Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I did.
The Mormons disagree.
No. If he ever existed he's dead now. You cannot prove otherwise.

Once again you have sidestepped the issue (i.e., deflected). Why accept the Christian story and reject others?

Of course, the Mormons disagree. Why would you expect differently?

The proof of Christ's resurrection is recorded in scripture by eyewitnesses. You cannot prove otherwise.

I told you why. Because the NT harmonizes perfectly with the old. Christ fulfilled all the OT scriptures, save for the Parousia, of course, and all the events that will accompany that.

Also, as stated previously there are tests provided in scripture to test the veracity of prophets (teachers). Smith doesn't pass the test; therefore, he's a false prophet.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, the Mormons disagree. Why would you expect differently?

How do you know their interpretation is wrong and yours is correct?

Originally Posted by boxcar

The proof of Christ's resurrection is recorded in scripture by eyewitnesses. You cannot prove otherwise.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The resurrection is a super extraordinary claim and requires super extraordinary evidence. You have none.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I told you why. Because the NT harmonizes perfectly with the old.

Because the writers of the NT back fitted their text. They plagiarized the OT.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, as stated previously there are tests provided in scripture to test the veracity of prophets (teachers). Smith doesn't pass the test; therefore, he's a false prophet.

What test did Smith fail? Did Jesus pass the same test?

[thaskalos]

Keep at it, Actor. I can actually see you WINNING this argument.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How do you know their interpretation is wrong and yours is correct?

Because my interpretation harmonizes with all the bible.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The resurrection is a super extraordinary claim and requires super extraordinary evidence.

And scripture provides this evidence. Christ fulfilled all the messianic prophecies. Moreover, the the doctrine of the resurrection itself finds its ground in the OT.

Because the writers of the NT back fitted their text. They plagiarized the OT.

Prove your extraordinary claim. You can't because your reasoning is circular, i.e. I don't believed in fulfilled prophecies because I don't believe in the supernatural.

What test did Smith fail? Did Jesus pass the same test?

The tests stated in Deut 13:1-5; 18:20-22. And, yes, Jesus passed these tests with flying colors.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The tests stated in Deut 13:1-5; 18:20-22. And, yes, Jesus passed these tests with flying colors.

After reading both passages it seems to me that the fictitious Jesus fails both big time. You are engaging in wishful thinking.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Prove your extraordinary claim. You can't because your reasoning is circular, i.e. I don't believed in fulfilled prophecies because I don't believe in the supernatural.

How many times do I have to tell you this? Will it ever sink in? I make no claims about the Bible save one, viz., that there is no evidence for any of it. Demanding that you provide evidence is not a claim of any kind, and certainly not extraordinary.

Back fitting and plagiarism is simply an alternative explanation for what you say is evidence and Occam's Razor says that it is the preferred one. Seriously, which is more likely, that prophecies were fulfilled, or that the writers of the fairy tale took liberties with the OT and imbued their fictitious character with attributes that fit?

The ball is still in your court, the burden of proof is still yours.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

After reading both passages it seems to me that the fictitious Jesus fails both big time. You are engaging in wishful thinking.

Show us how Jesus failed both "big time". I'll lay you any amount of money you want that you're blowing hot air. Name the amount.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How many times do I have to tell you this? Will it ever sink in? I make no claims about the Bible save one, viz., that there is no evidence for any of it. Demanding that you provide evidence is not a claim of any kind, and certainly not extraordinary.

Back fitting and plagiarism is simply an alternative explanation for what you say is evidence and Occam's Razor says that it is the preferred one. Seriously, which is more likely, that prophecies were fulfilled, or that the writers of the fairy tale took liberties with the OT and imbued their fictitious character with attributes that fit?

The ball is still in your court, the burden of proof is still yours.

Yup, an an "alternative explanation" without a shred of proof. If the NT was "back-fitted" into the Old this would amount to a vast conspiracy involving many people. Not only a vast conspiracy of different writers but they "back-fitted" perfectly since the Old and New Testaments form one homogeneous, harmonious, seamless, unified body of literature with one main story line that revolves around one person. Therefore, Occam's Razor supports what scripture claims for itself -- that all is inerrant in the original manuscripts and inspired by God and recorded through his chosen prophets and apostles.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Show us how Jesus failed both "big time".

You made the original claim that he passed. You still have the burden of proof. Do you understand the concept of "burden of proof"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Show us how Jesus failed both "big time". I'll lay you any amount of money you want that you're blowing hot air. Name the amount.

Who's the referee? Who decides who wins?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You made the original claim that he passed. You still have the burden of proof. Do you understand the concept of "burden of proof"?

But you countered the claim that he failed, so obviously you should be able to show us from scripture how, when and where he failed. Jesus made the claim that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (i.e. all that the OT wrote about him), and that he did. If you think you can prove otherwise, go for it. Otherwise, you're just blowing more smoke. Just more wishful thinking on your part.

[PaceAdvantage]

We already went through this...remember me?

[PaceAdvantage]

We already went through this...remember me?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But you countered the claim that he failed, so obviously you should be able to show us from scripture how, when and where he failed. Jesus made the claim that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (i.e. all that the OT wrote about him), and that he did. If you think you can prove otherwise, go for it. Otherwise, you're just blowing more smoke. Just more wishful thinking on your part.

Aren't the JEWS the ones who can best determine whether or not Jesus fulfilled the "Jewish Law"?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Aren't the JEWS the ones who can best determine whether or not Jesus fulfilled the "Jewish Law"?

Why would they be the best ones since, nationally speaking, they failed to keep the Law themselves, thereby breaking the Mosaic Covenant? The best judges would be the pious, God-fearing Jews who embraced their Messiah and believed in Him, such as those who wrote the NT. These Jews not only knew the Law of Moses but they knew something else equally as important: They were ill-equipped to keep it perfectly as that Law required. In other words, they knew they needed to be saved from their sins -- something the Law could not do.