Re: The Second Coming Of Jesus Christ

Thom Madura wrote:

> rogue wrote:
>> On May 22, 2:02 pm, "Fred A Stover" <fredstov...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "rogue" <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
news:45530841-67b2-452e-8bd9-667128bd5376@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 21, 6:40 am, "Fred A Stover" <fredstov...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>>>> "rogue" <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>
news:5f4cbed6-3a2a-470d-90df-db162dbe4131@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> On May 20, 5:58 am, "Fred A Stover" <fredstov...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:G9pYj.2232$l97.1851@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> rogue wrote:
>>>>>>>>  >> ?????????? DUH.......They mean the same thing Dumasso.
>>>>>>>> Generation
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> what is generated, and race is the people generated.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> JERRY
>>>>>>>>> No, dumbass, a "generation" is the group of people you grew up
>>>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>>>> Your peers.
>>>>>>>>> You are living proof of what I have been saying for the past 2
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>> The quality of intelligence of theists has declined appreciably
in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> past two years.  I used to be able to have some really good
>>>>>>>>> debates
>>>>>>>>> and discussions on the bible in Usenet.  Now I get people like
>>>>>>>>> you. ;-)
>>>>>>>> They use the Humpty Dumpty approach to the meaning of words.
>>>>>>> We learned to read. You didn't.
>>>>>> JERRY
>>>>>> Yep, that's why theists show the most amazingly poor reading
>>>>>> comprehension I have ever seen in newsgroups.
>>>>> We seen your amusing attempts at reading the Bible.
>>>> JERRY
>>>> And I've seen your amusing attempts trying to debate skeptics, Fred.
>>>> Don't hurt yourself. ;-)
>>> ROTFL.......your reading and "unterpreting" is on line for all to see.
>>>
>> JERRY
>> <smiles>  Well, Fred, you haven't yet proved me wrong.  I not only
>> showed the verse(s) but linked them to show that I was correct and the
>> bible DOES say that the Second Coming was supposed to happen during
>> the lifetimes of the disciples.  So far you have nothing but a lot of
>> lip and very little brainpower.
>> 
>> If you don't want to debate that, you can also take your shot on
>> failed prophecy, the bible's historical inaccuracies or we can tackle
>> the issue of who first saw the risen Jesus?
>> 
>> When you can do more than talk, you earn respect.  So far, you're
>> seriously hurting in the respect department.
> 
> 
> 
> THe "bible" is not proof. With the exception of a few apostolic letters
>   - which can be dated but not authenticated - there is no sup****t
> material for the stories in the bible.  Since - by definition - a bible
> or encyclopedia is a reference book that depends on its sources for
> verification - since it is written third party - one cannot use the
> bible as proof - only the source material it is based on.
> 
> Having been compiled about 300 years past the age of the christ - one
> cannot even say that any of the passages are written first person.
> Unless the christ was being followed around by a scribe to write down
> everything he said (of which we have no evidence either)- quotes from
> the bible are simply quotes from the bible - and cannot be attributed to
> the christ.
> 
> Anything written outside the native languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and
> Latin would obviously need a basis for verification. It really makes not
> difference what a word means in greek - every word written in greek that
> you translate for the bible IMPLIES third party again.


You really should know a little more about how God works.
God is not going to force you to believe in Him
by providing "testable and provable" evidence.

You really should compare the Bible
with other books of similar age,
not with your comicbook idea of revelation.


-- 
monkfish 
* The followup-to header is set to alt.christnet.theology.
** alt.atheism is removed from the groups header.