Total Posts:430|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Preterism and the truth of God's Word

PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Specifically listen to segment # 45 if you want to dispute my claim that the Bible, as God's Word, provides irrefutable evidence in the form of its prophesies.

https://www.youtube.com...

Peter
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:43:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You have not one shred of evidence the deity actually exists let alone the authorship of the not so good book being anything to do with it! The book reads like a very human production, with a lot of myths, legends and fantasies!
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:09:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:43:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
You have not one shred of evidence the deity actually exists let alone the authorship of the not so good book being anything to do with it! The book reads like a very human production, with a lot of myths, legends and fantasies!

It looks as if your post is big on rhetoric, but somehow falls a little shy of actually answering the OP. And I'm not even a Preterist in the sense that PGA uses the term.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:32:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:43:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
You have not one shred of evidence the deity actually exists let alone the authorship of the not so good book being anything to do with it! The book reads like a very human production, with a lot of myths, legends and fantasies!

Why does he not have one shred of evidence? Could you substantiate this opinion based on anything outside of 'becuase I say so'?
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

These objectors try to mask their real intentions and what is behind their worldview/belief system. They have no certainty and no means for certainty. They try to pass off a baseless morality, a baseless truth, a baseless reason, all the while borrowing from the Christian framework that can make sense of these things.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:22:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:43:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
You have not one shred of evidence the deity actually exists let alone the authorship of the not so good book being anything to do with it! The book reads like a very human production, with a lot of myths, legends and fantasies!

Did you listen to the teaching segment and if so then you ignored the evidence. If you have something constructive to say about it then be my guest or I will ignore your pointless rhetoric and ill-grounded assertions.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:36:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 1:32:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:43:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
You have not one shred of evidence the deity actually exists let alone the authorship of the not so good book being anything to do with it! The book reads like a very human production, with a lot of myths, legends and fantasies!

Why does he not have one shred of evidence? Could you substantiate this opinion based on anything outside of 'becuase I say so'?

He just made an ill-grounded claim. There was no support for his statement.

I have stated that the Bible offers its own proof in the form of prophecy, when correctly understood. Do you have anything to contribute or are you also going to offer sweet nothings? He has not offered one shred of evidence for his claim.
I, on the other hand, have offered a view of Scripture that identifies in the Olivet Discourse, the Old Covenant age as prophesied to finish in AD 70. The teaching of the Olivet Discourse is drawn from teachings in the OT. He would have to discredit these teachings as well as those of the NT as not happening/being written before AD 70 to make his case. I bet he is unwilling and unable to do this.

It is the usual case of because he is able to state something he feels it must be so, as if truth is what he makes it. What an absurd notion. Why is he the authority he masks himself to be with such bold accusation and assertions with very little understanding of prophecy at all (my conjecture)?

Peter
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 3:02:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Specifically listen to segment # 45 if you want to dispute my claim that the Bible, as God's Word, provides irrefutable evidence in the form of its prophesies.

https://www.youtube.com...

Peter

There is, as you well know if you would but admit it, one overpowering argument against your version of 70 C. E.

Scripture, pure and simple.

But since you believe so little of what scripture teaches there is no point in doing more than making this statement.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 3:08:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

LOL It won't create any division, nor does either position really give up any positions on prophesy that affect efforts to prove inspiration of the scriptures. If you are correct, then I do not really give up anything as far as using prophesy as proof. If I am correct, the same holds true for you.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 3:58:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 3:02:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Specifically listen to segment # 45 if you want to dispute my claim that the Bible, as God's Word, provides irrefutable evidence in the form of its prophesies.

https://www.youtube.com...

Peter

There is, as you well know if you would but admit it, one overpowering argument against your version of 70 C. E.

Scripture, pure and simple.

But since you believe so little of what scripture teaches there is no point in doing more than making this statement.

Have you listened to the teaching and are you willing to discuss it? If not then go and bog down another thread. I'm not interested in your Scriptureless assertions. What does the Word say? Not what you pull out of your magic hat.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 4:01:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 3:08:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

LOL It won't create any division, nor does either position really give up any positions on prophesy that affect efforts to prove inspiration of the scriptures. If you are correct, then I do not really give up anything as far as using prophesy as proof. If I am correct, the same holds true for you.

Well, go to work then. I won't have time for a debate for a month or so but if you want to bring up some points then feel free to do so. I respect you and I welcome your thoughts and proofs.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 4:04:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:01:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:08:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

LOL It won't create any division, nor does either position really give up any positions on prophesy that affect efforts to prove inspiration of the scriptures. If you are correct, then I do not really give up anything as far as using prophesy as proof. If I am correct, the same holds true for you.

Well, go to work then. I won't have time for a debate for a month or so but if you want to bring up some points then feel free to do so. I respect you and I welcome your thoughts and proofs.

Peter

PS. I'm out of time for today (off to work shortly) so I will catch up on the thread tomorrow, Annanicole. One of these days I'm going to have to buy a cell phone and move into the 21st century.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 4:21:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:01:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:08:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

LOL It won't create any division, nor does either position really give up any positions on prophesy that affect efforts to prove inspiration of the scriptures. If you are correct, then I do not really give up anything as far as using prophesy as proof. If I am correct, the same holds true for you.

Well, go to work then. I won't have time for a debate for a month or so but if you want to bring up some points then feel free to do so. I respect you and I welcome your thoughts and proofs.

Peter

LOL I don't have time right now myself. In fact, I'm thinking about taking my cat down to the courthouse and marrying him. I'd like him to receive some benefits.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:34:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

I would be interested in reading that debate. I hope you can make that happen.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:38:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 2:36:04 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:32:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:43:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
You have not one shred of evidence the deity actually exists let alone the authorship of the not so good book being anything to do with it! The book reads like a very human production, with a lot of myths, legends and fantasies!

Why does he not have one shred of evidence? Could you substantiate this opinion based on anything outside of 'becuase I say so'?

He just made an ill-grounded claim. There was no support for his statement.

I have stated that the Bible offers its own proof in the form of prophecy, when correctly understood.

I have asked you before, and I don't believe I have received a proper answer. How do you objectively know you are correctly understanding the prophecy?

Do you have anything to contribute or are you also going to offer sweet nothings? He has not offered one shred of evidence for his claim.
I, on the other hand, have offered a view of Scripture that identifies in the Olivet Discourse, the Old Covenant age as prophesied to finish in AD 70. The teaching of the Olivet Discourse is drawn from teachings in the OT. He would have to discredit these teachings as well as those of the NT as not happening/being written before AD 70 to make his case. I bet he is unwilling and unable to do this.

It is the usual case of because he is able to state something he feels it must be so, as if truth is what he makes it. What an absurd notion. Why is he the authority he masks himself to be with such bold accusation and assertions with very little understanding of prophecy at all (my conjecture)?

Peter

I don't have time to watch your video now, but I will get to it soon (hopefully).
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 4:30:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy.

Actually, that is what a majority of Christians, which happen to be premillennialists, do. So, it stands to reason that a majority of atheists ( speaking of those who were former Christians) will be most familiar with a premillennialist view. So, let's not yoke atheists and agnostics with what is the mainstream Christian view. It is not the view advocated by atheists and agnostics (at least not outside of a devil's advocate position).

For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

No,they don't. There is no reference to "70AD" in the Bible. That is your interpretation of the text. If Envisage was able to show the NT books were written after the events you (or Anna) claim they refer to, then there is no "context of the text" referring to the destruction of the temple in 70AD.


Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I did not brush this off in our debate. However, after the debate was over, you did indeed accuse me of "misinterpreting the Bible", and as I pointed out then, and I will do so now, it was not my position to begin with. I would need to believe the Christian god exists before I could ever take your (or anyone else's) interpretation of prophecy seriously. There are too many other issues which would need to be resolved before I could have a personal interpretation which allowed for a omnipotent supernatural being communicating through a flawed holy book that shows every sign of being written by ancient ignorant men.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

I listened, but he is basically saying the exact same thing you were saying in our debate. I know you believe these passages should be interpreted as immediate, but how do you know? You can't, and that is why when I (or anyone else) says it should/could be referring to an imminent future 'coming' you have no refutation for that, at least not one built on anything other than a subjective interpretation.

Specifically listen to segment # 45 if you want to dispute my claim that the Bible, as God's Word, provides irrefutable evidence in the form of its prophesies.

No, it doesn't. You must re-date the composition dates of the Bible outside of common scholarship for your scenario to even be plausible. Not to mention that you must also reinterpret the common understanding of key passages for your interpretation to be plausible. And finally, your interpretation is faulty in many crucial aspects - aspects that, to this day 7 months after our debate, you have not answered - not in the debate or in the call out thread you created immediately following our debate. Either you have certainty (as you constantly suggest) or you're guessing, Peter. I see no reason to get back into this if you are not willing to strive for actual answers, and ignoring what I sincerely found to be major flaws does neither of us any good.

What you did not attempt to rebut in our debate:

"What Pro Left out" in the final round.
http://www.debate.org...

Posts you did not respond to in your call out thread:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

https://www.youtube.com...

Peter
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 5:43:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:21:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:01:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:08:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

LOL It won't create any division, nor does either position really give up any positions on prophesy that affect efforts to prove inspiration of the scriptures. If you are correct, then I do not really give up anything as far as using prophesy as proof. If I am correct, the same holds true for you.

Well, go to work then. I won't have time for a debate for a month or so but if you want to bring up some points then feel free to do so. I respect you and I welcome your thoughts and proofs.

Peter

LOL I don't have time right now myself. In fact, I'm thinking about taking my cat down to the courthouse and marrying him. I'd like him to receive some benefits.

Yup, lol, about your level I guess.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 5:53:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 3:58:57 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:02:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Specifically listen to segment # 45 if you want to dispute my claim that the Bible, as God's Word, provides irrefutable evidence in the form of its prophesies.

https://www.youtube.com...

Peter

There is, as you well know if you would but admit it, one overpowering argument against your version of 70 C. E.

Scripture, pure and simple.

But since you believe so little of what scripture teaches there is no point in doing more than making this statement.

Have you listened to the teaching and are you willing to discuss it? If not then go and bog down another thread. I'm not interested in your Scriptureless assertions. What does the Word say? Not what you pull out of your magic hat.

Peter

God's word says precisely what I say it says.

Why do I need another man's opinion on it when I am more than content with God's own?

But then you wouldn't know since you are only interested in men's interpretations not Gods, and reject the help he offers all.

However you would have to stop slandering him and his son to stand a chance of getting their help.

James 1:5-8
1 Corinthians 2:11-16.
John 4:23-24
John 17:3

And those are just four very basic ones that you fall foul of.

There are numerous other scriptures in the Bible which condemn you for your disobedience to God's word, but that does not appear to bother you.

I shall continue to try and make you think for yourself rather than just parrot the words of other men, but I have little hope of succeeding since you continue to treat Jehovah as an extremely unjust and sadistic God, whereas he is in fact a God, above all, of love and mercy.

Not only is Jehovah jealous for his name, his son "the faithful and true witness" proved to be every bit as much so when on earth, even down to refusing to be called "Good teacher" stating very forcefully that only one, is or was truly good, his father and creator jehovah.

After all jehovah's son should know. He worked alongside his father for so many millennia, and therefore knows him intimately, as only is possible for an only begotten son.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 10:26:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.

I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true.

This is so very deeply confused.

The statement "there is no evidence that the bible is true" is not a claim or an assertion, as much as it is a conclusion one reaches after reviewing the evidence presented. Proving the statement "there is no evidence" to be wrong is accomplished by you providing valid and sound evidence. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 11:03:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 10:26:16 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.

I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true.

This is so very deeply confused.

The statement "there is no evidence that the bible is true" is not a claim or an assertion, as much as it is a conclusion one reaches after reviewing the evidence presented. Proving the statement "there is no evidence" to be wrong is accomplished by you providing valid and sound evidence. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

Yes, a conclusion reached by refusing to acknowledge the obvious evidence which is all around us, in science, in history and life in general.

As for burden of proof, you are wrong.

In God's eyes, and they are the ones that count, the burden of proof is on every one of us to examine the evidence carefully and honestly and then decide whether or not we want to move over to Jehovah's side of the issue or stay, as is currently the state for the vast majority of people, including yourself, on Satan's side.

There is no middle ground.

It is your life which is at stake and therefore your responsibility to make 100% sure.

If you were to do that honestly, you would no longer be in a position to deny God.

Simple as that.

There are ever bit as many blind fools on the Atheistic side of the argument as there are on the multitude of false religious and false Christians sides. Truth, the only truth, lies only on one side, and that is the side of those who are diligent enough to test the evidence properly, despite having undergone years, decades, of indoctrination in education systems which are controlled by Satan, and used to make as many as possible think how Satan wants us to think.

Testing the evidence properly means not just trying to disprove it, but to work out how it might possibly be true also. If you haven't looked at it from both sides you will not have seen it all, and the truth can withstand the closest inspection anyone can give it.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 3:26:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:21:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:01:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:08:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

LOL It won't create any division, nor does either position really give up any positions on prophesy that affect efforts to prove inspiration of the scriptures. If you are correct, then I do not really give up anything as far as using prophesy as proof. If I am correct, the same holds true for you.

Well, go to work then. I won't have time for a debate for a month or so but if you want to bring up some points then feel free to do so. I respect you and I welcome your thoughts and proofs.

Peter

LOL I don't have time right now myself. In fact, I'm thinking about taking my cat down to the courthouse and marrying him. I'd like him to receive some benefits.

Anything is possible in an hedonistic society! Do you have the statistical majority and popular opinion to make it a right however?

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 3:27:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:38:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:36:04 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:32:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:43:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
You have not one shred of evidence the deity actually exists let alone the authorship of the not so good book being anything to do with it! The book reads like a very human production, with a lot of myths, legends and fantasies!

Why does he not have one shred of evidence? Could you substantiate this opinion based on anything outside of 'becuase I say so'?

He just made an ill-grounded claim. There was no support for his statement.

I have stated that the Bible offers its own proof in the form of prophecy, when correctly understood.

I have asked you before, and I don't believe I have received a proper answer. How do you objectively know you are correctly understanding the prophecy?

Do you have anything to contribute or are you also going to offer sweet nothings? He has not offered one shred of evidence for his claim.
I, on the other hand, have offered a view of Scripture that identifies in the Olivet Discourse, the Old Covenant age as prophesied to finish in AD 70. The teaching of the Olivet Discourse is drawn from teachings in the OT. He would have to discredit these teachings as well as those of the NT as not happening/being written before AD 70 to make his case. I bet he is unwilling and unable to do this.

It is the usual case of because he is able to state something he feels it must be so, as if truth is what he makes it. What an absurd notion. Why is he the authority he masks himself to be with such bold accusation and assertions with very little understanding of prophecy at all (my conjecture)?

Peter

I don't have time to watch your video now, but I will get to it soon (hopefully).

Thank you! Look forward to your comments then.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 3:29:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 3:26:28 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:21:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:01:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:08:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

LOL It won't create any division, nor does either position really give up any positions on prophesy that affect efforts to prove inspiration of the scriptures. If you are correct, then I do not really give up anything as far as using prophesy as proof. If I am correct, the same holds true for you.

Well, go to work then. I won't have time for a debate for a month or so but if you want to bring up some points then feel free to do so. I respect you and I welcome your thoughts and proofs.

Peter

LOL I don't have time right now myself. In fact, I'm thinking about taking my cat down to the courthouse and marrying him. I'd like him to receive some benefits.

Anything is possible in an hedonistic society! Do you have the statistical majority and popular opinion to make it a right however?

Peter

IDK. I might have to hire a few paid agitators on the Huffington Post to write grammatically-incorrect articles.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 3:52:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 4:30:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy.

Actually, that is what a majority of Christians, which happen to be premillennialists, do. So, it stands to reason that a majority of atheists ( speaking of those who were former Christians) will be most familiar with a premillennialist view. So, let's not yoke atheists and agnostics with what is the mainstream Christian view. It is not the view advocated by atheists and agnostics (at least not outside of a devil's advocate position).

Regardless, it cannot be demonstrated to be the correct interpretation of the text. And it does not stand to reason that the majority is right if the majority goes against what is right.

You were the one choosing the mainstream view to represent your case, a view that cannot be supported by biblical text without totally ignoring the plain meaning and Author's intent.

For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

No,they don't. There is no reference to "70AD" in the Bible. That is your interpretation of the text. If Envisage was able to show the NT books were written after the events you (or Anna) claim they refer to, then there is no "context of the text" referring to the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

The reference is to the judgment of God and the destruction of the city which took place in AD 70, as prophesied.


Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I did not brush this off in our debate. However, after the debate was over, you did indeed accuse me of "misinterpreting the Bible", and as I pointed out then, and I will do so now, it was not my position to begin with. I would need to believe the Christian god exists before I could ever take your (or anyone else's) interpretation of prophecy seriously. There are too many other issues which would need to be resolved before I could have a personal interpretation which allowed for a omnipotent supernatural being communicating through a flawed holy book that shows every sign of being written by ancient ignorant men.

You chose a position that is riddled with problems and cannot make sense of itself in light of the biblical text. You pushed a common consensus that people bought into because they are ignorant of the biblical teaching.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

I listened, but he is basically saying the exact same thing you were saying in our debate. I know you believe these passages should be interpreted as immediate, but how do you know? You can't, and that is why when I (or anyone else) says it should/could be referring to an imminent future 'coming' you have no refutation for that, at least not one built on anything other than a subjective interpretation.

I base it on God's Word as the ultimate standard, and that the Author of life can make Himself understood when rightly interpreted, just like you can understand me when I communicate rationally and logically because my words do have specific meaning. This is a basic given in any form of communication that if you want to understand the author, thus his meaning, then you have to understand what he is saying.

Specifically listen to segment # 45 if you want to dispute my claim that the Bible, as God's Word, provides irrefutable evidence in the form of its prophesies.

No, it doesn't. You must re-date the composition dates of the Bible outside of common scholarship for your scenario to even be plausible.

What, the way the 21st century liberal, secular elite has hijacked the dating outside of the evidence presented in the Bible as verification of its own internal consistency?

Not to mention that you must also reinterpret the common understanding of key passages for your interpretation to be plausible.

They are plausible. "This generation" does not fit any other generation. When you consider the audience of address you can't argue the interpretation is not plausible without doing great damage to the text and the meaning behind the words that are verified, so that you can have a clear understanding in numerous other same text focuses that speak of the same subject matter.

And finally, your interpretation is faulty in many crucial aspects - aspects that, to this day 7 months after our debate, you have not answered - not in the debate or in the call out thread you created immediately following our debate. Either you have certainty (as you constantly suggest) or you're guessing, Peter. I see no reason to get back into this if you are not willing to strive for actual answers, and ignoring what I sincerely found to be major flaws does neither of us any good.

I will address them here. It will take some time.

What you did not attempt to rebut in our debate:

"What Pro Left out" in the final round.
http://www.debate.org...

Posts you did not respond to in your call out thread:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

https://www.youtube.com...


Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 3:57:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 10:26:16 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.

I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true.

This is so very deeply confused.

The statement "there is no evidence that the bible is true" is not a claim or an assertion, as much as it is a conclusion one reaches after reviewing the evidence presented. Proving the statement "there is no evidence" to be wrong is accomplished by you providing valid and sound evidence. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

You view the evidence then you twist it to your worldview bias. The evidence stands on the biblical revelation and the history behind that revelation. AD 70 provides a crucial timeline, as the Author intended it would.

Peter
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 3:59:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 11:03:54 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:26:16 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.

I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true.

This is so very deeply confused.

The statement "there is no evidence that the bible is true" is not a claim or an assertion, as much as it is a conclusion one reaches after reviewing the evidence presented. Proving the statement "there is no evidence" to be wrong is accomplished by you providing valid and sound evidence. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

Yes, a conclusion reached by refusing to acknowledge the obvious evidence which is all around us, in science, in history and life in general.

Yes, obvious evidence... like argument from ignorance fallacies, Sharpshooter fallacies, appeals to faith, appeals to authority, question begging, etc...

That's all you have presented.

As for burden of proof, you are wrong.

In God's eyes, and they are the ones that count...

Did I mention question begging?

the burden of proof is on every one of us to examine the evidence carefully and honestly ...

Now you are demonstrating that you don't understand what the burden of proof means...

...and then decide whether or not we want to move over to Jehovah's side of the issue or stay, as is currently the state for the vast majority of people, including yourself, on Satan's side.

Did I mention question begging?

It is your life which is at stake and therefore your responsibility to make 100% sure.

If you were to do that honestly, you would no longer be in a position to deny God.

Honesty requires the willingness to accept that you are wrong. When someone begins every discussion on the topic by presuming they are right, they demonstrate that they do not have this quality. Can you guess which one of us demonstrates that?

Testing the evidence properly means not just trying to disprove it, but to work out how it might possibly be true also.

Advice that would only be valuable to someone who does not attempt to work out how the opposing side might be true, which indicates an assumption on your part that those who disagree with you must be close minded, which is a tell tale sign of close mindedness. Thanks for demonstrating my point yet again.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 4:03:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 3:57:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:26:16 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.

I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true.

This is so very deeply confused.

The statement "there is no evidence that the bible is true" is not a claim or an assertion, as much as it is a conclusion one reaches after reviewing the evidence presented. Proving the statement "there is no evidence" to be wrong is accomplished by you providing valid and sound evidence. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

You view the evidence then you twist it to your worldview bias.

Explain how this statement does not apply to you.

The evidence stands on the biblical revelation and the history behind that revelation.

So in other words, the bible is evidence for the bible.

Nice try.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 4:04:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 3:29:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2015 3:26:28 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:21:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:01:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 3:08:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:19:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 1:28:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
Serious contenders only please - no trolls

I'm not interested in spurious claims. I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.


I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true. This comes from an ignorance of how the Bible is united from cover to cover and spreads through the course of the history of an Old Covenant people and their eventual judgment by God. What most atheists and agnostics try to do is separate the time frame and audience of address of the OT and NT in regards to prophecy. For instance, Envisage built his case on inference and a silence of evidence regarding that Luke wrote two books by bringing to question the dating of the NT books of Luke and Acts in his debate with Annanicole (trying to extend the dating into the second century, thus ignoring the context of the text) rather than on the biblical evidence itself and the historicity surrounding that evidence. Yet both OT and NT focus in on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Skepticalone, in his debate with me, tried to separate the Olivet Discourse into two parts, one up to and including AD 70 and the other part of the discourse way into the future. When I challenged him on this he tried to brush his argument off as not his real beliefs, just something he used as an argument against AD 70 that does not hold together in its own right regarding his statements and arguments but contradicts what the text actually says.

I think D. K. Preston provides a solid case for AD 70 in the following link. Anyone who wishes to refute my claim that God's Word is true according to the Preterist position will have to listen to the argument that he presents in order to discuss this further. Failure to listen disqualifies you from a discussion with me on this subject and furthers my claim that atheists and agnostics are ignorant of the internal evidence provided by the Bible as to its truthfulness.

Some time or another (when we both have time), we need to debate the full preterist versus the "partial preterist" position. We both agree that at least Matt 24: 1-34 refers specifically to the Fall of Jerusalem, and that the prophesy was given decades prior to the event. So that much is out of the way.

Yes, it is something I have been avoiding because I did not want to create division between us. You are one on my few allies on this forum in the sense that we recognize the truth of AD 70 and the failure in denying it.

LOL It won't create any division, nor does either position really give up any positions on prophesy that affect efforts to prove inspiration of the scriptures. If you are correct, then I do not really give up anything as far as using prophesy as proof. If I am correct, the same holds true for you.

Well, go to work then. I won't have time for a debate for a month or so but if you want to bring up some points then feel free to do so. I respect you and I welcome your thoughts and proofs.

Peter

LOL I don't have time right now myself. In fact, I'm thinking about taking my cat down to the courthouse and marrying him. I'd like him to receive some benefits.

Anything is possible in an hedonistic society! Do you have the statistical majority and popular opinion to make it a right however?

Peter

IDK. I might have to hire a few paid agitators on the Huffington Post to write grammatically-incorrect articles.

This is just not fair. Now you are threatening to bring into the picture the intellectual elite that determine just how things will be in their influence and funneling of popular opinion. I have no defense. You win. Marry the cat! I have three dogs that need benefits too! Can you make it apply to dogs also, please?

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 4:10:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 4:03:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 3:57:26 PM, PGA wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:26:16 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:05:55 AM, PGA wrote:
I'm looking for someone to back up their claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word by specific reference to its prophecy and the history around such prophecy.

I'm sick of atheists and agnostics making the claim that the Bible is not true and that there is no evidence that it is true.

This is so very deeply confused.

The statement "there is no evidence that the bible is true" is not a claim or an assertion, as much as it is a conclusion one reaches after reviewing the evidence presented. Proving the statement "there is no evidence" to be wrong is accomplished by you providing valid and sound evidence. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

You view the evidence then you twist it to your worldview bias.

Explain how this statement does not apply to you.

First show that I am twisting the evidence.

The evidence stands on the biblical revelation and the history behind that revelation.

So in other words, the bible is evidence for the bible.

The Bible confirms its truth claims in its internal and external consistency through historicity regarding prophecy.

What circularity will you use to dispute this and how far removed from the text and its timeline?

Nice try.

I'm out of time.

Peter