• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.

Red flag, you did not respond directly to my post, thus we have another strawman argument.


PinkFlag.gif


You never respond to any of my posts, in any meaningful way, therefore we have a penguin.


​
 
Yes, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know Isaiah chapter 53, was definitely written before Jesus' birth. And at least from Bart Ehrman's point of view we know that Jesus certainly existed.


To cut a long story short, Isaiah's Jesus and Ehrman's Jesus are completely different characters.

Need it explained to you yet again, do you?
 
Last edited:
Red flag, you did not respond directly to my post, thus we have another strawman argument.

I "did not say" the following even though you implied I did, and you even included quotation marks:

"The bible says miracles happen.
Fulfilled prophecy is defined as miraculous.
The bible contains examples of fulfilled prophecy.
Therefore the bible is true."

It's pretty close though to the beginning of your post #940. As you edited that post, can you prove you didn't originally write what X put there between quote marks?

And any chance of a reaction on the Geisler-quoting-Ramsay issue? A retraction of your inane claims and weaseling would be nice.

And any chance of a reaction on the Luke 2:2 translation issue? Either cough up Geisler's reasoning behind his translation and continue the discussion on it, or retract your quoting Geisler and admit you were wrong.
 
It's pretty close though to the beginning of your post #940. As you edited that post, can you prove you didn't originally write what X put there between quote marks?
X's post was over 4 hours after my last edit. People should just respond directly to my post and it would help curtail the strawman arguments.
 
Last edited:
Yes, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know Isaiah chapter 53, was definitely written before Jesus' birth. And at least from Bart Ehrman's point of view we know that Jesus certainly existed.

And that would be the same jesus who supported beating slaves.
 
Red flag, you did not respond directly to my post, thus we have another strawman argument.

I "did not say" the following even though you implied I did, and you even included quotation marks:

"The bible says miracles happen.
Fulfilled prophecy is defined as miraculous.
The bible contains examples of fulfilled prophecy.
Therefore the bible is true."

It's pretty close though to the beginning of your post #940. As you edited that post, can you prove you didn't originally write what X put there between quote marks?

And any chance of a reaction on the Geisler-quoting-Ramsay issue? A retraction of your inane claims and weaseling would be nice.

And any chance of a reaction on the Luke 2:2 translation issue? Either cough up Geisler's reasoning behind his translation and continue the discussion on it, or retract your quoting Geisler and admit you were wrong.

X's post was over 4 hours after my last edit. People should just respond directly to my post and it would help curtail the strawman arguments.


I paraphrased your argument, DOC. For conciseness and to break it down into discrete parts.

Here is what you wrote:

The bible says miracles happened. Fulfilled prophecy can be considered a miracle. So if we can give evidence for fulfilled prophecies in the bible that would be evidence that some miracles happened in the bible.

Many people believe Isaiah Chapter 53 prophecized of Jesus:

<quote of Isaiah 53>



And here is how I paraphrased your argument:

"The bible says miracles happen.
Fulfilled prophecy is defined as miraculous.
The bible contains examples of fulfilled prophecy.
Therefore the bible is true."



The only thing you could argue is straw-man-ish is the conclusion I stated. You're very careful to state "some evidence for" rather than "therefore the bible is true", but you wouldn't be fooling everyone. We know it's what you're thinking. The logic of your argument is the same as my paraphrase.


And it's incredibly ironic (and not a little hypocritical) of you to accuse someone of not replying directly to your post, given your habit of responding to a snippet of other people's posts while conveniently ignoring all the points they raise that devastate your argument. You should be the last person accusing other people of straw-men and non-replies.
 
X's post was over 4 hours after my last edit. People should just respond directly to my post and it would help curtail the strawman arguments.


Perhaps you should stop presenting the same, old, many-times-refuted arguments that you've fled from in the numerous posts with which you've littered the Forum over the years and it would help curtail the sheer ennui of the whole futile exercise.

Speaking of which, any progress on the three-days-and-three-nights question?

How about some evidence that Tyre isn't there?

Roman prohibitions of court testimony by women?


Anything at all?
 
Perhaps you should stop presenting the same, old, many-times-refuted arguments that you've fled from in the numerous posts with which you've littered the Forum over the years and it would help curtail the sheer ennui of the whole futile exercise.

Speaking of which, any progress on the three-days-and-three-nights question?

How about some evidence that Tyre isn't there?

Roman prohibitions of court testimony by women?


Anything at all?

Mighty One:
Might you provide (for us relative newcomers) a link to the post where DOC claimed Tyre isn't there? TYVM!
 
And it's incredibly ironic (and not a little hypocritical) of you to accuse someone of not replying directly to your post, given your habit of responding to a snippet of other people's posts while conveniently ignoring all the points they raise that devastate your argument. You should be the last person accusing other people of straw-men and non-replies.


Exackery.


John 8:7, eh DOC?

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."


Although this version is better:


​
 
Last edited:
X's post was over 4 hours after my last edit. People should just respond directly to my post and it would help curtail the strawman arguments.

So what that it was over 4 hours later? On several occasions, I have hit the "quote" button on seeing the post, and then tended to other business before ending and submitting my reply.

Furthermore, it's pretty stark of you to demand of others to reply "directly" - in context, that means within 4 hours - to your posts, while you regularly say you will reply in a week, or in 10 days; that is, if you reply at all, for there is a long list of unanswered questions.

So what about the Geisler-Ramsay story?
And what about Luke 2:2?
Any answers forthcoming? Within 4 hours please. :rolleyes:
 
And many like yourself believe life came from non-living chemicals over time even though it has never been proven--- just like sasquatch.

I've got news for you: life comes from non-living chemicals every day! Some of the non-living chemicals in the dead banana I had for breakfast are now part of my living cells. So is the salt that was on my potato chip. And last week I grew up some bacteria on a petri plate on chemicals that were never in a living organism before. I even know of people who took non-living nucleotides, made them into DNA and made an infectious virus from it. All life coming from non- life.

Oh, did you mean originally, like 3 billion years ago? Probably by the same fundamental chemical processes we see today. It's not magical, you know!
 
X's post was over 4 hours after my last edit. People should just respond directly to my post and it would help curtail the strawman arguments.

Amazing. Did you intend for this to be ironic, or do you really not see the irony?
 
Yes, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know Isaiah chapter 53, was definitely written before Jesus' birth. And at least from Bart Ehrman's point of view we know that Jesus certainly existed.
The second sentence has nothing to do with the first sentence, DOC.
We know that billions of people have existed, any of which could be the "Suffering Servant" in Isaiah 53.
The fourth of the "servant songs" begins at Isaiah 52:13, continuing through 53:12 where it continues the discussion of the suffering servant. There is also a rather clear identification for the "servant" within this song. In the context of its surrounding verses, Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 54, one can deduce that the song refers to the Nation of Israel, rather not to an individual.

If you take the text literally then we are talking about a really ugly man (Isaiah 52:14 "his visage was so marred more than any man") who lived over 2500 years ago, i.e. before Isaiah was written. This person lived a long time and had children (Isaiah 53:10 "he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his day").
That man was silent durring his opression and affliction
Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
Jesus did not keep his mouth closed.
 
Last edited:
Mighty One:
Might you provide (for us relative newcomers) a link to the post where DOC claimed Tyre isn't there? TYVM!


As ddt says, you really need to read the whole thread to get the most out of the story, but I hasten to assure you that it's not as onerous a task a it might at first seem.

A great many of us worked together and ended up doing a pretty fair job of making it a quite educational and entertaining experience, in spite of DOC's contibutions.
 
Yes, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know Isaiah chapter 53, was definitely written before Jesus' birth. And at least from Bart Ehrman's point of view we know that Jesus certainly existed.

And that would be the same jesus who supported beating slaves.

Your post is not related to the prophecy evidence we were talking about, but in answer to your off topic question, No, it would be the Jesus who condoned the punishment of a servant who beat several women and several men in a parable.

If what you said was accurate, you have to wonder why

"Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. {a preacher who published a book of his sermons} was born on 15 January 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia to a long line of preachers. His father, Martin Luther King, Sr. was a pastor for the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. His maternal grandfather, the Reverend Adam Daniel Williams, was famous for his fiery sermons. His great-grandfather, Willis Williams, was a slave-era preacher.

The above is from the article: Ancestry of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr by K. Powell - text in brackets added.

http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/dr_king.htm
 
Last edited:
Your post is not related to the prophecy we were talking about, but in answer to your off topic question, No, it would be the Jesus who condoned the punishment of a servant who beat several women and several men in a parable.

If what you said was accurate, you have to wonder why

"Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. {a preacher who published a book of his sermons} was born on 15 January 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia to a long line of preachers. His father, Martin Luther King, Sr. was a pastor for the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. His maternal grandfather, the Reverend Adam Daniel Williams, was famous for his fiery sermons. His great-grandfather, Willis Williams, was a slave-era preacher. The above is from the article: Ancestry of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr by K. Powell - text in brackets added.

http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/dr_king.htm

The above is not related to the prophecies of Isaiah--highlite added.

What does your boy Ehrman have to say about the "messianic" prophecies in Isaiah? If it was in the 70% of Did Jesus Exist? that you did not read, you should consider a visit to your local public library.
 
...That man was silent durring his opression and affliction
Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
Jesus did not keep his mouth closed.

JOHN 19:7-11 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom