phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
For what? A good laugh?
Don’t ask me to do your work. If you can find evidence for your claim, put it here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For what? A good laugh?
For what? A good laugh?
Don’t ask me to do your work. If you can find evidence for your claim, put it here.
Not I. I was expecting some backup for your claim that "archaeological and Scientific evidence also backs up the Biblical stories." Pretty big claim, but pretty poor evidence.I can give all kinds of evidence for you claim. Weren't you asking for sources for Creationism?
In my opinion, the way to get to Heaven is found in the New Testament, not the Old Teatament. It’s funny that both come as a package deal. So skip the Old Testament and just focus on the New Testament. It saves a lot of reading time when you realize the Old Testament is outdated in terms of obtaining salvation.
Not I. I was expecting some backup for your claim that "archaeological and Scientific evidence also backs up the Biblical stories." Pretty big claim, but pretty poor evidence.
You want to go there? Ok, find me one Old Testament prophecy that says YHWH in human form would die and be resurrected.What evidence specifically are you looking for? Evidence for the Resurrection? Can we start there?
You want to go there? Ok, find me one Old Testament prophecy that says YHWH in human form would die and be resurrected.
Hello? Can’t anyone find that verse?You want to go there? Ok, find me one Old Testament prophecy that says YHWH in human form would die and be resurrected.
Hello? Can’t anyone find that verse?
Hello? Can’t anyone find that verse?
Here's more of the scripture:Prophesied hundreds of years before the Birth of Christ:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Fulfilled in Christ Jesus:
Matthew 1:23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Here's more of the scripture:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
This prophecy was made over seven hundred years before the birth of Jesus (named Jesus, not Emmanuel), so I'm not seeing how it has any bearing.
I'm sure that those two kingdoms were "laid waste" a few times in those seven hundred years, but it seems a little misleading to say that it would happen before the boy reaches a certain age, instead of saying that it would happen before his birth.
Or do you suppose that those kingdoms were laid waste sometime around 10AD? Here's a chance to produce some archaeological evidence to support the story.
Emmanuel literally means "God with us". The verse in Matthew confirms that it was fulfilled. Jesus really was God with us in the flesh as the name suggests. Jesus was given many titles, Wonderful, Councilor, The Mighty God, The Prince of Peace. I think that Emmanuel was a title given to Jesus as well, although His name was Jesus, which is the same name as Joshua in the Old Testament. Joshua means Savior.
Not sure where you are going with the other stuff. Jerusalem was destroyed in 90 AD around 60 years after the Jews rejected their Messiah. Had they accepted Him, it no doubt wouldn't have happened.
Historical writings ARE archaeological evidence and there is plenty of them from Christ's day and shortly after. Did you see them or should I post some of the many of them for you?
There are at least 3 blatant factual errors in this piece. The date is the easy one - you can find the others for yourself.![]()
Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with Jerusalem. Ahaz was concerned with the lands of Syria and Ephraim, in the 8th century BC.I meant the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 90 AD. That is factually true. What other errors?
I meant the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 90 AD. That is factually true. What other errors?
Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with Jerusalem. Ahaz was concerned with the lands of Syria and Ephraim, in the 8th century BC.
Yet another example of you tossing up your own ideas and interpretations rather than addressing the topic being discussed.
20 years adrift