Evangelicals Can Be Incredibly Strange

I was actually going to post the exact same thing. Excellent post

 

look, i have tried to help you understand the concept of how proving negatives works, what an extraordinarily weak point it is that something has not been proven to not exist. please try to think about it again. i have provided you enough counterexamples. you are just obstinately refusing to accept reality.

 

I never anger over peoples viewpoints, religious or not, unless they are "9/11 Truthers", global warming hysterics like Al Gore, or western Islamic apologists. :yelwink2: :yelwink2: :yelwink2: :yelwink2:

So you equate truly understanding the message with total acceptance of it. I disagree with that stance. I don't think there is a deeper intellectual understanding that can be gained by believing vs. not believing. Comparing the understanding gained from the bible versus a medical journal is not a fair comparison. Knowledge gained from reading a medical book can be put into practice with observable feedback and results. I can cut open a chest and see the heart and repair it. Feeling like the holy ghost resides in that same heart is not the same, because there is no way to prove it. So I can completely understand the concept of believing that god watches all, or the peace that passes all understanding, or building your house on the rock, but not believe it myself.

 

look , i understand the fallacy with proving negatives, and that you have championed the cause to make everyone understand it. thats why named you in the post.

 

if significant then why not evidence. it is most definately evidence. how much weight you give to it is different, but like i said this isnt joseph of aramatea writing it, but a nonChristian that likely had no vested interest. plus, josephus has a solid reputation as a historian. i take this to mean that the crucifixion/resurrection story wasnt written down by one nutjob (say one of the apostles) or even four nutjobs. that in itself lends more credibility to the story than many give it.

historians almost never give first hand accounts. they study and compile evidence in a reliable way about interesting events. they are not lucky enough to witness or even live in the time of most of these events.

my understanding was that his sources are first hand witnesses, but i may be wrong---its been a long time.

id agree that the nuzi texts are the weakest evidence ive mentioned.

lets get this straight first. none of this is science. its history, with a much lower requirements for proof. i will never KNOW if jesus existed, let alone was the son of god, nor will i ever KNOW if elvis or hitler or pete maravich ever existed like i know that influenza kills chickens. history v. science.

anyway, ramsey proved, historically, that the author of the gospel of luke authored acts. also, that every reference in acts that this great skeptical archaeologist researched at an attempt to disprove the reliability of the author and the letter was confirmed. i will look for a reference.

 

i sure hope so, because you were about to convince me to start believing in every god that has not been disproved yet. and that is a long list, infinite in fact. although i guess it is possible they are all all true.

actually i should probably worship them just all to be safe, in case one of them is true.

 

First of all,let me say that psalms 22 which was written by King David 900- 1000 years before Christ existed and chronicles his crucifixion down to the Roman soldiers gambling for his clothes is proof enough for me.Call it faith if you want.As far as Evangelicals are concerned ,it is amazing to me how otherwise intelligent human beings lose the ability to read when it comes to the Bible.I remember speaking to one member and asking him what his church taught regarding a particular very important subject,and even though he went to this church 3 times a week and talked about little else ,he didn't know.Almost without exception,these churches teach things that are simply not true,whether it is Jimmy Swaggart,John Hagee ,Benny Hinn ,Jesse Duplantis,Joyce Meyer ,Richard Roberts ,Robert Tilton, are some local guy who isnt on television ,but spews the same crap.admittedly some are far worse than others ,and they all may mean well,but they are misleading their entire flock.Let me give one major example......The Rapture. There are a few variations on this but in a nutshell here is the teaching . At any moment ,Jesus Christ could return to this earth,wisk away all his Born Again believers. Meanwhile,the rest of us poor slobs are left behind ,where the anti christ will put us through all kinds of misery ,getting a mark so we may be able to buy and sell ,etc ,etc ,etc.This theory started in 1830 by a mentally ill girl in Glasgow Scotland named Margaret Macdonald.Two preachers (John Darby and Edward Irving) latched on to this girls visions and dreams and began to spout them as the word of God.They took a few verses in 1 thess chapter 4 And a few verses in mattew ch 24 out of context and preach exactly the opposite of what the Bible says about Christs return.What does the bible say about Christ's return ?That He would return at the seventh trumpet and not before.What happens at the 6th trumpet .At the 6th trump 6 seal 6 vial the anti christ returns.Now in every math class I have ever taken 6 comes before 7.Most three year old children can count to seven and understand that 6 comes first.Evidently ,Most three year olds are smarter than Kirk Cameron and Jimmy Swaggart.You can walk into any Walmart and see displayed in their book section a whole series of books called the "left behind " series by Tim Layahe and some other knucklehead.This theory spouts the same you dont want to be Left Behind rapture nonsense.

 

Well I guess I am one of those otherwise intelligent human beings who loses the ability to read. So just out of my own curiosity what exactly was the important subject that you asked the man about?

Other than the rapture, which I am going to address in a second what doctrine do you see that evangelical churches teach that is wrong?

I believe in this "false" doctrine and you are incorrect when you say that it started with Margaret Macdonald in 1830. The truth is that St. Ephraim the Syrian said something that sounds exactly like what the Rapture is going to be, in the mid 300s

In fact, in Margaret MacDonald's vision she said

How exactly is she advocating a pre-trib rapture of the born again believers if she is saying that the Christians will be purged and go through a fiery trial. Pre-trib rapture believers believe that true Christians will be spared the trials of the tribulation and not undergo the wickedness of the Antichrist's reign.

But enough of what individuals have said, let's look at what the Bible says.

Jesus talking about the time of tribulation

The church is not appointed to wrath and will not be 'overtaken' by the Day of the Lord (which is another name for the tribulation)

Another verse about God keeping the believers from the time of wrath/tribulation.

In Jewish marriage tradition there is generally a marriage supper between the groom and the brides family to determine dowry and what not, then after the arrangements have been made the groom goes to his brides house unannounced and brings her back to his fathers house. In Luke Jesus is telling his followers to be watchful for his return like a master coming back from a wedding supper.

John says Jesus( the groom), is in Heaven (his Father's house), preparing a place for his believers (the bride)

Then Revelation we see the Marriage of Jesus to his bride, the church, before his 2nd coming at the end of the tribulation

And finally we see that when Jesus does return to earth that he will be followed by his armies dressed in fine linen, white and clean, which is exactly what his bride (the church) was just given to wear.

My next post will use scripture to show the difference between the rapture and Jesus's 2nd coming at the end of the tribulation.