Jesus Feeding the Five Thousand and Apparent Age

[joshua 1 9]

No, not that. I mean the implicit and explicit attacks on many members of this forum, which permeate your posts. It is distasteful to observe and troubling that you seem unaware of them.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the Andrew Jackson Bible. He cut out parts of the Bible. I am sure there are people that are not comfortable with words we read in the Bible. Like the verses that talk about a false, apostate, harlot church. Or passages where we find words like infidel or people with a reprobate mind. I can understand where people could be offended with some of what we read in the Bible. Esp the people that are perishing in their sin. The whole point of the Bible is that we need to be Born Again and a New Creation in Christ. We need to put off the old and put on the new. To be a Christian we have to give up what we can not keep to gain what we can not lose.

 

[HitchSlap]

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the Andrew Jackson Bible. He cut out parts of the Bible. I am sure there are people that are not comfortable with words we read in the Bible. Like the verses that talk about a false, apostate, harlot church. Or passages where we find words like infidel or people with a reprobate mind. I can understand where people could be offended with some of what we read in the Bible. Esp the people that are perishing in their sin. The whole point of the Bible is that we need to be Born Again and a New Creation in Christ. We need to put off the old and put on the new. To be a Christian we have to give up what we can not keep to gain what we can not lose.

Jefferson, not Jackson FYI.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Jefferson, not Jackson FYI.

oh, ok tks

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the Andrew Jackson Bible. He cut out parts of the Bible. I am sure there are people that are not comfortable with words we read in the Bible. Like the verses that talk about a false, apostate, harlot church. Or passages where we find words like infidel or people with a reprobate mind. I can understand where people could be offended with some of what we read in the Bible. Esp the people that are perishing in their sin. The whole point of the Bible is that we need to be Born Again and a New Creation in Christ. We need to put off the old and put on the new. To be a Christian we have to give up what we can not keep to gain what we can not lose.

I wasn't referring to the Bible. As I have noted elsewhere it has great value for many reasons. I was specifically addressing your almost continual attacks on other members who disagree with you. It is done in a manner that appears self righteous and arrogant to me (and, I suspect, others). It is the same style of behaviour we see in bullies. I can't believe you intend to come across in that way, so I am asking when and if you intend to change that style, so that is becomes easier to focus on the content of your posts.

 

[joshua 1 9]

other members who disagree with you.

I do not care if they agree with me or not. The question is do they agree with God and the truth we find in our Bible. Most of the atheists claim they do not agree with God. The Bible says that makes them an enemy of God.

 

[Ophiolite]

I do not care if they agree with me or not. The question is do they agree with God and the truth we find in our Bible. Most of the atheists claim they do not agree with God. The Bible says that makes them an enemy of God.

More avoiding tactics. Endless avoiding tactics. You could represent your country in the Self Deception Olympics.

 

[Heissonear]

More avoiding tactics. Endless avoiding tactics. You could represent your country in the Self Deception Olympics.

What is the thread topic?

The Scriptures clearly and simply show God Creates, and many time uses Apparent Age when Creating.

The many Created fish and bread the 5000 ate were Created on the spot clearly with Apparent-Embedded Age.

And what does this mean when He Created this Universe? Apparent Embedded Age was at His disposal, and man can not distinguish the difference.

Natural man's use of science to know of origins - Earths past - is in a serious dilemma.

A dilemma that Eartly man has mis-used science - attaining how things came to be without the Creator needed.

 

[Ophiolite]

What is the thread topic?

The thread topic cannot be properly pursued if a member chooses to use questionable rhetoric, obfuscating style and passive-aggressive posturing. That is the issue Joshua is avoiding and it is damaging the discussion, but more to the point, from Joshua's perspective, it is pretty well ensuring any one with at least half a brain will laugh at his thesis, whatever it is.

His choice; your choice; silly choices.

I admit one error. I shouldn't have taken him off Ignore. . . . . . . Rectified.

 

[Heissonear]

The thread topic cannot be properly pursued if a member chooses to use questionable rhetoric, obfuscating style and passive-aggressive posturing. That is the issue Joshua is avoiding and it is damaging the discussion, but more to the point, from Joshua's perspective, it is pretty well ensuring any one with at least half a brain will laugh at his thesis, whatever it is.

His choice; your choice; silly choices.

I admit one error. I shouldn't have taken him off Ignore. . . . . . . Rectified.

The thread topic is about how God Creates.

Natural man has not grasped the impact of God's use of Creating things that have Apparent Age.

Unbelief has made Earthly man set God and His Abilities and Ways to the side, as if non-existent.

Unbelief has brought folly upon Earthly man, in his Modern Times use of science to understand how this Earth came about (origins).

Science should have never been Idolized by Earthly man.

Unbelief is bad stuff. And brings bad stuff.

 

[Ophiolite]

The thread topic is about how God Creates.

Natural man has not grasped the impact of God's use of Creating things that have Apparent Age.

Unbelief has made Earthly man set God and His Abilities and Ways to the side, as if non-existent.

Unbelief has brought folly upon Earthly man, in his Modern Times use of science to understand how this Earth came about (origins).

Science should have never been Idolized by Earthly man.

Unbelief is bad stuff. And brings bad stuff.

Whether what you say is true or not it has no discernible connection with what I said. Do you want to try again?

 

[Speedwell]

The many Created fish and bread the 5000 ate were Created on the spot clearly with Apparent-Embedded Age.

The Bible doesn't say so. The bread and fishes could well have been miraculously transported form somewhere else, rather than being created de novo.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible doesn't say so. The bread and fishes could well have been miraculously transported form somewhere else, rather than being created de novo.

Robbed Peter to pay Paul, did He?

 

[Tayla]

It's just a story in an mythological book, written by an anonymous person, nothing more. Think Paul Bunyan & Babe the Blue Ox.

Not so fast. There are YouTube videos by professor of Philosophy Tim McGrew in which he convincingly demonstrates the gospel accounts are historically trustworthy.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not so fast. There are YouTube videos by professor of Philosophy Tim McGrew in which he convincingly demonstrates the gospel accounts are historically trustworthy.

Without using the Bible as a source?

 

[Tayla]

Without using the Bible as a source?

See for yourself. He uses all the evidence including the Bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

See for yourself. He uses all the evidence including the Bible.

I have seen for myself. Aside from the bible, there is zero contemporary, extrabiblical support for Jesus, let alone an accurate "trustworthiness" of history.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not so fast. There are YouTube videos by professor of Philosophy Tim McGrew in which he convincingly demonstrates the gospel accounts are historically trustworthy.

Ok, I watched the first 51 seconds, and he's already telling little porkies. The four gospels are not signed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's why they are titled "The Gospel According to..."

 

[Tayla]

Ok, I watched the first 51 seconds, and he's already telling little porkies. The four gospels are not signed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's why they are titled "The Gospel According to..."

I think what you mention is what he is saying. He admits they are not signed in the text like some of Paul's letters, for example.

 

[Tayla]

Aside from the bible, there is zero contemporary, extrabiblical support for Jesus,

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others all mention Jesus.

 

[HitchSlap]

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others all mention Jesus.

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, and his his Testimonium Flavium is an interpolation added by over zealous Christians later (not surprising, as this was standard fair back then).

P the Y was not a contemporary of Jesus either, and only he only makes reference to "Christians" and how they should be dealt with; not a direct reference to Jesus.

Tacitus was also not a contemporary of Jesus, and the authenticity of his "chrestus" reference is debated by scholars, and may also be a later addition.

As I said, zero contemporary sources for Jesus, and the three you've mentioned are suspect, at best.

This might be tough for you to watch, but Carrier is a bonafide scholar, and has some interesting ideas regarding the historicity of Jesus. If you're truly interested, you should give equal time to opposing opinions.