting on things that have been debunked over and over, you do it regardless of any evidence or explanation.
faith (feɪθ) n 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence 2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith. 3. (Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises 4. (Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
