benzics: Now the video above is clearly bullshit, a play put up to deceive people. My analysis though.
No Man Loses A Child And Acts That Way How would you lose a child, a child the doctor already told you is dead, and then you walk confidently to the church.. Wait a minute is it really a coincidence that his child died during church service or it was a show for camera, it's obviously a show for camera, for your child to die DURING CHURCH SERVICE, and then you appear in the church, where the camera man seems to be focusing on you as if he already knew that "something will happen", yes it was obviously a PLAY!
How the hell were they able to bring the doctor DURING SERVICE? So you are a doctor and you've certified someone dead, and then you leave your hospital to follow him to his church and confirm that he was dead?? Well it's obviously because the so called doctor knew what will happen, yes it's a play!!
Why did the pastor ask for the doctor to confirm the child was dead? How did the pastor even know that the doctor is in the church? I thought if you did something TRUTHFULLY, you don't need anyone to confirm that it was true as long as you know it's true! But the pastor was obviously posing for camera, so that he will convince the gullible that the child really died, and the video was posted online! Obviously because everything was planned!!
And that boy could have easily been given sedatives to make him look temporarily dead!
Checkmate theists.. the above bullshit is obviously a lie.. signed : god and religion busters!
jonbellion: Even if Adolf hitler wasn't a christian he wasn't only after Jews He also killed homosexuals. Gypsies and anyone who he taught was ruining his plans for a perfect Germany
if anti-jewism makes one a non christian... Then i can confidently say with authority that the author of protestanism and its children is not a christian...martin luther
Pidgin2: Let's talk about an athiest villian, his name was HILTLER, he snuffed the life out of men, women and children. Another two I don't like ate Stalin and Polpot
GrizzlyBear: Going extinct is the best solution. Even if we decide to delude ourselves into thinking there is beauty in life, while ignoring the ugliness and pain and uncertainties, let's not bring children into this mess.
You don't have to pigeon-hole yourself into unnecessary label boxes to make accurate extrapolations about the true nature of your world. I really hate these labels you guys adopt. You don't need to define yourself by any label in other to think rationally and precisely evaluate ideas.
blueAgent: The God of the Bible which is the christain God is
the only true God. gods of other religeon are
worshipped and referenced through
objects,material things like India's religeon were
they believe cattle is scared.
but God can only be worshiped in spirit becos he
is a spirit.
Only the God of the Bible. has given us clear
narrative or view about the origin of man and the
Universe.gods of other religeon don't claim to
have made man or the Universe.
Bible prophecies given over 3000yrs ago have
been furfilled and more will still happen.
All the other religeons have several stories and
myths about man and his origin. only Christainity
affirms that man was created,no other religeon
has given reasons or solution to world problems
only christainity has given us The reason for this
problems with a promise to end it.
Image123: The first thing i did was to answer the OP. It is not my fault or problem that you don't like the answer.
raphieMontella: Author=Anonymous Dating= Suspected to be around 80-100C.E though it may have been composed during the mid-2nd century as 1st century and early 2nd century christian apologists make no reference or citations to it. Source of most of its contents=Biblical Markan Gospel.
The gospel of matthew is largely regarded as an account of a zealous fictional jewish christian writer who was neither an apostle of jesus nor an eyewitness to the period of jesus's life.... The book itself begins with a contradiction.. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). Matthew and Luke cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was... This was as a result of the writers trying to explain fix the messianic Jesus into the descendants of David which was supposed to be the literal(natural) bloodline of the messiah.. The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus,Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required... This also proves that the apostle Paul had no idea of the acclaimed virgin birth prophecy matthew claimed was fulfiled in matthew 1:22-23: In the original context, however, Isaiah made this statement as a sign to Ahaz, king of Judah, that an alliance recently formed against him by Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, would not succeed in defeating him. The Lord (Yahweh), as he was prone to do in those days, had sent Isaiah to reassure Ahaz that the alliance would not prevail. Isaiah begged Ahaz to ask for a sign that his prophecy was true .Finally, Isaiah said to him, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore Yahweh Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:13-14). The context clearly shows that this so-called prophecy was made not to foretell the birth of Jesus some 700 years later but the birth of a child to that time and that situation.(believed to be isaiah's wife) How could a birth that would happen 700 years later, after Ahaz was dead and the battles had long since been fought, have been a sign to him that the Syrian-Israelite alliance would fail?. "Immanuel". Since that name means "God with us", it was supposed to show Ahaz that God was on his side..Mary nor Joseph never called Jesus ''Immanuel'' The Hebrew word "almah" which is used in the Isaiah verse does not mean "virgin" but "young woman" and mean the ''young woman'' is with child/pregnant.. It is correctly translated in the Tanakh, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible,and the Catholic bible..
However The Hebrew word "bethulah" means "virgin." In the book of Isaiah, "bethulah" appears four times (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5), so its author was aware of the word;and would have used the word ''bethulah'' since that concept was totally foreign to them and would have been a remarkable event This was most likely as a result of trying to elevate the christian mystic saviour's status to god-man/superrnatural as opposing organizations like the cult of asclepius and most christian followers at that time were gentiles who were conditioned by pagan beliefs.. OTHER FALSE PROPHECIES Moving on.. In Matthew 2:4-6..He claims that the prophecy in Micah 5:2 was fulfiled..
.
"Bethlehem Ephrathah" is the name of the descendants of eprahtah and also the name of a person person: Bethlehem the son (or grandson) of Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51) This prophecy could therefore refer to either a native of the clan or to a descendent of the person. If the latter, Jesus does not qualify since neither of his alleged genealogies list either Bethlehem or Ephrathah.
Moving on..
In Matthew 2:17,,Matthew claimed the fulfilment of a NON-prophecy in Hosea11:1
But..the passage Hosea 11:1 actually reads:When isreal was a child,I loved him,and out of Egypt I called my son.. However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus....
Moving on.. In Matthew 2:17..Matthew claimed that Jeremiah 31:15 was fulfiled
This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However,it is not mentioned in neither Apocrypha nor the Talmud, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen.
Still moving.. In Matthew 2:23..he claimed that a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene(an inhabitant of Nazareth) was fulfiled
As a matter of fact,bible scholars have not found any statement from any old testament prophet that could be referenced to this... The word Nazareth, as well as Nazarene, was never even mentioned in the Old Testament. Even Josephus who listed out the cities in galilee made no mention of Nazareth.. Now this begs the question-Why would Yahweh,Jesus or the Holy spirit guide Matthew to make such a claim?
Moving on...
In Matthew 21:1-7..Matthew claimed Zech9:9 was fulfiled..
No event was too trival for matthew to see prophecy fulfilment in it There are two conspicuous points of difference in Matthew's version of this event and Mark's and Luke's: (1) Matthew had Jesus riding BOTH a donkey and her colt;(Circus style;stunt rider) Mark and Luke had Jesus riding only a colt, and (2) Matthew saw it as fulfillment of a prophecy; Mark and Luke said nothing at all about prophecy fulfillment being involved...This on matthew's part is as a result of misunderstanding hebrew poetry...as this is a case of parallel emphasis Examples of parallel emphasis in the bible include Zech 7:1,,Zech 12:6,,Deut 4:13 etc... Lets move on.. In Matthew 27:9...Matthew falsely claimed that Jeremiah made a prophecy about the purchase of the potters field
There is NO Place in Jeremiah that this statement is made... Biblical scholars suggested that Matthew was quoting "loosely" a statement that was actually written by Zechariah (11:12-13) rather than Jeremiah. If this is true, then one can only wonder why a divinely inspired writer, being guided by the omniscient Holy Spirit, would have said Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Why would Yahweh,Jesus or the Holy spirit guide Matthew to make such a claim? looking closely at the suggested zech11:12-13...it stresses largely on the word ''ME'' Also,,Many versions (RSV, NRSV, JB, NAB, REB, GNB, NWT translate this passage to read ''Treasury''
Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies.''...he was however,,also a fictional writer and an inventor.. E.g The massacre of kids by herod... The invasion of Jerusalem by zombies(matt 27:52-53),,The instant withering of the fig tree...which creates a contradictory account to mark's own account(mark may have been symbolic#the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD though God was with them)
[color=blue]CONTRADICTIONS IN MATTHEW IN RELATION TO THE OTHER GOSPELS The status of the fig tree... The number of blind men on the road to jericho... Where Jesus met his disciples before converting them... The colour of Jesus's robe... Contradictions on Jesus's utterances at pilate's hearing.. Conflicting arrest accounts.. Conflicting resurrection stories but to mention a few...
can this gospel account really be divinely inspired?..or its just another heretic account?
lol..the op is not about bible contradictions... Read it
raphieMontella: Author=Anonymous Dating= Suspected to be around 80-100C.E though it may have been composed during the mid-2nd century as 1st century and early 2nd century christian apologists make no reference or citations to it. Source of most of its contents=Biblical Markan Gospel.
The gospel of matthew is largely regarded as an account of a zealous fictional jewish christian writer who was neither an apostle of jesus nor an eyewitness to the period of jesus's life.... The book itself begins with a contradiction.. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). Matthew and Luke cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was... This was as a result of the writers trying to explain fix the messianic Jesus into the descendants of David which was supposed to be the literal(natural) bloodline of the messiah.. The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus,Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required... This also proves that the apostle Paul had no idea of the acclaimed virgin birth prophecy matthew claimed was fulfiled in matthew 1:22-23: In the original context, however, Isaiah made this statement as a sign to Ahaz, king of Judah, that an alliance recently formed against him by Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, would not succeed in defeating him. The Lord (Yahweh), as he was prone to do in those days, had sent Isaiah to reassure Ahaz that the alliance would not prevail. Isaiah begged Ahaz to ask for a sign that his prophecy was true .Finally, Isaiah said to him, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore Yahweh Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:13-14). The context clearly shows that this so-called prophecy was made not to foretell the birth of Jesus some 700 years later but the birth of a child to that time and that situation.(believed to be isaiah's wife) How could a birth that would happen 700 years later, after Ahaz was dead and the battles had long since been fought, have been a sign to him that the Syrian-Israelite alliance would fail?. "Immanuel". Since that name means "God with us", it was supposed to show Ahaz that God was on his side..Mary nor Joseph never called Jesus ''Immanuel'' The Hebrew word "almah" which is used in the Isaiah verse does not mean "virgin" but "young woman" and mean the ''young woman'' is with child/pregnant.. It is correctly translated in the Tanakh, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible,and the Catholic bible..
However The Hebrew word "bethulah" means "virgin." In the book of Isaiah, "bethulah" appears four times (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5), so its author was aware of the word;and would have used the word ''bethulah'' since that concept was totally foreign to them and would have been a remarkable event This was most likely as a result of trying to elevate the christian mystic saviour's status to god-man/superrnatural as opposing organizations like the cult of asclepius and most christian followers at that time were gentiles who were conditioned by pagan beliefs.. OTHER FALSE PROPHECIES Moving on.. In Matthew 2:4-6..He claims that the prophecy in Micah 5:2 was fulfiled..
.
"Bethlehem Ephrathah" is the name of the descendants of eprahtah and also the name of a person person: Bethlehem the son (or grandson) of Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51) This prophecy could therefore refer to either a native of the clan or to a descendent of the person. If the latter, Jesus does not qualify since neither of his alleged genealogies list either Bethlehem or Ephrathah.
Moving on..
In Matthew 2:17,,Matthew claimed the fulfilment of a NON-prophecy in Hosea11:1
But..the passage Hosea 11:1 actually reads:When isreal was a child,I loved him,and out of Egypt I called my son.. However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus....
Moving on.. In Matthew 2:17..Matthew claimed that Jeremiah 31:15 was fulfiled
This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However,it is not mentioned in neither Apocrypha nor the Talmud, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen.
Still moving.. In Matthew 2:23..he claimed that a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene(an inhabitant of Nazareth) was fulfiled
As a matter of fact,bible scholars have not found any statement from any old testament prophet that could be referenced to this... The word Nazareth, as well as Nazarene, was never even mentioned in the Old Testament. Even Josephus who listed out the cities in galilee made no mention of Nazareth.. Now this begs the question-Why would Yahweh,Jesus or the Holy spirit guide Matthew to make such a claim?
Moving on...
In Matthew 21:1-7..Matthew claimed Zech9:9 was fulfiled..
No event was too trival for matthew to see prophecy fulfilment in it There are two conspicuous points of difference in Matthew's version of this event and Mark's and Luke's: (1) Matthew had Jesus riding BOTH a donkey and her colt;(Circus style;stunt rider) Mark and Luke had Jesus riding only a colt, and (2) Matthew saw it as fulfillment of a prophecy; Mark and Luke said nothing at all about prophecy fulfillment being involved...This on matthew's part is as a result of misunderstanding hebrew poetry...as this is a case of parallel emphasis Examples of parallel emphasis in the bible include Zech 7:1,,Zech 12:6,,Deut 4:13 etc... Lets move on.. In Matthew 27:9...Matthew falsely claimed that Jeremiah made a prophecy about the purchase of the potters field
There is NO Place in Jeremiah that this statement is made... Biblical scholars suggested that Matthew was quoting "loosely" a statement that was actually written by Zechariah (11:12-13) rather than Jeremiah. If this is true, then one can only wonder why a divinely inspired writer, being guided by the omniscient Holy Spirit, would have said Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Why would Yahweh,Jesus or the Holy spirit guide Matthew to make such a claim? looking closely at the suggested zech11:12-13...it stresses largely on the word ''ME'' Also,,Many versions (RSV, NRSV, JB, NAB, REB, GNB, NWT translate this passage to read ''Treasury''
Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies.''...he was however,,also a fictional writer and an inventor.. E.g The massacre of kids by herod... The invasion of Jerusalem by zombies(matt 27:52-53),,The instant withering of the fig tree...which creates a contradictory account to mark's own account(mark may have been symbolic#the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD though God was with them)
[color=blue]CONTRADICTIONS IN MATTHEW IN RELATION TO THE OTHER GOSPELS The status of the fig tree... The number of blind men on the road to jericho... Where Jesus met his disciples before converting them... The colour of Jesus's robe... Contradictions on Jesus's utterances at pilate's hearing.. Conflicting arrest accounts.. Conflicting resurrection stories but to mention a few...
can this gospel account really be divinely inspired?..or its just another heretic account?
jonbellion: your bullshit is becoming too much You go to synaguoage church of all nations and you have the guts to accuse another set of humans of mental illness Either you got dropped on your head or you've been ingesting too much of TB Joshuas fluid
lol... Is that guy not acting strange as per brain issues?
AngelsAndStars: this "simple chemistry" who thought you? same white man. wait, did you practice and verify the "simple chemistry" yourself? or you accepted whatever the white man said about the simple chemistry?
bros did you read your link? it endorsed me the more.. Clearly stated that 1)archaeopteryx is not a forgery. 2)endorsed my statement on many archaeopteryx fossil discoveries... 3)admitted that the archaeopteryx is an ancestor to birds... 4)admitted that fossils of other feathered dinosaurs have been found 5)admitted that archaeopteryx is a dinosaur-bird linked fossil..but just that other more suitable fossils have been found
AngelsAndStars: those "scientists" have many forgery cases busted. they are liars.
if they had gotten away it would have been termed "fact" and you'd be seeing dates like 6billion years old fossils, 8.9 billion years old nonsense
and you think it was a creationist that busted the forgery?#piltdownman..? It was a scientist...an atheist sef.... If anything is going to be busted...it will be by scientists...not kent hovind and co and archaeopteryx is not a forgery..
4everGod: We try to be calm when dropping facts to you guys. Carefully read this and tell me your opinion
Intelligent Design can be Seen in the Smallest Bacteria and the Largest Galaxy
The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing Intelligent design in nature.
One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system, called a bacterial flagellum, found in many bacteria, including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules, including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller.
The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism.
The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much too small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an Intelligent Designer.
lol..irreducible complexity... This statement has been debunked before!
4everGod: Evolution also was supposed to make sense with the Coelacanth but the fish even when touted as 350m years old never evolved.
1)...the coelacanth found sef...is not in the specie of the fossilized coelacanths.. 2)no where does the theory say that all members of a specie must evolve morphologically..
jonbellion: evolution makes sense Look at marsupials for petes sake If evolution was a lie then God must be decieving us in looking at the way animals are distributed making it look asif marsupials separately evolved in an isolated environment from placentals
atavism is proof of connection between animals to any honest being
The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly,thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown.
@the first bolded.. You have to provide proof of the consensus or any reputable scientific organization...of which there is none...not some christian claim(lie rather)..
1. There are nine other Archaeopteryx fossils discovered at different times and places under well documented conditions. At least six of these also have unequivocal feathers (Charig 1986; Wellnhofer 1993; Mayr et al. 2005). On the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue under the bones and are overlain with dendrites that sometimes form within bedding planes, precluding the possibility of forgery (Charig 1986). In addition, several other feathered dinosaurs have been discovered
This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few.
fossilization is rare and not easy.. But yet transitional fossils still exist..
Christianity Etc › Re: My Experience As An Atheist For Three Weeks. by MrMontella(m): 8:18am On Dec 03, 2016
you're lost in the discussion
or are you saying he does not know what agnosticism means? 
