Proselytizing

Numerous times I related to you that the Bible definition of Sorcery is not what I was talking about.

It is not my problem that you did not understand.

 

Probably the person who is both.

You cannot prove scientifically, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, that Jesus actually did the miracles.

However, you can verify major portions of the Bible as accurate. And if what we can verify is accurate, that lends a certain creedence to this claim.

However, to doubt in th face of uncertainty is every bit the same act of faith as affirmation. So why doubt?

Beause atheists like to poke people in the eye and call them stupid for not having a test to confirm their beliefs? Neither do the doubters.

And doubt in the face of uncertainty? Well, that is a special kind of faith that is beyond evidnece in far more meaningful way than any belief in a miracle.

So, to be both stupid and hypocrite is indeed far worse that being one or the other.

 

And numerous times I told you that I am not interested in the source of the definition, but only interested in you PROVING your claim that Jesus used sorcery.... PROOF is not found in a definition. Proof requires objective empirical evidence; and you already stated that you have no PROOF of your claim. So your claim is devoid of any actual substance.

 

Post 328, (342, 344, 350) 383

383 gives a detailed description of one aspect of Sorcery.

It is clearly explained in the posts 342-350 that the Bible definition is not what I am referring to.

And numerous other posts but this should suffice.

 

An aspect of sorcery regardless of the source of definition is not PROOF that Jesus was a practitioner of sorcery. I want PROOF. And you already said that you don't have any proof of any of the things that Jesus was said to have done in the Bible. No PROOF.... goodness... where does that leave your false claim.

 

And numerous times I told you that I agreed that there is no "objective emperical proof" that Jesus did anything.

What part did you not understand the first five times.

I also showed that you are a hypocrite because you claim that historical writing is not proof of anything but then claim that the Bible is proof that Jesus worked miracles.

I also reworded the claim:

"If one believes" that Jesus did such things, then Jesus one believes that Jesus was a Sorcerer according to the definition of sorcery presented earlier.

What part of my reworded version you not understand ?

You are obviously not serious about your this topic or your beliefs .. Sand.

 

No, 383 proves exactly what we are saying, not you.

So, jesus is a sorcerer if we ignore the context of the Bible entirely and call him a sorcerer based on some other standard definition that is not really applicable so that we can violate the intended and specific admonition as laid out in the Bible against sorcery to call Jesus a Sorcerer. (He does not use will, he uses God, so even by YOUR definition Jesus is not a sorcerer).

How stupid do you think people are? Do you really think no one knows what you are about? That noone gets what you are doing?

We get it just fine.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0899.asp

What you are doing is little more than Bible abuse. Attempting to make a maligning statement by applying a clearly inapplicable definition and demanding other, indeed an entire religion, beat a path to your door and supplicate itself for the sake of what? Your ego?

Christians will use the definition of sorcery intended in the Bible. You can use whatever you want, but you will just be some punk playing a game of semantics to malign people and twist them using their faith as a weapon.

A simple game of obstinance.

 

Rewording the claim makes no difference, as your reworded claim is nonsensical and does not adhere to the rules of grammar. You admit that you have no proof, yet you attempt to rationalize by changing your claim to a more nonsensical version of the claim. So where is the PROOF?

BTW: hypocrite ???? You claim to be a Christian and you will not admit that the Holy Spirit is capable of delivering to Whoever God prescribes a piece of information or a gift that is not prescribed to another? Do you even know anything about the Bible and Spirituality?

 

Indeed no one can.

Not according to Incorp .. but I agree 100 %

I believe what makes sense and search "objectively" for the Truth.

I am not an Athiest and have strong belief in God.

My belief is so strong that I respect God enough to not think he is an idiot the way some religious folks and religious teachings and some things written the Bible make him out to be.

"Faith" is a loaded term. I do not believe in the general Christian concept of "faith" as the key to salvation. Faith may help one to follow the teachings .. "but faith without works is dead" James 2: 14-26.

James and Peter were the true "keepers of the faith" after Jesus died and they did not think much of Pauls version of "faith"

To do something wrong out of ignorance is bad.

To know something is wrong, tell others that it is wrong, and then go out and do that something is worse by far.

Even in law we have two criteria that must be satisfied "mens rea" and "actus rea".

actus rea means you have to have committed the crime.

mens rea means you have to have intended it.

At the end of days it is the secret thoughts that will be judged. "Romans - Somewhere"

Intent matters IMO.

 

Notice GO... that in the quote from Neutral, to which you agree 100%, his use of the word "if". Also notice where that "if" is directed. It is directed toward the accuracy of a probable 'verification'. None of which has been done.

The first problem you have is the verification that Jesus was a practitioner of sorcery. Do you know anyone that was there with Jesus and is capable of giving an affidavit of truth? No? Then do you have any objective empirical evidence that would clearly show that Jesus practiced sorcery? No? Well, without that verification, then you are certainly going to have a difficult time proving the accuracy of something that you don't have, other than to say that it is pretty dog gone accurate that we can't prove that Jesus used sorcery.

 

"If" one believes that Jesus worked that miracles attributed to him in the Bible then Jesus was a Sorcerer as per the definition I have laid out.

 

Your choice of definition places you in the position of saying that Jesus acted in violation of the Law or commands of God. Is that what you as a Christian are wanting to say? You want to accuse Jesus of being a sorcerer? Perhaps then we should also change your screen name to Judas? You do realize that, metaphorically, you are standing on a big pile of banana peels, don't you?

 

Dream on ....

 

It is you that is 'dreaming'... dreaming up one rationalization after the other in an attempt to justify your actions of saying that Jesus was a sorcerer.

 

LOL! Obviously his own people believed he was a Sorcerer - they called him such!

Also - his saying he isn't - wouldn't prove that.

And that is beside the point that we don't actually know what he said - as AL texts about Iesous were written STARTING DECADES after his death.

 

Including the allegations regarding his use of sorcery. So that myth (his use of sorcery) is just as much unprovable as all the rest of it.

 

LOL! Let me repeat again that you are having trouble reading!

I did not say Iesous was a Sorcerer - I said Iesous was called a Sorcerer - and I proved that with ancient documents!

As to the Hebrew themselves - the Bible says they were making magic wands and doing magic - and museums have surviving spell and curse bowls, etc.

So that too is a FACT!

 

And just above, you said the following about those things that were written about Jesus.


"LOL! Obviously his own people believed he was a Sorcerer - they called him such!

Also - his saying he isn't - wouldn't prove that.

And that is beside the point that we don't actually know what he said - as ALL texts about Iesous were written STARTING DECADES after his death."

Equally so, those people calling him a sorcerer does not make a FACT. As a matter of FACT, because as you said, those documents were written decades after Jesus died, would throw the equal amount of doubt on the stories about the sorcery. That door swings both ways.

 

LOL! You realise don't you that that also makes - God - Iesous - and a good portion of the Bible - "A false claim" yes?

 

The Hebrew obviously practiced such! LOL!

And Iesous was called such in ancient documents.

 

No it doesn't. It just means you and others don't believe it due to a lack of your evidence. It in no way means its false.

Quantrill

 

Really? Most people argue that they can't find proof of Jesus in ancient documents.

Jesus Christ did what He did by the power of God as He is God the Son. Thus all miracles He does are not sorcery or magic. They are the power of God. Big difference.

Quantrill

 

No it doesn't. It just means you and others don't believe it due to a lack of your evidence. It in no way means its false.

 

Hey Bro.. I think the Lord just provided me with the answer. These people who continue making all those outlandish claims against Jesus are all suffering from the problem of lack of spiritual discernment. To them, spirit = spirit. So when we talk about God, they also know that we sometimes refer to God as 'spirit' as in "spirit of God". To them, there is no difference between the Spirit of God and a spirit of the devil or a demon or a ghost orany of the other supernatural entities. Because of that lack of discernment, they become easily confused when we speak about one or the other.

 

This is what Incorpreal said - and you agreed with - as well as the fact that you folks are saying no ancient documents are proof!

God, and Iesous, and much of the Bible, don't have verifiable proof!