If Society was organized exactly how the bible says, would you want to be apart of it?

So prior to the fall what one of these things rebelled against Adam's will?

There is no rebellion, and no contest. Micro organisms bring us up, and eventually tear us down. They have had uncontested dominion over us until the advent of genetics and biology.
 
There is no rebellion, and no contest. Micro organisms bring us up, and eventually tear us down. They have had uncontested dominion over us until the advent of genetics and biology.
Wrong. God and scripture debunks you're statement.
 
Another scream? Really? Provide a single piece of proof attesting to the life of Jesus. You keep asserting it has been proven. So it should not be too hard for you. I wouldn't use wikipedia, however, considering the link you kept providing contradicts your claim.

Simply put, provide evidence for your claim, and stop petulantly screaming.

I am sorry you are projecting yelling onto my posts. I feel perfectly calm-- why wouldn't I? You have made a claim that goes against scholarly consensus. I am in the MOST secure position one can be in for this kind of discussion, the right one.

Actually as you know-- you made the claim that Jesus was not a historical figure. I disputed that claim and brought forth the FACT of scholarly consensus. You have provided nothing to counter scholarly consensus. You know this and are just really embarrassed to be called out on it.

Here is you admitting this just a few posts above.

"It is quite likely that in 1st century palestine, a deluded rabbi named Jesus had been performing "magic"."

Why now demand evidence for something you have conceded? Why did you concede if YOU dont know why? Is scholarly consensus not something you find compelling? I suppose you also are a flat earther.....


I think you should change your username to Don Quixote.
 
I am sorry you are projecting yelling onto my posts. I feel perfectly calm-- why wouldn't I? You have made a claim that goes against scholarly consensus. I am in the MOST secure position one can be in for this kind of discussion, the right one.

Actually as you know-- you made the claim that Jesus was not a historical figure. I disputed that claim and brought forth the FACT of scholarly consensus. You have provided nothing to counter scholarly consensus. You know this and are just really embarrassed to be called out on it.

Here is you admitting this just a few posts above.

"It is quite likely that in 1st century palestine, a deluded rabbi named Jesus had been performing "magic"."

Why now demand evidence for something you have conceded? Why did you concede if YOU dont know why? Is scholarly consensus not something you find compelling? I suppose you also are a flat earther.....


I think you should change your username to Don Quixote.

You have called me name after name, while putting shit in red and bold......

Do you know what quite likely means? Do you know that is not proof of anything? I still await you providing a single piece of evidence to bolster your assertion. If you cannot do this, I will take this as a concession that you had not even read the wiki you provided.
 
You have called me name after name, while putting shit in red and bold......

Do you know what quite likely means? Do you know that is not proof of anything? I still await you providing a single piece of evidence to bolster your assertion. If you cannot do this, I will take this as a concession that you had not even read the wiki you provided.


You have admitted scholarly consensus. That has been my goal in this discussion. I dont have to provide any evidence for anything. I have asserted scholarly consensus to counter your totally untrue claim that Jesus was not a historical figure. You LIE about this often and so I have successfully gotten you to concede.

Thank you Don. Also it is interesting that nothing you say takes us anywhere but here--

We are ONLY discussing the lie you tell on these threads whenever you can. Here is the quote

"C. Not only is Jesus not a historical figure."

and here is what you have come to after squirming as much as you can to get out of it

"It is quite likely that in 1st century palestine, a deluded rabbi named Jesus had been performing "magic"."
 
You have admitted scholarly consensus. That has been my goal in this discussion. I dont have to provide any evidence for anything. I have asserted scholarly consensus to counter your totally untrue claim that Jesus was not a historical figure. You LIE about this often and so I have successfully gotten you to concede.

Thank you Don. Also it is interesting that nothing you say takes us anywhere but here--

We are ONLY discussing the lie you tell on these threads whenever you can. Here is the quote

"C. Not only is Jesus not a historical figure."

and here is what you have come to after squirming as much as you can to get out of it

"It is quite likely that in 1st century palestine, a deluded rabbi named Jesus had been performing "magic"."

More petulance. Fantastic.

I enjoin you to provide where I stated there is a scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus.

From the wiki on the historicity of Jesus:

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Here, we have consensus, which is not a fact based exercise, and dare I say, a severe confirmation bias.

Also, on the bible:

All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death. The Christian Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.[26] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events that are mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[41][42][43][44][45]


The simple proposition, one you have refused to address: Provide a single piece of contemporary proof that attests to the history of Jesus.
 
More petulance. Fantastic.

I enjoin you to provide where I stated there is a scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus.

From the wiki on the historicity of Jesus:

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Here, we have consensus, which is not a fact based exercise, and dare I say, a severe confirmation bias.

Also, on the bible:

All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death. The Christian Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.[26] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events that are mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[41][42][43][44][45]


The simple proposition, one you have refused to address: Provide a single piece of contemporary proof that attests to the history of Jesus.


I put in yellow the part that is relevant-- the part I have argued. I have made NO claims outside of scholarly consensus to refute your claim that Jesus was not a historical figure. You have conceded that.


For you to claim that scholarly consensus is contaminated by confirmation bias is, as you know, enough to discredit everything you say. Here is what you just said-- "Here, we have consensus, which is not a fact based exercise, and dare I say, a severe confirmation bias."

If you think secular biblical scholarship is biased in some way then show why you think that. You do realize that MANY of these scholars are agnostic and atheist right? What is their bias? I dont think you know how this world works......
 
That is impossible. You can not have free will, and full human sentience with out sin. Sin is born out of desire and desire is a product of free will.

You think Adam naming some animals is proof of his supposed superiority? You can program a computer program to do the exact same thing. Which is all he was. A program, a robot. He had no real free will, no real intelligence, no real emotion, no real sentience. He was a very well written program. He didn't gain actual sentience until he was freed from slavery.


Negative KF

adam was made brilliant and in the image of the creator /creators

sin which satan wanted him to become in slaved by is the real snare. Sin keeps you in bondage to its sweet yet terrible addictions in all of their varied forms.

jesus offers freedom from the bondage that sin is that said once you've trained the Super ego or soul in sin it is very hard to break its grip on you it can be done but its very difficult
 
All of this displays will, desire, and choice by the individual in an sentient and intelligent manner, in this case Adam specifically.
Fake sentience. As he was not fully aware of his own circumstances before he ate the fruit. It was false, not complete. At facsimile of sentience. He didn't gain full sentience till after the fall.

One can make programs that are capable of demonstrating something akin to free choice. Play any of the latest Sandbox games and watch as npcs act independently of you, going about their life all thanks to clever programing. No matter how you slice it, he didnt gain true, human sentience till his fall.

You still have not proven how you can have full free will, full sentience and not have sin. Common sense dictates that free will would have to be modified and controlled in order to end sin.
 
Without sin there is no limitations. Sin brought about death and decay. What would you call it to be like superman with no kryptonite.

And that's just a lazy example of what life would of been like. You would never experience fatigue, illness, muscle failure, cognitive dissonance or loss. No aging, no stress, no environmentally harmful factors.

And yes there is lines, I just provided you with. God who knows all things, would have never taught Adam anything!? Are you fucking stupid?
Yet he walked around naked, ignorant of himself and did nothing but talk to animals and pull weeds.. He was taught nothing as proven by his actual lack of building anything. Also, you didn't prove any thing, your verse did not actually say he was with out limitations. It didn't say any of the things you claim it did. You are making up things to try and salvage your anti science insanity.
 
Negative KF

adam was made brilliant and in the image of the creator /creators

sin which satan wanted him to become in slaved by is the real snare. Sin keeps you in bondage to its sweet yet terrible addictions in all of their varied forms.

jesus offers freedom from the bondage that sin is that said once you've trained the Super ego or soul in sin it is very hard to break its grip on you it can be done but its very difficult
No where does it say he was brilliant. He was not free. He had no free will. He was ignorant of himself. He was a cleverly written program at best, with a fake sense of sentience. You are inserting words were it was not written.

You can not have total free will with out sin. Sin is born from desire, and humans will always desire more. The only way to get rid of sin is to get rid of desire and the only way to do that is to nullify free will.
 
What error? There wasn't any error of God's part. But yes we collectively error'd by breaking literally the only one rule that was given to us.

Don't eat from one dang tree.

Yes the tree the cured the non sentient of his ignorance and propelled him into full human sentience. Notice how ignorant he was until that time, then only, ONLY after he ate the fruit on knowledge did he realize he was naked.. Yep fucking brilliant scientist there.
 
I put in yellow the part that is relevant-- the part I have argued. I have made NO claims outside of scholarly consensus to refute your claim that Jesus was not a historical figure. You have conceded that.


For you to claim that scholarly consensus is contaminated by confirmation bias is, as you know, enough to discredit everything you say. Here is what you just said-- "Here, we have consensus, which is not a fact based exercise, and dare I say, a severe confirmation bias."

If you think secular biblical scholarship is biased in some way then show why you think that. You do realize that MANY of these scholars are agnostic and atheist right? What is their bias? I dont think you know how this world works......

A man called Jesus, and the Jesus of the bible are two different things.

I await any contemporary proof on his existence.

Also, something you did not answer earlier still stands as well: Do you think the Jesus of the bible is in any way a historical figure?
 
No where does it say he was brilliant. He was not free. He had no free will. He was ignorant of himself. He was a cleverly written program at best, with a fake sense of sentience. You are inserting words were it was not written.

You can not have total free will with out sin. Sin is born from desire, and humans will always desire more. The only way to get rid of sin is to get rid of desire and the only way to do that is to nullify free will.


I don't think a lot of things were stated black and white in the bible they were meant imho to be implied or inferred while some things like the 10 commandments left nothing to the imagination.

It is stated without argument that God Yahweh created Adam in his our their own image God imo Being a being of conscious light and energy on some type of loop with no end or beginning to make such a being in his image imo means Adam probably had an off the chart IQ.

I could be wrong no one really knows with the amount of information given in the torah or what can be gleaned from or archeological record but its stimulating to think and make assumptions always inho
 
A man called Jesus, and the Jesus of the bible are two different things.

I await any contemporary proof on his existence.

Also, something you did not answer earlier still stands as well: Do you think the Jesus of the bible is in any way a historical figure?


I have not argued even once in this thread that the "Jesus of Faith" is a matter of scholarly consensus. I do not argue that. On the other hand you DID argue that "The Jesus of History" did not exist. You stated that directly. I believe you LIE about that intentionally because you are educated enough to know that what you state is wrong. That makes it a LIE.


In answer to your other question. I NEVER argue for the Jesus of faith with anyone. Ever.
 
Back
Top