Total Posts:136|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus thought the moon produced light

Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 12:18:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

How do you explain the fact his comments in this verse and the scripture found throughout whole bible match the Hebrew astrology models of the time so well but bare no resemblance to the true state of the universe whatsoever?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 12:39:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Yes, Mark carried on the Hebrew cosmology of the OT despite the advances made by the Greeks. In fact such thinking, completely out of touch with reality, continued until the Middle Ages and later in the Christian church.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[9] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens,[6] but even so the New Testament writers continued to assume a flat earth and it was not until the Middle Ages that spherical earth was accepted by the Church.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]


The quoted verse from Mark makes sense given that this is the concept they had of the heavens, a dome which could be shaken so that the stars could fall down.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 12:42:03 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:18:28 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

How do you explain the fact his comments in this verse and the scripture found throughout whole bible match the Hebrew astrology models of the time so well but bare no resemblance to the true state of the universe whatsoever?

I have no knowledge of Hebrew astrology models to compare these verses to. Even if it is the case that the Hebrew models don't match what science has discovered about the universe, since it was written, he would have spoken in a language that his audience who were Hebrew could understand. Christ didn't have a know it all, I am God persona. He was quite humble in the way he instructed people to try to increase their faith in the Father aka God of Love and Creation.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 12:51:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:42:03 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:18:28 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

How do you explain the fact his comments in this verse and the scripture found throughout whole bible match the Hebrew astrology models of the time so well but bare no resemblance to the true state of the universe whatsoever?

I have no knowledge of Hebrew astrology models to compare these verses to.

Then educate hourself. Click on the links I provided in the post above yours.

Even if it is the case that the Hebrew models don't match what science has discovered about the universe, since it was written, he would have spoken in a language that his audience who were Hebrew could understand.

School children are taught about the solar system as it really is. Are you telling us that God is inferior to a primary school teacher in his ability to impart information?

Christ didn't have a know it all, I am God persona. He was quite humble in the way he instructed people to try to increase their faith in the Father aka God of Love and Creation.

Jesus is suposedly one-third God. Yes, he did have to know it all. God is defined as all knowing.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:03:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:51:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:42:03 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:18:28 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

How do you explain the fact his comments in this verse and the scripture found throughout whole bible match the Hebrew astrology models of the time so well but bare no resemblance to the true state of the universe whatsoever?

I have no knowledge of Hebrew astrology models to compare these verses to.

Then educate hourself. Click on the links I provided in the post above yours.
Long week, not tonight.

Even if it is the case that the Hebrew models don't match what science has discovered about the universe, since it was written, he would have spoken in a language that his audience who were Hebrew could understand.

School children are taught about the solar system as it really is. Are you telling us that God is inferior to a primary school teacher in his ability to impart information?

Christ didn't have a know it all, I am God persona. He was quite humble in the way he instructed people to try to increase their faith in the Father aka God of Love and Creation.

Jesus is suposedly one-third God. Yes, he did have to know it all. God is defined as all knowing.

All knowing would mean he would know if it was productive to explain things in such a way that his audience couldn't fathom, or know that poetically describing what they already understand would be a better way of warning them, of which this passage is about. He himself says that only "The Father" knows the time, so he differentiates himself from being equal with the Father, anyhow.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:20:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Its sad to see yet another topic that is completely butchering scripture. In what manner are you regarding Jesus saying the moon is a source of light in that it naturally emits light?
and the moon will not give its light
Are you suggesting there isn't such a thing as moonlight???

noun | moon"light |\-G6;līt\

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Full Definition of moonlight

1
the light of the moon

Examples of moonlight in a sentence

1
A figure appeared in the moonlight.

People on this forum need dictionary's
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:24:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:39:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Yes, Mark carried on the Hebrew cosmology of the OT despite the advances made by the Greeks. In fact such thinking, completely out of touch with reality, continued until the Middle Ages and later in the Christian church.

Perhaps you can quote a single verse showing this.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[9] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens,[6] but even so the New Testament writers continued to assume a flat earth and it was not until the Middle Ages that spherical earth was accepted by the Church.[22]

Again perhaps some verses can be shown.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]


The quoted verse from Mark makes sense given that this is the concept they had of the heavens, a dome which could be shaken so that the stars could fall down.

well any time now with the verses.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:24:42 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 1:03:23 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:51:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:42:03 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:18:28 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

How do you explain the fact his comments in this verse and the scripture found throughout whole bible match the Hebrew astrology models of the time so well but bare no resemblance to the true state of the universe whatsoever?

I have no knowledge of Hebrew astrology models to compare these verses to.

Then educate hourself. Click on the links I provided in the post above yours.
Long week, not tonight.

Even if it is the case that the Hebrew models don't match what science has discovered about the universe, since it was written, he would have spoken in a language that his audience who were Hebrew could understand.

School children are taught about the solar system as it really is. Are you telling us that God is inferior to a primary school teacher in his ability to impart information?

Christ didn't have a know it all, I am God persona. He was quite humble in the way he instructed people to try to increase their faith in the Father aka God of Love and Creation.

Jesus is suposedly one-third God. Yes, he did have to know it all. God is defined as all knowing.

All knowing would mean he would know if it was productive to explain things in such a way that his audience couldn't fathom, or know that poetically describing what they already understand would be a better way of warning them, of which this passage is about.

Then you are conceding that Jesus/God tells little white comforting lies. If he lied about this then what else might he have lied about? What can you believe which might not fall into the same category? You are opening up a can of worms. Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God but just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?

He himself says that only "The Father" knows the time, so he differentiates himself from being equal with the Father, anyhow.

So Jesus is not God?
Irascible_Me
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 2:07:32 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

The people like Chloe8 who post ridiculous garbage like that know what it meant. They are just trolls posting idiotic statements and will present the most inane arguments in defense of it just to keep you responding. You'll never get an honest or an intelligent response from Chloe8.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 2:15:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 1:24:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:03:23 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:51:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:42:03 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:18:28 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

How do you explain the fact his comments in this verse and the scripture found throughout whole bible match the Hebrew astrology models of the time so well but bare no resemblance to the true state of the universe whatsoever?

I have no knowledge of Hebrew astrology models to compare these verses to.

Then educate hourself. Click on the links I provided in the post above yours.
Long week, not tonight.

Even if it is the case that the Hebrew models don't match what science has discovered about the universe, since it was written, he would have spoken in a language that his audience who were Hebrew could understand.

School children are taught about the solar system as it really is. Are you telling us that God is inferior to a primary school teacher in his ability to impart information?

Christ didn't have a know it all, I am God persona. He was quite humble in the way he instructed people to try to increase their faith in the Father aka God of Love and Creation.

Jesus is suposedly one-third God. Yes, he did have to know it all. God is defined as all knowing.

All knowing would mean he would know if it was productive to explain things in such a way that his audience couldn't fathom, or know that poetically describing what they already understand would be a better way of warning them, of which this passage is about.

Then you are conceding that Jesus/God tells little white comforting lies. If he lied about this then what else might he have lied about? What can you believe which might not fall into the same category? You are opening up a can of worms. Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God but just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?
I get where you're going with this, and I get how you would deem it to be dishonest. These are the kinds of things that I questioned when I was a child in religion class at school.

For me personally scripture has lead me back to believing that I could be forgiven and make amends for mistakes that I made in my life (after I went the route of abandoning religion because I was such an inquisitive child).

"Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God," would accurately describe how I view some portions of it.

"Just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?" - No! much of scripture is anything but soothing! I'm not a bible thumper. I believe scripture contains truth, but not all scripture is accurate.

I'm personally at a place where I "know" there is a God who created life, and I believe Jesus was given the "Spirit" of that God (without measure after his baptism) and that he chose to lay his life down for his "friends"(people who were associated with him personally who would have been harassed if he didn't represent himself) and because he did so, his words were recorded and shared to this day.

I usually refrain from arguing with atheists or theists, because my beliefs are personal to me.

He himself says that only "The Father" knows the time, so he differentiates himself from being equal with the Father, anyhow.

So Jesus is not God?
The Spirit of God the Father was given to him without measure after his baptism; anything more than this, I am agnostic concerning. The "Spirit" of God =/= all knowing, necessarily.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 2:16:32 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:07:32 AM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

The people like Chloe8 who post ridiculous garbage like that know what it meant. They are just trolls posting idiotic statements and will present the most inane arguments in defense of it just to keep you responding. You'll never get an honest or an intelligent response from Chloe8.
Why so condescending?

Wow, no wonder atheists are hostile to those of us with faith!
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 3:06:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 1:24:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:39:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Yes, Mark carried on the Hebrew cosmology of the OT despite the advances made by the Greeks. In fact such thinking, completely out of touch with reality, continued until the Middle Ages and later in the Christian church.

Perhaps you can quote a single verse showing this.

If you had bothered to read the article linked to below, you would have seen that it referenced dozens of Biblical verses. The Hebrew version of cosmology is not in doubt. If you want something more condensed but with copious biblical verse citations, try this:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[9] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens,[6] but even so the New Testament writers continued to assume a flat earth and it was not until the Middle Ages that spherical earth was accepted by the Church.[22]

Again perhaps some verses can be shown.

See above.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]


The quoted verse from Mark makes sense given that this is the concept they had of the heavens, a dome which could be shaken so that the stars could fall down.

well any time now with the verses.

Done. Do you think the Jewish Encyclopedia is making it up?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:10:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 3:06:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:39:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Yes, Mark carried on the Hebrew cosmology of the OT despite the advances made by the Greeks. In fact such thinking, completely out of touch with reality, continued until the Middle Ages and later in the Christian church.

Perhaps you can quote a single verse showing this.

If you had bothered to read the article linked to below, you would have seen that it referenced dozens of Biblical verses. The Hebrew version of cosmology is not in doubt. If you want something more condensed but with copious biblical verse citations, try this:

So you cant personally quote a single verse that proves your point. Excellent.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[9] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens,[6] but even so the New Testament writers continued to assume a flat earth and it was not until the Middle Ages that spherical earth was accepted by the Church.[22]

Again perhaps some verses can be shown.

See above.

Yes, you should.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]


The quoted verse from Mark makes sense given that this is the concept they had of the heavens, a dome which could be shaken so that the stars could fall down.

well any time now with the verses.

Done. Do you think the Jewish Encyclopedia is making it up?
Why not let the bible speak for itself?
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:12:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:15:01 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:03:23 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:51:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:42:03 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:18:28 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

How do you explain the fact his comments in this verse and the scripture found throughout whole bible match the Hebrew astrology models of the time so well but bare no resemblance to the true state of the universe whatsoever?

I have no knowledge of Hebrew astrology models to compare these verses to.

Then educate hourself. Click on the links I provided in the post above yours.
Long week, not tonight.

Even if it is the case that the Hebrew models don't match what science has discovered about the universe, since it was written, he would have spoken in a language that his audience who were Hebrew could understand.

School children are taught about the solar system as it really is. Are you telling us that God is inferior to a primary school teacher in his ability to impart information?

Christ didn't have a know it all, I am God persona. He was quite humble in the way he instructed people to try to increase their faith in the Father aka God of Love and Creation.

Jesus is suposedly one-third God. Yes, he did have to know it all. God is defined as all knowing.

All knowing would mean he would know if it was productive to explain things in such a way that his audience couldn't fathom, or know that poetically describing what they already understand would be a better way of warning them, of which this passage is about.

Then you are conceding that Jesus/God tells little white comforting lies. If he lied about this then what else might he have lied about? What can you believe which might not fall into the same category? You are opening up a can of worms. Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God but just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?

I get where you're going with this, and I get how you would deem it to be dishonest. These are the kinds of things that I questioned when I was a child in religion class at school.

The conclusion is unavoidable.

For me personally scripture has lead me back to believing that I could be forgiven and make amends for mistakes that I made in my life (after I went the route of abandoning religion because I was such an inquisitive child).

"Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God," would accurately describe how I view some portions of it.

"Just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?" - No! much of scripture is anything but soothing! I'm not a bible thumper. I believe scripture contains truth, but not all scripture is accurate.

You have just agreed that you have undermined accepting scripture as literal truth. Now you are telling us that you choose to believe parts of it anyway. I find that highly irrational. Sorry, but there is no way to sugar-coat it.

I'm personally at a place where I "know" there is a God who created life, and I believe Jesus was given the "Spirit" of that God (without measure after his baptism) and that he chose to lay his life down for his "friends"(people who were associated with him personally who would have been harassed if he didn't represent himself) and because he did so, his words were recorded and shared to this day.

Your subjective claim to "know" things is useless without a methodology for how you know them. If you can't explain to others a path to your knowledge (other than cherry-picking from a book you have agreed does not contain the literal truth) then this knowledge has no value to anyone else. If you were deluding yourself about this knowledge, how could you establish that it wasn't delusion?

I usually refrain from arguing with atheists or theists, because my beliefs are personal to me.

He himself says that only "The Father" knows the time, so he differentiates himself from being equal with the Father, anyhow.

So Jesus is not God?

The Spirit of God the Father was given to him without measure after his baptism; anything more than this, I am agnostic concerning. The "Spirit" of God =/= all knowing, necessarily.

Here we go again. You are basing your answers on a book which you have admitted can be loose with the truth. Yet here you trot it out as an authority. Why would I (as an atheist) or anyone else accept this authority? Again you are simply cherry-picking what you choose to believe. That is the path to delusion. And I am not picking on just you personally. Other Christians do it and so do Muslims.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:31:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:12:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 2:15:01 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:03:23 AM, Emmarie wrote:


All knowing would mean he would know if it was productive to explain things in such a way that his audience couldn't fathom, or know that poetically describing what they already understand would be a better way of warning them, of which this passage is about.

Then you are conceding that Jesus/God tells little white comforting lies. If he lied about this then what else might he have lied about? What can you believe which might not fall into the same category? You are opening up a can of worms. Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God but just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?

I get where you're going with this, and I get how you would deem it to be dishonest. These are the kinds of things that I questioned when I was a child in religion class at school.

The conclusion is unavoidable.

For me personally scripture has lead me back to believing that I could be forgiven and make amends for mistakes that I made in my life (after I went the route of abandoning religion because I was such an inquisitive child).

"Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God," would accurately describe how I view some portions of it.

"Just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?" - No! much of scripture is anything but soothing! I'm not a bible thumper. I believe scripture contains truth, but not all scripture is accurate.

You have just agreed that you have undermined accepting scripture as literal truth. Now you are telling us that you choose to believe parts of it anyway. I find that highly irrational. Sorry, but there is no way to sugar-coat it.

I'm personally at a place where I "know" there is a God who created life, and I believe Jesus was given the "Spirit" of that God (without measure after his baptism) and that he chose to lay his life down for his "friends"(people who were associated with him personally who would have been harassed if he didn't represent himself) and because he did so, his words were recorded and shared to this day.

Your subjective claim to "know" things is useless without a methodology for how you know them. If you can't explain to others a path to your knowledge (other than cherry-picking from a book you have agreed does not contain the literal truth) then this knowledge has no value to anyone else. If you were deluding yourself about this knowledge, how could you establish that it wasn't delusion?

I usually refrain from arguing with atheists or theists, because my beliefs are personal to me.

He himself says that only "The Father" knows the time, so he differentiates himself from being equal with the Father, anyhow.

So Jesus is not God?

The Spirit of God the Father was given to him without measure after his baptism; anything more than this, I am agnostic concerning. The "Spirit" of God =/= all knowing, necessarily.

Here we go again. You are basing your answers on a book which you have admitted can be loose with the truth. Yet here you trot it out as an authority. Why would I (as an atheist) or anyone else accept this authority? Again you are simply cherry-picking what you choose to believe. That is the path to delusion. And I am not picking on just you personally. Other Christians do it and so do Muslims.

Well then I'm pro cherry pickers! Better than the devout believers who believe scripture verbatim, and don't even attempt to think for themselves. Isn't that ultimately what makes atheism inviting in the first place (to those who were raised religiously) ? - the invitation to think for oneself. If those who question and cherry pick the bible are expected to completely abandon their belief in God and how it gives them comfort and inspiration to become "devout" atheists, than isn't that similar to the restrictions that religions place of free thinking?

I've seen atheists argue about the "gods" of the greeks and romans as if they are tangible, which can't be proven, nor do many people literally believe in them. Those who engage in this would say that there are valuable lessons that mythology can serve, and in some respects, treat it as authority. The philosophers that many atheists tout, basically made up their beliefs, and yet are given credibility. At one point people actually did believe in mythology, and lived their lives according to that "religion."
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:56:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:10:01 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 3:06:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:39:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Yes, Mark carried on the Hebrew cosmology of the OT despite the advances made by the Greeks. In fact such thinking, completely out of touch with reality, continued until the Middle Ages and later in the Christian church.

Perhaps you can quote a single verse showing this.

If you had bothered to read the article linked to below, you would have seen that it referenced dozens of Biblical verses. The Hebrew version of cosmology is not in doubt. If you want something more condensed but with copious biblical verse citations, try this:

So you cant personally quote a single verse that proves your point. Excellent.

Don't be childish. I have linked you to a source where you can find dozens. Your laziness is not my concern.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[9] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens,[6] but even so the New Testament writers continued to assume a flat earth and it was not until the Middle Ages that spherical earth was accepted by the Church.[22]

Again perhaps some verses can be shown.

See above.

Yes, you should.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]


The quoted verse from Mark makes sense given that this is the concept they had of the heavens, a dome which could be shaken so that the stars could fall down.

well any time now with the verses.

Done. Do you think the Jewish Encyclopedia is making it up?

Why not let the bible speak for itself?

It does, loud and clear, and the wikipedia article documents the picture it paints. You can follow the links to the primary sources if you are interested. Do you think the Jews can't understand their own literature?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 5:29:22 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

What he said was actually correct: if the Sun were darkened then the moon would provide no light. :) I'm sorry, but this sounds like a fishing expedition. I personally do not subscribe to the Bible as God's actual inspired word, but to take a verse like this and try to infer that it indicates a lack of knowledge on Jesus' part is somewhat trite, and just another form of "cherry-picking." If a senior astrologer told one of his students that he went for a walk by moonlight, would you then infer that the professor did not know that the light was actually reflected from the sun? People say what they need to say to convey their message. Anyone who would be so droll as to constantly break-down their conversations into meaningless drivel would soon find him/herself talking alone.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 5:35:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:56:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:10:01 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 3:06:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:39:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Yes, Mark carried on the Hebrew cosmology of the OT despite the advances made by the Greeks. In fact such thinking, completely out of touch with reality, continued until the Middle Ages and later in the Christian church.

Perhaps you can quote a single verse showing this.

If you had bothered to read the article linked to below, you would have seen that it referenced dozens of Biblical verses. The Hebrew version of cosmology is not in doubt. If you want something more condensed but with copious biblical verse citations, try this:

So you cant personally quote a single verse that proves your point. Excellent.

Don't be childish. I have linked you to a source where you can find dozens. Your laziness is not my concern.

posting non scholarly links is not how you make a point. You cited Wikipedia in an absence of scriptures and then some blogspot in an absence of scriptures. If you had any you would have provided them for all to see.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[9] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens,[6] but even so the New Testament writers continued to assume a flat earth and it was not until the Middle Ages that spherical earth was accepted by the Church.[22]

Again perhaps some verses can be shown.

See above.

Yes, you should.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]


The quoted verse from Mark makes sense given that this is the concept they had of the heavens, a dome which could be shaken so that the stars could fall down.

well any time now with the verses.

Done. Do you think the Jewish Encyclopedia is making it up?

Why not let the bible speak for itself?

It does, loud and clear, and the wikipedia article documents the picture it paints. You can follow the links to the primary sources if you are interested. Do you think the Jews can't understand their own literature?
Of course they can. Again where are the scriptures? Can't you provide at least one? Or are you really this lazy.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 5:55:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Actually the moon does produce light. Light doesn't "reflect" off things, when a photon strikes something, anything, a new photon is produced, out of a material object, and released.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 6:06:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:31:55 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:12:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 2:15:01 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:03:23 AM, Emmarie wrote:

All knowing would mean he would know if it was productive to explain things in such a way that his audience couldn't fathom, or know that poetically describing what they already understand would be a better way of warning them, of which this passage is about.

Then you are conceding that Jesus/God tells little white comforting lies. If he lied about this then what else might he have lied about? What can you believe which might not fall into the same category? You are opening up a can of worms. Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God but just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?

I get where you're going with this, and I get how you would deem it to be dishonest. These are the kinds of things that I questioned when I was a child in religion class at school.

The conclusion is unavoidable.

For me personally scripture has lead me back to believing that I could be forgiven and make amends for mistakes that I made in my life (after I went the route of abandoning religion because I was such an inquisitive child).

"Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God," would accurately describe how I view some portions of it.

"Just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?" - No! much of scripture is anything but soothing! I'm not a bible thumper. I believe scripture contains truth, but not all scripture is accurate.

You have just agreed that you have undermined accepting scripture as literal truth. Now you are telling us that you choose to believe parts of it anyway. I find that highly irrational. Sorry, but there is no way to sugar-coat it.

I'm personally at a place where I "know" there is a God who created life, and I believe Jesus was given the "Spirit" of that God (without measure after his baptism) and that he chose to lay his life down for his "friends"(people who were associated with him personally who would have been harassed if he didn't represent himself) and because he did so, his words were recorded and shared to this day.

Your subjective claim to "know" things is useless without a methodology for how you know them. If you can't explain to others a path to your knowledge (other than cherry-picking from a book you have agreed does not contain the literal truth) then this knowledge has no value to anyone else. If you were deluding yourself about this knowledge, how could you establish that it wasn't delusion?

I usually refrain from arguing with atheists or theists, because my beliefs are personal to me.

He himself says that only "The Father" knows the time, so he differentiates himself from being equal with the Father, anyhow.

So Jesus is not God?

The Spirit of God the Father was given to him without measure after his baptism; anything more than this, I am agnostic concerning. The "Spirit" of God =/= all knowing, necessarily.

Here we go again. You are basing your answers on a book which you have admitted can be loose with the truth. Yet here you trot it out as an authority. Why would I (as an atheist) or anyone else accept this authority? Again you are simply cherry-picking what you choose to believe. That is the path to delusion. And I am not picking on just you personally. Other Christians do it and so do Muslims.

Well then I'm pro cherry pickers! Better than the devout believers who believe scripture verbatim, and don't even attempt to think for themselves. Isn't that ultimately what makes atheism inviting in the first place (to those who were raised religiously) ? - the invitation to think for oneself. If those who question and cherry pick the bible are expected to completely abandon their belief in God and how it gives them comfort and inspiration to become "devout" atheists, than isn't that similar to the restrictions that religions place of free thinking?

Sorry Emma but I think you misunderstand what cherry-picking is. It's not about thinking for oneself. It's actually a form of confirmation bias where a person ignores what doesn't suit their agenda and chooses only that data which supports the position they hold.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you cherry-pick from the Bible then in some ways you are less credible than someone who takes it as literal truth. The reason is that you have implicitly acknowledged that the Bible contains errors. Somehow you put yourself up as an expert in gleaning what is true and what isn't. Yet you can't explain the basis of your assumed expertise. We just have to accept that you have a special power. I hope you see the problem.

I've seen atheists argue about the "gods" of the greeks and romans as if they are tangible, which can't be proven, nor do many people literally believe in them.

Now. Lots of people believed in them in the past.

Those who engage in this would say that there are valuable lessons that mythology can serve, and in some respects, treat it as authority. The philosophers that many atheists tout, basically made up their beliefs, and yet are given credibility.

What? Which philosophers and what beliefs are you referring to?

At one point people actually did believe in mythology, and lived their lives according to that "religion."

And your point is ...?
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 6:38:42 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 5:35:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:56:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:10:01 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 3:06:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:39:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Yes, Mark carried on the Hebrew cosmology of the OT despite the advances made by the Greeks. In fact such thinking, completely out of touch with reality, continued until the Middle Ages and later in the Christian church.

Perhaps you can quote a single verse showing this.

If you had bothered to read the article linked to below, you would have seen that it referenced dozens of Biblical verses. The Hebrew version of cosmology is not in doubt. If you want something more condensed but with copious biblical verse citations, try this:

So you cant personally quote a single verse that proves your point. Excellent.

Don't be childish. I have linked you to a source where you can find dozens. Your laziness is not my concern.

posting non scholarly links is not how you make a point.

Why do the links have to be scholarly? As I told you, you can follow the references back to primary sources (which are scholarly) if it so interests you. The only thing you originally asked for was biblical verses. I have explained to you how you can find these biblical verses. You choose not to. I can only assume you are either lazy or uninterested. Don't complain to me that I won't do your legwork for you.

You cited Wikipedia in an absence of scriptures and then some blogspot in an absence of scriptures. If you had any you would have provided them for all to see.

Unless you are blind they are right there in the two links provided.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[9] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens,[6] but even so the New Testament writers continued to assume a flat earth and it was not until the Middle Ages that spherical earth was accepted by the Church.[22]

Again perhaps some verses can be shown.

See above.

Yes, you should.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]


The quoted verse from Mark makes sense given that this is the concept they had of the heavens, a dome which could be shaken so that the stars could fall down.

well any time now with the verses.

Done. Do you think the Jewish Encyclopedia is making it up?

Why not let the bible speak for itself?

It does, loud and clear, and the wikipedia article documents the picture it paints. You can follow the links to the primary sources if you are interested. Do you think the Jews can't understand their own literature?

Of course they can. Again where are the scriptures? Can't you provide at least one? Or are you really this lazy.

Lol. I'm lazy?

Look, I'll humour you since you seem to have a problem with clicking on a link. This is my good deed for the day.

Genesis 1
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.


And before you tell us that firmament means space, Genesis 1 continues:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Birds do not fly in space to the best of my knowledge. Neither are there windows in space:

Genesis 8
2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 7:07:52 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:07:32 AM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

The people like Chloe8 who post ridiculous garbage like that know what it meant. They are just trolls posting idiotic statements and will present the most inane arguments in defense of it just to keep you responding. You'll never get an honest or an intelligent response from Chloe8.
Or Jesus apparently.
The sky is falling little chicken.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 7:20:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 6:06:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:31:55 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:12:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 2:15:01 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:03:23 AM, Emmarie wrote:

All knowing would mean he would know if it was productive to explain things in such a way that his audience couldn't fathom, or know that poetically describing what they already understand would be a better way of warning them, of which this passage is about.

Then you are conceding that Jesus/God tells little white comforting lies. If he lied about this then what else might he have lied about? What can you believe which might not fall into the same category? You are opening up a can of worms. Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God but just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?

I get where you're going with this, and I get how you would deem it to be dishonest. These are the kinds of things that I questioned when I was a child in religion class at school.

The conclusion is unavoidable.

For me personally scripture has lead me back to believing that I could be forgiven and make amends for mistakes that I made in my life (after I went the route of abandoning religion because I was such an inquisitive child).

"Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God," would accurately describe how I view some portions of it.

"Just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?" - No! much of scripture is anything but soothing! I'm not a bible thumper. I believe scripture contains truth, but not all scripture is accurate.

You have just agreed that you have undermined accepting scripture as literal truth. Now you are telling us that you choose to believe parts of it anyway. I find that highly irrational. Sorry, but there is no way to sugar-coat it.

I'm personally at a place where I "know" there is a God who created life, and I believe Jesus was given the "Spirit" of that God (without measure after his baptism) and that he chose to lay his life down for his "friends"(people who were associated with him personally who would have been harassed if he didn't represent himself) and because he did so, his words were recorded and shared to this day.

Your subjective claim to "know" things is useless without a methodology for how you know them. If you can't explain to others a path to your knowledge (other than cherry-picking from a book you have agreed does not contain the literal truth) then this knowledge has no value to anyone else. If you were deluding yourself about this knowledge, how could you establish that it wasn't delusion?

I usually refrain from arguing with atheists or theists, because my beliefs are personal to me.

He himself says that only "The Father" knows the time, so he differentiates himself from being equal with the Father, anyhow.

So Jesus is not God?

The Spirit of God the Father was given to him without measure after his baptism; anything more than this, I am agnostic concerning. The "Spirit" of God =/= all knowing, necessarily.

Here we go again. You are basing your answers on a book which you have admitted can be loose with the truth. Yet here you trot it out as an authority. Why would I (as an atheist) or anyone else accept this authority? Again you are simply cherry-picking what you choose to believe. That is the path to delusion. And I am not picking on just you personally. Other Christians do it and so do Muslims.

Well then I'm pro cherry pickers! Better than the devout believers who believe scripture verbatim, and don't even attempt to think for themselves. Isn't that ultimately what makes atheism inviting in the first place (to those who were raised religiously) ? - the invitation to think for oneself. If those who question and cherry pick the bible are expected to completely abandon their belief in God and how it gives them comfort and inspiration to become "devout" atheists, than isn't that similar to the restrictions that religions place of free thinking?

Sorry Emma but I think you misunderstand what cherry-picking is. It's not about thinking for oneself. It's actually a form of confirmation bias where a person ignores what doesn't suit their agenda and chooses only that data which supports the position they hold.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you cherry-pick from the Bible then in some ways you are less credible than someone who takes it as literal truth. The reason is that you have implicitly acknowledged that the Bible contains errors. Somehow you put yourself up as an expert in gleaning what is true and what isn't. Yet you can't explain the basis of your assumed expertise. We just have to accept that you have a special power. I hope you see the problem.
My expertise derives from the results that I have achieved through the practicing of my faith. It isn't my goal to demand that others believe as I believe: it is my goal to invite anyone who would care to know how my beliefs have positively influenced my life to try it for themselves.

I've seen atheists argue about the "gods" of the greeks and romans as if they are tangible, which can't be proven, nor do many people literally believe in them.

Now. Lots of people believed in them in the past.
And their beliefs "evolved."

Those who engage in this would say that there are valuable lessons that mythology can serve, and in some respects, treat it as authority. The philosophers that many atheists tout, basically made up their beliefs, and yet are given credibility.

What? Which philosophers and what beliefs are you referring to?
All philosophy is made up in my opinion. None of it can be proven.

At one point people actually did believe in mythology, and lived their lives according to that "religion."

And your point is ...?
Religion is just religion, a way to derive meaning from what cannot be proven. Just because it can't be proven doesn't mean that it hasn't been inspired by unseen forces.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 8:18:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 7:20:39 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:06:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:31:55 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:12:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 2:15:01 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:24:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:03:23 AM, Emmarie wrote:

All knowing would mean he would know if it was productive to explain things in such a way that his audience couldn't fathom, or know that poetically describing what they already understand would be a better way of warning them, of which this passage is about.

Then you are conceding that Jesus/God tells little white comforting lies. If he lied about this then what else might he have lied about? What can you believe which might not fall into the same category? You are opening up a can of worms. Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God but just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?

I get where you're going with this, and I get how you would deem it to be dishonest. These are the kinds of things that I questioned when I was a child in religion class at school.

The conclusion is unavoidable.

For me personally scripture has lead me back to believing that I could be forgiven and make amends for mistakes that I made in my life (after I went the route of abandoning religion because I was such an inquisitive child).

"Scripture is not then the true, unadulterated word of God," would accurately describe how I view some portions of it.

"Just some stuff to placate and soothe us. Yes?" - No! much of scripture is anything but soothing! I'm not a bible thumper. I believe scripture contains truth, but not all scripture is accurate.

You have just agreed that you have undermined accepting scripture as literal truth. Now you are telling us that you choose to believe parts of it anyway. I find that highly irrational. Sorry, but there is no way to sugar-coat it.

I'm personally at a place where I "know" there is a God who created life, and I believe Jesus was given the "Spirit" of that God (without measure after his baptism) and that he chose to lay his life down for his "friends"(people who were associated with him personally who would have been harassed if he didn't represent himself) and because he did so, his words were recorded and shared to this day.

Your subjective claim to "know" things is useless without a methodology for how you know them. If you can't explain to others a path to your knowledge (other than cherry-picking from a book you have agreed does not contain the literal truth) then this knowledge has no value to anyone else. If you were deluding yourself about this knowledge, how could you establish that it wasn't delusion?

I usually refrain from arguing with atheists or theists, because my beliefs are personal to me.

He himself says that only "The Father" knows the time, so he differentiates himself from being equal with the Father, anyhow.

So Jesus is not God?

The Spirit of God the Father was given to him without measure after his baptism; anything more than this, I am agnostic concerning. The "Spirit" of God =/= all knowing, necessarily.

Here we go again. You are basing your answers on a book which you have admitted can be loose with the truth. Yet here you trot it out as an authority. Why would I (as an atheist) or anyone else accept this authority? Again you are simply cherry-picking what you choose to believe. That is the path to delusion. And I am not picking on just you personally. Other Christians do it and so do Muslims.

Well then I'm pro cherry pickers! Better than the devout believers who believe scripture verbatim, and don't even attempt to think for themselves. Isn't that ultimately what makes atheism inviting in the first place (to those who were raised religiously) ? - the invitation to think for oneself. If those who question and cherry pick the bible are expected to completely abandon their belief in God and how it gives them comfort and inspiration to become "devout" atheists, than isn't that similar to the restrictions that religions place of free thinking?

Sorry Emma but I think you misunderstand what cherry-picking is. It's not about thinking for oneself. It's actually a form of confirmation bias where a person ignores what doesn't suit their agenda and chooses only that data which supports the position they hold.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you cherry-pick from the Bible then in some ways you are less credible than someone who takes it as literal truth. The reason is that you have implicitly acknowledged that the Bible contains errors. Somehow you put yourself up as an expert in gleaning what is true and what isn't. Yet you can't explain the basis of your assumed expertise. We just have to accept that you have a special power. I hope you see the problem.

My expertise derives from the results that I have achieved through the practicing of my faith. It isn't my goal to demand that others believe as I believe: it is my goal to invite anyone who would care to know how my beliefs have positively influenced my life to try it for themselves.

So you are the sole arbiter of your own expertise. How can you not see the problem with this? It's like someone who convinces herself that her homeopathic concoction is helping her and recommends it to others when the reality is that homeopathy is junk science.

I've seen atheists argue about the "gods" of the greeks and romans as if they are tangible, which can't be proven, nor do many people literally believe in them.

Now. Lots of people believed in them in the past.

And their beliefs "evolved."

So?

Those who engage in this would say that there are valuable lessons that mythology can serve, and in some respects, treat it as authority. The philosophers that many atheists tout, basically made up their beliefs, and yet are given credibility.

What? Which philosophers and what beliefs are you referring to?

All philosophy is made up in my opinion. None of it can be proven.

So you were waffling?

At one point people actually did believe in mythology, and lived their lives according to that "religion."

And your point is ...?

Religion is just religion, a way to derive meaning from what cannot be proven. Just because it can't be proven doesn't mean that it hasn't been inspired by unseen forces.

Oh dear. Another unfalsifiable claim.
Why do I bother?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 8:24:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Christianity is about how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Science is the other way around.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:50:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 5:55:53 AM, janesix wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.

Actually the moon does produce light. Light doesn't "reflect" off things, when a photon strikes something, anything, a new photon is produced, out of a material object, and released.

The moon does not produce any light. Hypothetically the moon is the only object in a universe. Would there be any light? No.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 2:28:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:42:03 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:18:28 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 12:12:15 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:41:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Mark 13:24-25

"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

It is obvious that Jesus believed that the moon delivered its own independent source of light and that the stars were small objects that could fall from the sky and hit the Earth. Less obvious, but still problematic is the statement that the sun will be darkened and that the heavenly bodies will be shaken. None of this is scientifically possible though it fits quite well with what was believed by humans at the time. This is an indictment of the concept that Jesus was a god because he should not have been limited by the knowledge of his day.

This silly and totally unrealistic prophecy is a good indication that it was the product of an Iron Age human mind and not the god of the universe, and it is unlikely that many well-educated Christians believe that these events will ever take place.
It is obvious that you don't understand his language is embellished with imagery.

If a nuclear or other kind of explosive technology were to be detonated, during the end of the time of great tribulation or distress, as the passage is referring to, the sun will probably be darkened, and as a result, the moon won't be visible either. The stars would also appear to fall from heaven since they won't be visible either. The powers that are in heaven, whatever (most likely gravity mixed with centrifugal force) it is that holds us in orbit, may also be "shaken" if a catastrophic man made event were to take place on earth. The imagery Jesus presents, could appear as he describes it poetically.

How do you explain the fact his comments in this verse and the scripture found throughout whole bible match the Hebrew astrology models of the time so well but bare no resemblance to the true state of the universe whatsoever?

I have no knowledge of Hebrew astrology models to compare these verses to. Even if it is the case that the Hebrew models don't match what science has discovered about the universe, since it was written, he would have spoken in a language that his audience who were Hebrew could understand. Christ didn't have a know it all, I am God persona. He was quite humble in the way he instructed people to try to increase their faith in the Father aka God of Love and Creation.

If Jesus was a real messiah and the son of God he would have taught people the true state of the universe. Why would he intentionally mislead people?

Did he not realize his actions at the time would cast serious doubts on the credibility of Christianity thousands of years later after the inevitable improvement in scientific knowledge that he was bound to know about if he was a real messiah and son of God?

Throughout the bible Jesus claims to know far more than ordinary humans which is not surprising when you consider he claims to be a messiah and the son of God. Therefore your statement about him not having a know it all persona is quite simply a false and incorrect claim.

He was supposed to as a messiah guide people to the truth. Teaching false astrology guides people to a false speculative myth. This directly contradicts what Jesus is supposed to try and do on earth.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.