Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Poem]

You are aware the bible for most Christian religions means the OT and NT?

Yes - though I do remember someone who claimed to be a Christian affirming that he did not believe in the OT.

 

[Poem]

You are aware the bible for most Christian religions means the OT and NT?

Jesus himself claimed that the OT spoke of him....so he would have had, for example, Isaiah 53 in mind.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Would you also describe the NT in the same way you did the OT?

I certainly would.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Jesus himself claimed that the OT spoke of him....so he would have had, for example, Isaiah 53 in mind.

That's an interesting choice.

v2
he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

This makes him sound like Quasimodo, not the perfect son of god.

 

[Poem]

That's an interesting choice.


This makes him sound like Quasimodo,
not the perfect son of god.

You are suggesting that God's son should have been physically appealing?

 

[Darat]

Yes - though I do remember someone who claimed to be a Christian affirming that he did not believe in the OT.

So why ask Arth if he was including the NT when he used the word bible?

 

[Poem]

So why ask Arth if he was including the NT when he used the word bible?

I guess the context was Genesis 1-2 and I also had in mind (but failed to cite it) his:

I enjoy reading historical/fantasy fiction and mythology. I read the Old Testament with the same approach that I read Stephen Fry's trilogy of Greek mythology - Mythos, Heroes, and Troy, which also contain stories that both are horrific, and also may ultimately be derived from actual historical events, being later embellished and deified by later retellings. Highly recommended, by the way.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You are suggesting that God's son should have been physically appealing?

Are you suggesting that he shouldn't be? Or that most Christians believe that he isn't?

 

[Poem]

Are you suggesting that he shouldn't be?

No - but I thought you were suggesting the opposite - that he should be to be perfect.

Or that most Christians believe that he isn't?

I'm not sure.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not according to these articles:

These articles are not saying what you think they're saying.

For a start they are referring to Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism, which do not describe the modern biological understanding of evolution. You're describing modern biologists moving past outdated models, but you're still thinking that the outdated models are important.

Like I said - the only people who still seriously use the term "Darwinism" are creationists. You are a creationist.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Not at all CY. Someone who thinks they are a Christian but won't profess it or give a reason for their hope isn't a true believer.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

Yeah, quoting the Bible to prove you're not a Christian is not the winning argument you might be hoping it would be.
Plus, there's this:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law)

1 Corinthians 9:20-22.
Or, to apply it to this forum, "To the sceptics I became a sceptic, to win the sceptics". Lying in the service of your faith is perfectly acceptable, according to the Bible.

 

[Poem]

Yeah, quoting the Bible to prove you're not a Christian is not the winning argument you might be hoping it would be.

I'm not trying to win this argument....and nobody is proving what they claim to be...whether Christian, atheist or otherwise.

I note you didn't actually respond to the verses I cited.

Plus, there's this:
1 Corinthians 9:20-22.

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law)

Or, to apply it to this forum, "To the sceptics I became a sceptic, to win the sceptics". Lying in the service of your faith is perfectly acceptable, according to the Bible.

Since Paul was Jewish then 'becoming like a Jew' wasn't lying. If Paul advocated lying then he wasn't following the scripture:

Deuteronomy 5:20
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour”.

Proverbs 30:8-9
“Keep deception and lies far from me”

Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to God, but those who deal faithfully are His delight”.

Psalm 34:12-13
“Whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days, keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies”

Ephesians 4:25
“Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbour, for we are members of one another”.

 

[Poem]

These articles are not saying what you think they're saying.

For a start they are referring to Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism, which do not describe the modern biological understanding of evolution.

I note that you do not provide a citation.

Wiley online library:
The Modern Synthesis (or “Neo-Darwinism”), which arose out of the reconciliation of Darwin's theory of natural selection and Mendel's research on genetics, remains the foundation of evolutionary theory.

From wikipedia:
Publications such as Encyclopædia Britannica use Neo-Darwinism to refer to current-consensus evolutionary theory

You're describing modern biologists moving past outdated models, but you're still thinking that the outdated models are important.

Not at all - I stated that 1/3 of biologists find Neo-Darwinism insufficient so, clearly, the other 2/3 do think Neo-Darwinism is sufficient.

Like I said - the only people who still seriously use the term "Darwinism" are creationists.

False:
Darwinism vs Creationism: A Debate On Truth & Evolution with Wendy Wright

and you didn't say that. You said:

"All serious biologists do, yes. That they don't is a creationist lie."

in response to:

I'll ask again - do all biologists agree that modern synthesis adequately explains the diversity of life?

My citations clearly show that that is false.

You are a creationist.

No and nothing you have said remotely makes that case.

 

[acbytesla]

I have no idea why you're taking about this Poem. It has nothing to either the Bible. Seriously, who cares there are different hypotheses regarding certain aspects of evolution? Art clearly shows that you continue to use the verbiage of a Christian theist. Everything from quoting a Christian writer to a Christian biologist to quoting Bible verses. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. And you do.

 

[Poem]

I have no idea why you're taking about this Poem. It has nothing to either the Bible. Seriously, who cares there are different hypotheses regarding certain aspects of evolution?

I was responding to Darat #334

Art clearly shows that you continue to use the verbiage of a Christian theist.

He didn't.

Everything from quoting a Christian writer to a Christian biologist to quoting Bible verses. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. And you do.

Quoting a Christian writer (I assume you mean C.S. Lewis) is significant in what way?

Which Christian biologist?

 

[acbytesla]

I was responding to Darat #334

So?

He didn't.

Yeah, he did.

Quoting a Christian writer (I assume you mean C.S. Lewis) is significant in what way?

He's not to me. You're the one referencing him in the original post and over and over again.

Which Christian biologist?

NIH Director Francis Collins

 

[Poem]

So?

I made the point that it isn't just Christians who are divided.

Yeah, he did.

Right so no argument then.

He's not to me. You're the one referencing him in the original post and over and over again.

Seriously? Referencing the content in the OP is somehow wrong?

NIH Director Francis Collins

He isn't a biologist. That you think there is problem with referencing a scientist who is a Christian who believes in evolution is curious.

If you have some substantive point to make then please do.

 

[acbytesla]

I made the point that it isn't just Christians who are divided.

So?

Right so no argument then.

Life's too short.

Seriously? Referencing the content in the OP is somehow wrong?

No one said it was wrong. Your words offers clues as to who you are.

He isn't a biologist. That you think there is problem with referencing a scientist who is a Christian who believes in evolution is curious.

Really? The man studied genetics for two decades and he's not a biologist?

If you have some substantive point to make then please do.

My point is you walk like a duck and you quack like a duck. The implications lead to a reasonable inference.

 

[Poem]

So?

I was suggesting the Christian division wasn't unique.

Life's too short.

Still no argument.

No one said it was wrong. Your words offers clues as to who you are.

As do yours.

Really? The man studied genetics for two decades and he's not a biologist?

You made the assertion.

My point is you walk like a duck and you quack like a duck. The implications lead to a reasonable inference.

That you think I am whatever you think I am isn't relevant or interesting.

I stated some facts about Neo-Darwinism that has nothing to do with Creationism and you clearly misunderstood me.

 

[acbytesla]

I was suggesting the Christian division wasn't unique.

No one said it wasn't.

Still no argument.

Good to know.

As do yours.

I hope so.

You made the assertion.

And I stand by it

I stated some facts about Neo-Darwinism that has nothing to do with Creationism and you clearly misunderstood me.

Did I? I could be wrong. That has happened in my life. But still believe you talk and think very much like as Art suspects.