Originally posted by DarfiusThat's it? That is no more specific than ANY of Nostradamus' "prophecies"! Surely there's a more specific passage than that.
Isaiah 9:7
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
Hope that helps.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulIn the NT its ..
Hey, who knows where in the OT is the prophesy that states that the Messiah is supposed to be a descendent of David? I thought I knew where it was, but when I looked it wasn't there.
Luke 1:32-33.
31 Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David
Originally posted by no1marauder
That's it? That is no more specific than ANY of Nostradamus' "prophecies"! Surely there's a more specific passage than that.
Curious, did you mother raise you without manners, or do you think she'd be embarrassed at her son acting like such a child. Before interupting that which does not concern you, perhaps act 'civil' , that which you seem to promote when it suits you...
no1marauder
"I've tried to have civil discussions with you in these political threads, but you persist in using childish insults and other juvenile tactics. "
I sincerely hope this is only your online persona and you actually have some tact in real life.
Originally posted by pcaspianHow is my last post not "civil"? And this a public thread that I've already posted in; how can I be "interrupting" it"? I am getting a little sick of the insults that have been tossed my way in the last couple of days; I am perfectly able to respond in kind but in a discussion with a mod on an unrelated topic I promised to avoid childish insults. Apparently that has been taken as a carte blanche to throw whatever mud on me as a small group wish to. My restraint has its limits, particulary when people wish to throw in comments involving my family.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] That's it? That is no more specific than ANY of Nostradamus' "prophecies"! Surely there's a more specific passage than that.
Curious, did you mother raise you without manners, or do you think she'd be embarrassed at her son acting like such a child. Before interupting that which does not conc ...[text shortened]... cerely hope this is only your online persona and you actually have some tact in real life.
[/b]
I had always supposed that there is a specific passage in the OT that clearly says that the Messiah will be descended from David. I am asking, as sonofsaul did, for a specific reference. If there are none more specific than Isaiah 9:7 you could just state it without resorting to your usual low level of vitriol.
Originally posted by NemesioOOPS! If I had known it was a plagarized cut and paste, I wouldn't have responded. Good catch, Nemesio.
I'm surprised that no one, most notably those who rail against the
regurigated nature of fundamentalists' posts, noted that this is not
an original argument, but uncited plagarism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A213247
Nemesio
Originally posted by YozzerUm. What? Conclusive?
Conclusive Evidence of Tampering With the Bible...
The passage mentioned in your uncited article is from what
scholars call 'The Secret Gospel of St Mark.' The passage
cited by St Clement (who evidently regarded this section
as Scripture, further demonstrating that Christians did not
agree about what was and was not Scripture) doesn't suggest
homosexuality.
In fact, what it suggests is that Jesus had a particular ritual
for inducting Disciples into His service. This is reinforced by
the brief and curious passage in St Mark 14:51-52, wherein
a young man was following Jesus after His arrest, but ran off
when they tried to capture him, leaving his linen cloth behind
and running away naked.
In any event, while I believe that this passage at the very
least as Markan roots, most scholars dismiss it as a 2nd
century interpolation with no ties to the Gospel itself.
If you are interested in reading a translation of the existing
text as well as commentary, see the link below:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark_home.html
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauder
How is my last post not "civil"? And this a public thread that I've already posted in; how can I be "interrupting" it"?
Was the post you responded to in any was directed at you ? No. Thus I ask you, when you do interupt a conversation, do you think perhaps it may be polite, heck even civil (which you claim to value), to take a slightly less aggressive tone ?
No, your response doesn't surprise me in the slightest, after all it was Darfius who responded, so carte blanche I guess ?
Originally posted by no1maraudernothing more than the usual attempt to silence opposing views.
How is my last post not "civil"? And this a public thread that I've already posted in; how can I be "interrupting" it"? I am getting a little sick of the insults that have been tossed my way in the last couple of days; I am perfectly able to respond in kind but in a discussion with a mod on an unrelated topic I promised to avoid childish ins ...[text shortened]... ic than Isaiah 9:7 you could just state it without resorting to your usual low level of vitriol.
Ivanhoe tell you the " shut up"
if you respond pscaspian castigates you.
probably put the beady littlebrains together and came up with a plan.
Originally posted by pcaspianBut then thats not much of a prediction, since the NT was written many years after the life and death of JC.
In the NT its ..
Luke 1:32-33.
31 Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David
Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm surprised that no one, most notably those who rail against the
regurigated nature of fundamentalists' posts, noted that this is not
an original argument, but uncited plagarism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A213247
Nemesio
Other than the 3 people who recommended that post, I don't think most of us bothered to read to the end.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianHonestly, if that's the best atheists can do, he just strengthened my faith considerably.
Originally posted by Nemesio
[b]I'm surprised that no one, most notably those who rail against the
regurigated nature of fundamentalists' posts, noted that this is not
an original argument, but uncited plagarism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A213247
Nemesio
Other than the 3 people who recommended that post, I don't think most of us bothered to read to the end.
pc[/b]
Originally posted by Darfius
Honestly, if that's the best atheists can do, he just strengthened my faith considerably.
Well, not really Darfius, that was a poor attempt.
I don't think you, or I for that matter, have truely had our faith tested. Death of a partner, a child, suffering and destruction are true tests of faith. When all the world is at your feet and only your faith is preventing you from grabbing as much as you can hold, then you may be tested. Perhaps in our lifetimes we will never have to suffer heartbreaking tribulations, perhaps we may suffer the worst of all.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianRegardless of what you "think", my post was genuine surprise and incredulity that there is nothing more specific in the OT regarding that the Messiah would be a descendant of David. Again, these are PUBLIC forums, it is impossible to "interrupt" them and last I checked the site admins do not require that a post be "directed" at you to respond to it. Is there something in the TOS that says otherwise, Pcaspian?
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] How is my last post not "civil"? And this a public thread that I've already posted in; how can I be "interrupting" it"?
Was the post you responded to in any was directed at you ? No. Thus I ask you, when you do interupt a conversation, do you think perhaps it may be polite, hec ...[text shortened]... rise me in the slightest, after all it was Darfius who responded, so carte blanche I guess ?
[/b]
Originally posted by DarfiusYou're a hypocrite, Darfius. You cut and paste more than your
Honestly, if that's the best atheists can do, he just strengthened my faith considerably.
fair share of drivel to this site.
I find it intellectually offensive when anyone posts something
without citing it, whether I am for it or against it.
And, while several of the claims in the post are very flawed
(no doubt the product of the bias of the author rather than
sound reasoning), several are also very good claims.
The fact that you (and that pcaspian, evidently) didn't read
it and ponder the claims only demonstrates an unwillingness to
consider the 'other side.'
Nemesio