PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     The Church rejects YOU!
       you cant be a christian and belive in DNA

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Ribosome77

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sure, most contemporary christian organizations (like the Catholic church) encourage a non-literal translation of scripture and even accept evolution as real science.  SO WHAT!  If you believe that a man can be born from a virgin mother... or that a body does not decay after death, instead it somehow evaporates into heaven,  then YOU MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM ANYWAY!

Not a single christian sect or cult or whatever would allow you to believe that 14 year-old Mother Mary had a premarital affair with a 30+ year-old shepheard anyway...that would make her a slut in those days, a Cardinal sinner, our mother of God.  hmm.  You better not go around saying worms ate Jesus' eyeballs either or you might get excommunicated.

But if you accept the Nativity, and the Ressurection, then you believe in sorcery and hocus-pocus and all that stuff you condemn the pagans for.  All fundemental laws of our universe break down for Jesus I guess, so why not believe in 7-day creation? It makes just as much sense.

All you pseudo-intelectuals who make yourself believe that having an open mind means trying to force together incongruent ways of thinking...your just being pretentious and you are left out of either accepting science or religion.

P.S.  dont bust my b#lls about me trying to disprove the existence of god...I didn't say God I said religion, something had to create all this science eh?

(Edited by Ribosome77 1/14/2003 at 04:58 AM).

(Edited by Ribosome77 1/14/2003 at 05:10 AM).
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 04:49 AM on January 14, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

does the word "faith" mean anything to you at all? or are you to weak to use it?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 08:44 AM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Ribosome77

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does the word "reality" mean anything to you, or are you too scared to face it.

I have faith that every particle of my being operates under the same fundemental biological principles that have existed since life began.  I have faith that believing in fairy-tales is not necessary to live a spiritually fulfilling life. I think my kind of faith means something.

Hey Fallingbackward...I dont want to hear from you fundies anyway.  I wanna hear from all these "Biologists for Jesus" or whatever you wanna call them who think they can believe whole-heartedly in christian dogma and still have a respect for Natural Law and Biochemistry.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 4:06 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i dont think there is nothing wrong with believing that God could have made Mary give birth to Jesus as a virgin. you base your whole entire life on science.

how many times do i hafta tell ya that i am not a fundamentalist? i do not take the entire bible literally word for word. i do believe that God is all-powerful and that He created nature's laws. you even admit that "something had to create all this science". therefore, if He created it then he can make an exception to the rules if need be. God wanted Jesus to be born from a virgin, so thats what He did.

that was very very cute of you to call names. how old are you? are in middle school?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 4:29 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i just cant win can I? on one hand, i'm hated by Christians because i'm a liberal. on the other hand, i am hated by liberals because i am a Christian.

and then you got people like ribosome who like to resort to namecalling whenever someone disagrees with them. middle school all over again


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 4:38 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Ribosome77 at 04:49 AM on January 14, 2003 :
Sure, most contemporary christian organizations (like the Catholic church) encourage a non-literal translation of scripture and even accept evolution as real science.

Yup, the vast majority do.
 SO WHAT!  If you believe that a man can be born from a virgin mother... or that a body does not decay after death, instead it somehow evaporates into heaven,  then YOU MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM ANYWAY!

Not a single christian sect or cult or whatever would allow you to believe that 14 year-old Mother Mary had a premarital affair with a 30+ year-old shepheard anyway...that would make her a slut in those days, a Cardinal sinner, our mother of God.  hmm.  You better not go around saying worms ate Jesus' eyeballs either or you might get excommunicated.

But if you accept the Nativity, and the Ressurection, then you believe in sorcery and hocus-pocus and all that stuff you condemn the pagans for.  All fundemental laws of our universe break down for Jesus I guess, so why not believe in 7-day creation? It makes just as much sense.

I have complete faith in God, and I believe He can do anything.  He could make a woman pregnant without intercourse, He could take Jesus' body to heaven, and He could have made the Heavens and the Earth and everything in them in 6 days.  It is only when empirical evidence says that He didn't that I do not take the literal translation.  There is way too much evidence for an old Earth, and an evolved Earth to ignore and say everything was created in 6 days 4,000 years ago.  I of course believe that God created everything.  I just believe He did it over billions of years using evolution as the mechanism of creation.  I used to be a YEC until I took an anthropology class focused on evolution.  My professor, answer all my refutations easily and logical with empirical evidence.  So seeing as I am a Christian and I follow the 10 commandments and therefore I cannot lie to myself.  I realized I could not ignore the empirical evidence against creationism.  I am now what I guess would be refered to as a  theistic evolutionist, accept I do not believe God just began the process I believe He guided it.  

All you pseudo-intelectuals who make yourself believe that having an open mind means trying to force together incongruent ways of thinking...your just being pretentious and you are left out of either accepting science or religion.

This is an opinion, and a very presumptuous one at that, unless of course you want to present empirical evidence for your claim.
I wanna hear from all these "Biologists for Jesus" or whatever you wanna call them who think they can believe whole-heartedly in christian dogma and still have a respect for Natural Law and Biochemistry.

I can, and unless you can prove that I cannot I suggest you stop making blantant assumptions without backing them up.

P.S.  May I ask whether you are a Christian Creationist or an atheist who believes in evolution?  I cannot tell for sure by your posts on this page and I do not want to make an incorrect assumption.

Sarah


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:28 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Ribosome77

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What "empirical evidence" do you have for the factual history of the immaculate conception or the ressurection.  Clearly you dont base your acceptance of christian dogma on empirical evidence. It seems that you are just faithful, like fallingupward(sorry if I offended with the name calling, but forums are the only time i get to be mean ;-).

remember, there are over 50 known testaments to christ written at about the same time as the gospels (maybe some were written during Jeus' life).  The early Roman church chose MMLJ becuase they were the only ones that contained similar accounts of Jesus' birth and death.  We could be worshiping the ex-prostitute wife, or even the twin brother of Jesus today if it werent for the ancient Byzantine heirarchy being picky about what was to be counted as historical truth.  

Lemmee ask you this then... Do you believe Jesus literally walked on water or cured blind people? Is there anything in the new testement that you dont believe could happen?

P.S.   I finished middle school almost 10 years ago (I went to a Catholic middle and high school), More recently I recieved a Master's degree in Molecular Biology based on my research concerning Organellar evolution of eukaryotic microorganisms. (cough*BraG*Akcem*bOAst*COUGH!), excuse me. Thats another thread.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 10:53 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh so you are an evolutionist.  I get it.  Okay, well I have my faith and you do not.  I do believe God can do anything.  Like I said before the only reason I don't think the Earth was created in 6 days was the empirical evidence against it.  I don't need empirical evidence FOR the rest of my faith.  Sorry, you are not going to convince me my relgion is wrong.  You may convince me that parts of the Bible are not literal, but other than that, sorry I have my faith, and you do not.  No discussion is going to change that.  I still disagree with you as far as Christians being unable to believe in non-literal Genesis, but believe much of the rest of the Bible.  So do most Christian religions, but I am not going to convince you of religion and you are not going to convince me against it so I don't really know where else this discussion can go.  It was a pleasure discussing with you.

P.S.  COngratulations you should be very proud may I ask where you went?  I can only hope that when I am done with college (in the far distant furture) I will have similar things to be proud of.
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:34 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Ribosome77

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a biologist, so it is implicit that i accept evolution, as all real biologists do (check out my "evolution is failing" post).

I'm glad your faith gives you peace of mind and harmony within your soul, as does my faith, which I have described above.

I'm not saying that as a christian, you must believe in literal genesis, but if you choose to believe in ancient stories of a man with supernatural powers as a fundemental historical fact, then why not believe in Noahs ark, or the parting of the red sea, or men made of clay?  Those stories are cool too.

Didnt mean to sound to cavalier about my resume, I just wanted to let you know that I am well informed about both sides of the debate...and that i am not in middle school.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 12:12 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am still working on what to think about Noah's Ark.  I see no reason not to believe in parting the Red sea.  Like I said before, I believe God can do anything, it is only when science tells me that it didn't happen that I do not take it literally.  Yes, science tells me that logically the red sea couldn't have been parted, but until I am shown that it DID NOT happen (not that it COULD NOT happen, but DID NOT happen) will I stop taking it literally.  Do you see what I mean.  

Don't worry about the resume, I didn't find it Cavalier, I knew what your point was and I was being sarcastic in my reply.

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 12:22 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ribosome, i hafta agree with sarah on this one. you cannot disprove that the red sea was parted or that Mary was not a virgin simply by pointing to scientific laws in nature. because if someone believes that God is indeed all powerful and did indeed create nature's laws, then yes he can also make exceptions to the laws if need be.

i apologize for the middle school comment. it just seemed very immature of you to call names in a debate forum. obviously, you are a very intelligent person. just dont be so quick to pick on stupid kids like me next time

ribosome, i want to know what you believe. i dont want a stupid answer, i just want something clear-cut and dry. do you believe God exists, for example?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:27 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Ribosome77

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you don't have to apologize, fallingupward, I like it when people get mean on anonymous forums, It makes it more fun and you shouldnt take anything too seriously anyway.

Sure I believe in God.  I just don't think that He thinks like a man or that his creation is limited  to what creationists believe.

you said:
"you cannot disprove that the red sea was parted or that Mary was not a virgin simply by pointing to scientific laws in nature."

If I told you that I walked on water last week or I raised someone from the dead last year, would you believe me? Why not?  Do I need ancient tradition or thousands of followers for you to disregard your intuition?  When you reject my claims to having magic powers, you are pointing to scientific laws you have accepted in your own mind, although you may not realize it.

Science is not a way to apply spiritual meaning to the natural world the way religion does.  Science involves the observation of phenomena, the interpretation of such observations as to establish general principles, and to use these principles to develop technology.  To be a scientist is to truly study Gods creation at face value, and not making it up as you go along.

Religions started as ways to explain nature, then it became a pillar to build a society and culture around, then it became a philosophy on how to live righteously.

 Only since the industrial revolution, a little more than a century ago, did people begin to have technology advanced enough to explain nature more accurately, The world is becoming less dependent on the role of church in running society, perhaps in the future people will not need tradition and ritual to feel like their life is righteous.

what will the robots think when they replace the human race 1000 years from now and continue their existence till the end of time?
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 01:47 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

one reason to believe in the accuracy of the gospels is the documentation that is behind them. there are many different gospels about the life of Christ and they are incredibly similar. and there are even more gospels that are not included in the bible (such as the gospel of thomas) that tells about Christ in the same way that all of the others do. there is more documentation of the life of Christ than there is of many historical events that happened in ancient history. this is proof to me of the accuracy of the gospels.

on the other hand, i would not believe you at all if you told me that you walked on water or raised someone from the dead last year. why? for one reason, you have no witnesses (or if you did, you did not have many many accounts from different people that were very similar sounding).


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 02:05 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Ribosome77

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sure, there is a lot of documentation about this man Jesus.  There is no doubt that he existed and that he was an very influential guy.  

Remember that the guys who wrote the bible were evangelists, not journalists, and that the purpose of the gospels was to convert different groups of people, not to provide an objective historical account.  It is most likely that the gospel writers got their information from oral accounts passed down 2 generations that originated from a similar source. Plus you are only counting the official gospels and St. thomas, we will never know how important the other gnostic testaments are in understanding the historical jesus.

Without a tradition of  scientific objectivity in relating truth, people tend to embelish or misinterpret what they see or hear.  Nowadays, everyone can read and write, we have endless volumes of reliable journalistic information and photographic records ect...Ancient peoples had a different was of interpreting truth and subsequently, history.

In terms of the Nativity and the ressurection, there are few witnesses in those stories, so its not as if there are many reliable sources.  Its my personal belief that the nativity account was applied to Jesus' life after he died so that his birth would fulfill messianic tradition. All of that astrology stuff...bah.

Do you believe these rednecks who say they were abducted by aliens, or these psychics that claim to talk to the dead?  even when there are dozens of witnesses who claim to see the same thing.  Even if 12 people claim to see a UFO, does that mean you have to believe we are being invaded?
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 02:36 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you have any evidence at all that the gospel writers got their information from oral accounts passed down two generations? if you have a couple links, i would love to see them.

anyway, the gospels are supposedly written by the person who the gospel was named after. for example, the gospel of matthew was supposed to be written by matthew, etc...
while their accounts of what Jesus did on earth are strikingly similar, one can tell simply by the language used which person wrote it. for example, matthew was a tax collector. when reading the gospel of matthew, you can tell from several parts in the book that it was definitly a taxcollector who wrote it. the gospel of mark is short (relative to the other gospels) and gets straight to the point. this was very characteristic of mark in the bible. take the gospel of luke. luke was a doctor, this is a historic fact. in his gospel, he uses very precise numbers and is very careful to convey accurate and precise information. all of these men undoubtably lived WHILE Christ was on earth and they followed Him. i think the differences in the way the authors conveyed the text is evidence that they are indeed first-hand accounts. and if they are all first-hand accounts, then that means they did not all come from a single oral tradition. which means ALL of the gospel writers would have had to have been huge huge liars. and even if they did lie, it would have been impossible for them to, by chance, come up with the same exact lies about Jesus.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:22 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok folks, i wanna letcha know that i did not write what i am about to post below. i cut and paste this from a site because i think it provides solid evidence of the authenticity of the scriptures. at the same time, i know you guys hate links (as do i), so i'm just gonna post it. here we go:


The authenticity of the Gospels shines out from three kinds of external evidence.

  1. In none of the Gospels is there any anachronism or any error suggesting the author's unfamiliarity with or long separation from the geographical, historical, and cultural setting of the events he relates.
  2. The Gospels are altogether free of Gnosticism and of the other aberrant theologies that pervade many writings from the second century.
  3. The Gospels mention details of place, culture, and politics that could have been known only to contemporaries of Jesus.


     Absence of Inaccuracies Pointing to a Later Date of Origin

The apocryphal gospels that began to appear in the second century are full of historical inaccuracies. The Gospel of Peter (second century) alleges that Herod had jurisdiction in Jerusalem, such that Pilate could obtain Jesus' body only by requesting it from Herod (1). The Gospel of Nicodemus, better known as the Acts of Pilate, states that the imperial standards, which bore images of the emperor, bowed down to Jesus when He entered Pilate's judgment hall (2). In fact, as a concession to Jewish scruples against graven images, the standards were, in Pilate's day, left outside the city (3). Although such errors abound in all the apocryphal writings, they are completely missing from the Gospels.


     Absence of Deviant Theologies Influential during the Second Century

The apocryphal gospels contain many strange doctrines. Doceticism, the doctrine denying the humanity of Jesus, appears in the Gospel of Peter, which declines to say that Jesus really suffered and died (4). The Gospel according to the Egyptians (second century) reflects the heresy of Gnosticism, a pagan pseudo-Christianity that rejected sound teaching and holy living in favor of cultic secrets and sexual aberration. This gospel so called has Jesus say, "I came to destroy the works of the female" (5). None of the many late noncanonical gospels won a large following. The church as a whole rejected them because most believers could see that they contained many bizarre departures from orthodox tradition.

In the familiar four Gospels, we find no traces of the heresies that flourished during the second century. The absence of such traces, pervasive in the apocryphal gospels, is further evidence that the canonical Gospels originated in the first century.


     Inclusion of Facts That Only the Contemporaries of Jesus Would Have Known

We will confine our discussion to Luke and John, since these Gospels are the most generous in noting historical and geographical details.

As we said earlier, the Gospel of Luke was originally combined with Acts in a single work. The author, Luke the physician, was a careful and conscientious historian. The accuracy of Acts led one eminent archaeologist at the turn of the century—Sir William Ramsay—to become a believer in Christ. Through his extensive excavations in Asia Minor, Ramsay himself made many discoveries showing the historical reliability of Acts. Ramsay concluded,

     Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident (6).

One of many striking confirmations of Luke's accuracy is his use of titles. The many titles that he brings into his narrative would, if he were careless or uninformed, most certainly give rise to errors. He notes that when pagan opponents of Christianity rioted in Ephesus, there was more than one proconsul of Asia (Acts 19:38). Sergius Paullus appears in Luke's history as "proconsul of Cyprus" (Acts 13:7) and Gallio as "proconsul of Achaia" (Acts 18:12), although the province was ordinarily known as Greece. The local authorities in Ephesus are "Asiarchs" (Acts 19:31). The magistrates of Philippi are "praetors" and their assistants "lictors" (Acts 16:20, 35), but the magistrates of Thessalonica are "politarchs" (Acts 17:6). The chief official of Malta is protos—first man of the island (Acts 28:7). Herod Antipas, known to his subjects as a king, is designated a "tetrarch" (Luke 3:1). And Lysanias is called "tetrarch of Abilene" (Luke 3:1). All these names and titles have been verified as correct, in some instances by archaeological discoveries within the last century (7). Luke's accuracy is all the more remarkable when we consider the difficulty of his task. Roman political titles were in a constant state of flux. Moreover, a writer in antiquity could not check his facts by going to a local library.

Perhaps the most interesting book ever written on the historicity of Acts is James Smith's The Voyage and Shipwreck of Saint Paul, first published in 1848. Smith, himself a skilled mariner who retraced Paul's voyage from Jerusalem to Rome, showed that Luke's account of this voyage must be altogether authentic, for the writer is accurate in his use of nautical terms, and the events he relates correspond perfectly to ancient sailing methods, the capacities of ancient ships, and the conditions of wind and weather in the Mediterranean (8).

The only reasonable conclusions are (1) that the Book of Acts must have been written by an eyewitness of the events he reports, and (2) that the author was a stickler for accuracy. According to the traditional view that the author was Luke, the accuracy of the narrative is easily explained. The writer was an eyewitness of most events following chapter 16, and for prior events he took his account from the lips of Paul. If Luke is a trustworthy historian in the Book of Acts, he must also be a trustworthy historian in the Gospel bearing his name.

The Gospel of John is likewise imbued with an accurate knowledge of circumstances. The author was obviously a Jew, for he had a thorough understanding of Jewish laws and customs (9). He was a Palestinian, for he had a good grasp of traveling routes and times (John 4:3-5, for example), as well as an exact recollection of many places, some of them quite obscure (10). These include Bethabara (John 1:28), Galilee (John 1:43 et al.), Bethsaida (John 1:44 et al.), Nazareth (John 1:45 et al.), Cana of Galilee (John 2:1 et al.), Capernaum (John 2:12 et al.), Judaea (John 3:22 et al.), Aenon near Salim, a place of "much water," an allusion to the many springs found there (John 3:23), Samaria (John 4:4 et al.), Sychar (John 4:5), Joseph's field (John 4:5), Jacob's well (John 4:6), "this mountain" in Samaria—that is, Mount Gerizim (John 4:20-21), the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2), the Sea of Galilee (John 6:1), Tiberias (John 6:1 et al.), the Mount of Olives (John 8:1), the treasury of the Temple (John 8:20), the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7 et al.), Solomon's Porch (John 10:23), Bethany (John 11:1 et al.), Ephraim (John 11:54), the brook Cedron (John 18:1), the garden where Jesus was arrested (John 18:1 et al.), the "palace" (better, "court") of the high priest (John 18:15), the door of the same court (John 18:16), Pilate's hall of judgment—literally, "the Praetorium" (John 18:28), the Pavement, or Gabbatha (John 19:13), the place of a skull, or Golgotha (John 19:17), the garden where Jesus was buried (John 19:41), and finally, the Sea of Tiberias—another name for the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1).

The author of John must have resided in Palestine before the wholesale destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, for in describing certain buildings that were later obliterated, he notices specific details. For example, he says that the Pool of Bethesda had five porticos (John 5:2) and that Pilate held court at an outdoor platform called Lithostrotos in Latin and Gabbatha in Aramaic (John 19:13). Although these assertions have not been absolutely confirmed by archaeology, they have survived the critical knife, and today they are regarded as very plausible (11).

Furthermore, the author of John was most certainly a contemporary of Jesus, for as he sketches the political environment of the Crucifixion, he furnishes information missing from the Synoptics. He tells us that in the year of Jesus' death, Caiaphas, the high priest, shared power with Annas, his father-in-law (John 18:13, 24). Luke, the only other Gospel writer who mentions Annas, says only that he was a high priest along with Caiaphas (Luke 3:1; Acts 4:6). The additional facts that John supplies are corroborated to some extent by Josephus's history of the period. Josephus, the great Jewish historian active in the late first century, records that Annas was a high priest with no less than five sons who succeeded him to the same office (12). It is probable that he means "son" in a sense inclusive of son-in-law. The continuing prominence of Annas's family suggests that Annas himself indeed retained his title and his influence for many years after he formally vacated the office of high priest.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:28 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

blah


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 2:54 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's faith no matter what you believe. Is a tiny ball of compacted energy that could fit in your hand that all of a sudden was forced to spread and formed everything such a realistic idea?

Remember that a lot of words used in the time were often not used in the since as today. Days could have been billions of years for all we know. We'll never know the exact amount of time that a day referred to.

Hmm... the Bible is always going to be a mystery. All of those accounts give different variations of stories, like what Jesus said on the cross. Two of the accounts of what he said could have been taken from other parts of the Bible... I think they were pieces of psalms?

I think the account not in the Bible (can't remember what it's called) is probably the more accurate one. In it they did not make it to Bethlehem, but instead were outside of the city. Mary was going into labor and they took shelter in a cave. Joseph went to find some assiatnce. He returned with two women, but Mary already had had the baby. One of the woman did not believe she was a virgin and... uh... reached up there. She cried out in a pain because her hand felt like it was on fire. Then she apologized to God, etc, etc. Later they hid the baby in a manger.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:37 AM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remember that a lot of words used in the time were often not used in the since as today. Days could have been billions of years for all we know. We'll never know the exact amount of time that a day referred to.

Right.  So what is wrong with evolution guided by God???

I think the account not in the Bible (can't remember what it's called) is probably the more accurate one. In it they did not make it to Bethlehem, but instead were outside of the city. Mary was going into labor and they took shelter in a cave. Joseph went to find some assiatnce. He returned with two women, but Mary already had had the baby. One of the woman did not believe she was a virgin and... uh... reached up there. She cried out in a pain because her hand felt like it was on fire. Then she apologized to God, etc, etc. Later they hid the baby in a manger.
 
May I ask where you got this story from???  One thing doesnt really make sense, even if Mary was a virgin before she had the baby (which I do believe).  Why would the woman check after she had the baby???  She wouldn't have been a virgin after having it.  Her heimen would have broken when the baby crowned.  

Just curious of the source.

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 3:28 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

    Where was I when all this went down? Falling, I appreciate your standing your ground. Now, first of all I will state that the Catholic faith is not Christianity. I am not stating that no one in the Cathlic Church is a Christian, I am saying their doctrine is by no means backed by Christs' teachings. Hey, now that I got that said, I don't have to answer for the horrible slaughter's carried out by the "crusades" agianst God's chosen people (Jews), isn't that convenient?! Well then, agian I would encourage more study on behalf of Sarah and Falling to attempt to support EVERY Biblical claim that seems unlikely, as opposed to simply accepting facts from sources that are vehement about disproving Christs' diety. I personally beleive in the completeness of the Bible, and never comprimise unless it is OBVIOUSLY (in Biblical context, not from secular studies) some sort of symbolism. In regards to the 6-day creation, Peter says that "one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day". He was speaking in regards to the Lord's perspective, as he stated in context. Therefore, that could have been the case with creation, considering our "day" wasn't even created yet. In fact, I am convinced that was the context of that Peter was referring to (not that it couldn't have been the mellenial reign as well). However, I do not stand in agreement with the majority of "secular" dating for creation by any means. I will return, if God is willing to elaborate.
       -Benjamin
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:26 PM on March 2, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.