OPEN CHALLENGE

Religions > Bible > OPEN CHALLENGE

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Pastor Dave"
Date:	14 Feb 2005 08:49:32 AM
Object:	OPEN CHALLENGE

Hi,
Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>
So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.
NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.
I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.
The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.
The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows
1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.
2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.
3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.
www.e-sword.net
4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)
I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)
5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?
6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.
7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.
8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.
9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.
10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.
11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.
12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)
These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.
And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Your Name Here=Harvey"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	14 Feb 2005 10:40:27 PM

In article <pje111p8sp0t09u2srupo5td978og79gns@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

Hi,

Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>

So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.

NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.

I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.

The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.

The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows

1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.

2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.

3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.

www.e-sword.net

4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)

I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)

5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?

6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.

7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.

8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.

9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.

10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.

11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.

12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)

These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.

And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

How about no rules - but serious and logical discussion?
The truth is not subject to your rules.
The truth is simply what is - or more specifically - what actually
happened?
People's interpretation is a different matter.
Your mind has to be open for the truth - a closed mind will
not accept truthful material.
Harvey
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	15 Feb 2005 08:55:11 AM

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:40:27 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

In article <pje111p8sp0t09u2srupo5td978og79gns@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

Hi,

Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>

So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.

NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.

I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.

The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.

The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows

1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.

2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.

3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.

www.e-sword.net

4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)

I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)

5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?

6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.

7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.

8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.

9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.

10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.

11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.

12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)

These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.

And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

How about no rules - but serious and logical discussion?

The truth is not subject to your rules.

The truth is simply what is - or more specifically - what actually
happened?

People's interpretation is a different matter.

Your mind has to be open for the truth - a closed mind will
not accept truthful material.

This is your way of being able to hurl insults any time
you want and just paste in web links and then run away,
claiming that I ran away, when I won't respond to your
tactics. There is nothing in those rules that should
bother anyone who is interested in a serious, truthful
debate.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Your Name Here=Harvey"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	15 Feb 2005 04:37:44 PM

In article <g834119g7l64oihti4f6r8e5tu3oh3lmfm@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:40:27 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

In article <pje111p8sp0t09u2srupo5td978og79gns@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

Hi,

Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>

So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.

NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.

I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.

The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.

The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows

1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.

2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.

3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.

www.e-sword.net

4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)

I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)

5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?

6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.

7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.

8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.

9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.

10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.

11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.

12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)

These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.

And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

How about no rules - but serious and logical discussion?

The truth is not subject to your rules.

The truth is simply what is - or more specifically - what actually
happened?

People's interpretation is a different matter.

Your mind has to be open for the truth - a closed mind will
not accept truthful material.

If you have read anything that I have written - I do not get
down to a personal and emotional level.
I stand by what I have written - the truth does not favour
Jews, Christians or Muslims, etc - nor is it contained
solely within the Bible.
I agree with those who say the bible is flawed and is a work
of man, and not the world of god (as it is claimed to be).
All the claims within the bible has to be proven from other
sources - because that is how truth is substantiated.
You cannot rely upon blind faith in the holy spirit, etc -
that only leads to blind ignorance.
I resort only to logical and sensible discussion, and not
emotional name calling, etc which shows one's lack of intelligence.
Your source of information (and understanding of it) is flawed.
Do you want a serious discussion of truth - or don't you?
The truth is what did happen? You have examine EVERYTHING
to sort out what is truthful or not?
You only wish to discuss scripture. Leaving the truth out.
Harvey

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	16 Feb 2005 12:09:35 PM

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:37:44 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

Your mind has to be open for the truth - a closed mind will
not accept truthful material.

If you have read anything that I have written - I do not get
down to a personal and emotional level.

Okay, I'll take your word for it. So what's your
problem with the rules then?

I stand by what I have written - the truth does not favour
Jews, Christians or Muslims, etc - nor is it contained
solely within the Bible.
I agree with those who say the bible is flawed and is a work
of man, and not the world of god (as it is claimed to be).
All the claims within the bible has to be proven from other
sources - because that is how truth is substantiated.
You cannot rely upon blind faith in the holy spirit, etc -
that only leads to blind ignorance.

Well, then we have nothing to debate. Since you do not
view the Bible as the truth, what is the difference
what it says, regarding the end times?

I resort only to logical and sensible discussion, and not
emotional name calling, etc which shows one's lack of intelligence.

I agree.

Your source of information (and understanding of it) is flawed.

I openly apologize for my comment. It seems that I
mistook you for another poster. Again, I apologize.

Do you want a serious discussion of truth - or don't you?
The truth is what did happen? You have examine EVERYTHING
to sort out what is truthful or not?

You only wish to discuss scripture. Leaving the truth out.

You assume that the Scripture isn't the truth. That's
your belief. Mine is different. Thus, what is there
to discuss regarding what the Bible says about the end
times? You tell me.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Your Name Here=Harvey"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	16 Feb 2005 04:09:23 PM

In article <mt27119rjqdco3m74uqep52rn4f24m5q78@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:37:44 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

Your mind has to be open for the truth - a closed mind will
not accept truthful material.

If you have read anything that I have written - I do not get
down to a personal and emotional level.

Okay, I'll take your word for it. So what's your
problem with the rules then?

Well, then we have nothing to debate. Since you do not
view the Bible as the truth, what is the difference
what it says, regarding the end times?

I am not one to debate scripture with, unless it is something
I am familiar with.
eg. The Book of Ezekiel
What is your understanding about this?

I resort only to logical and sensible discussion, and not
emotional name calling, etc which shows one's lack of intelligence.

I agree.

Even though we may end up disagreeing - if we are logical and
reasonable people - we should be able to agree on some things,
if we pursue truth and events that did happen...

Your source of information (and understanding of it) is flawed.

I openly apologize for my comment. It seems that I
mistook you for another poster. Again, I apologize.

You assume that the Scripture isn't the truth. That's
your belief. Mine is different. Thus, what is there
to discuss regarding what the Bible says about the end
times? You tell me.

The reason why I see 'the' scripture not being truthful is
because of 1001 reasons why it shows up as being not.
All the consistancies that lie in the bible and christianity.
Neither is perfect or without flaw - in details, philosophy,
logic - you name it.
The history of the bible is not flawless.
And there is the claim that 'it' is written by many
anonymous authors - and the only reason that the text is
accepted - because it's credited with being 'written by the
holy spirit' - but so too are other ancient texts, which are
not 'changed/edited/revised/etc' as the bible has.
I am not a scholar of such texts, but isn't the background to the
bible, that the current bible only was presented at a certain time,
and before that another 'bible' was in use.
Perhaps someone else in this Newsgroup can give a detailed and
accurate recounting / summation of the earliest known history of
the bible, that most people do agree on?
My own views, is that I tend to subscribe to what is presented here
www.tjresearch.info
Which tells of another view about Jesus, etc.
www.tombofjesus.com
Is not related to the above site but substantiates the location
of Kashmir as being significant.
With the above information - you can reply with - Oh yes, they are all
lies. Maybe you'll even discount
Edward T Martin's 'King of Travellers - Jesus Lost Years in India' in which
this guy lived and worked in that part of the world, and all the information
he's researched first hand, is incorrect?
In this argument - you should not discount what information is provided
by the Jews and Muslims - regarding the story of Jesus.
The later recognising him as a prophet - which does seem to be correct.
I personally get the impression that he never made claims to be the saviour,
son of god, etc. All that was claimed by the text later on (not of his
own mouth, unless it was written by some later writer).
The resurrection to me, did not happen. This was presented in
'Did Jesus Die?' which is a British television documentary, which is not
linked to the above sites/info - but is independent to the above, presenting
the same kind of inquiry and coming up with it's own conclusions, etc.
Harvey

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	16 Feb 2005 04:28:48 PM

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:09:23 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

I resort only to logical and sensible discussion, and not
emotional name calling, etc which shows one's lack of intelligence.

I agree.

Even though we may end up disagreeing - if we are logical and
reasonable people - we should be able to agree on some things,
if we pursue truth and events that did happen...

For what purpose? For you to try to claim that
"archaeology says this didn't happen", when in reality,
it would only mean that they haven't found it yet and
will end up with egg on their faces, just as they have
so many times before, that you hear nothing of?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Your Name Here=Harvey"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	16 Feb 2005 06:09:31 PM

In article <v6i711dc6vlpi2qf0j4unri9uc9r99jeqh@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:09:23 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

I resort only to logical and sensible discussion, and not
emotional name calling, etc which shows one's lack of intelligence.

I agree.

Even though we may end up disagreeing - if we are logical and
reasonable people - we should be able to agree on some things,
if we pursue truth and events that did happen...

For what purpose? For you to try to claim that
"archaeology says this didn't happen", when in reality,
it would only mean that they haven't found it yet and
will end up with egg on their faces, just as they have
so many times before, that you hear nothing of?

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

If archeology was the exact science it is suppose to be, then it
could be used as some reliable means of verification.
But alas it is controlled politically in one way or another
(a country defend's it's claim to it's own antiquities as with
Egypt - Egyptians like to think that 'they' built the great pyramid,
and not anyone else, and would not think it was built 73,000 years
ago? Or that far back in history, as it predates the 'Egyptians'
as is known). And the other politican angle is that of reputations and
prestige in the scientific and academic community.
That to present something that goes against current accepted theory is
heretical and is suicide for one's future career prospects - such as
validation of evidence of that which should not be.
eg. human footprints alongside dinosaurs, machined metal parts in
stone age times, etc.
Just do a search for 'Forbidden Archaeology' to see how close minded
conventional archaeology is.
For the truth - you search for it everywhere in everything.
Pieces of the puzzle come from everywhere - and not from one area
alone. Truthful information will confirm whatever great truths are.
You may probably have the bible and christianity as your foundation
of truth, which you use logic and reason to make it all seem truthful
to you? But I say you have to look towards the real world for
confirmation or denial of what truths you know of.
Don't forget to make use of observations from every field to validate
what you know - or not know.
The typical conventional view is - you have a theory or framework,
and deny what doesn't fit into it.
But I say - look at what doesn't fit, see if it is pure hokey or not?
If it is genuine information, and there are lots of others like that,
that does not fit - then your framework or theory, etc is inadequate,
which claims to be aware of everything.
The Bible and Christianity doesn't answer the big questions adequately.
You have to look at the history of the world for answers.
Similarly at the frontiers of science, uncovering more information about
the universe.
Harvey
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	17 Feb 2005 09:29:48 AM

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:09:31 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

In article <v6i711dc6vlpi2qf0j4unri9uc9r99jeqh@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:09:23 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

I resort only to logical and sensible discussion, and not
emotional name calling, etc which shows one's lack of intelligence.

I agree.

Even though we may end up disagreeing - if we are logical and
reasonable people - we should be able to agree on some things,
if we pursue truth and events that did happen...

For what purpose? For you to try to claim that
"archaeology says this didn't happen", when in reality,
it would only mean that they haven't found it yet and
will end up with egg on their faces, just as they have
so many times before, that you hear nothing of?

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

If archeology was the exact science it is suppose to be, then it
could be used as some reliable means of verification.

So if it affirms the Bible, then it's not accurate and
politically controlled. This is where we will run into
trouble.

But alas it is controlled politically in one way or another
(a country defend's it's claim to it's own antiquities as with
Egypt - Egyptians like to think that 'they' built the great pyramid,
and not anyone else, and would not think it was built 73,000 years
ago?

The fact is, we have no records going back any farther
than 5 or 6,000 years and the date of 10,000 years that
many try to apply, is based on an implication that
cannot be verified.

The Bible and Christianity doesn't answer the big questions adequately.

According to you. Or, it doesn't fit your desired
response.

You have to look at the history of the world for answers.

For some answers. The history of the world does not
answer the big questions at all, let alone adequately.

Similarly at the frontiers of science, uncovering more information about
the universe.

According to presumptions made and forcing the data to
fit into them.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Your Name Here=Harvey"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	17 Feb 2005 04:33:05 PM

In article <aud911hsges0up92v0hvfbli8580o65ffu@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:09:31 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

In article <v6i711dc6vlpi2qf0j4unri9uc9r99jeqh@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:09:23 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

I resort only to logical and sensible discussion, and not
emotional name calling, etc which shows one's lack of intelligence.

I agree.

Even though we may end up disagreeing - if we are logical and
reasonable people - we should be able to agree on some things,
if we pursue truth and events that did happen...

For what purpose? For you to try to claim that
"archaeology says this didn't happen", when in reality,
it would only mean that they haven't found it yet and
will end up with egg on their faces, just as they have
so many times before, that you hear nothing of?

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

If archeology was the exact science it is suppose to be, then it
could be used as some reliable means of verification.

So if it affirms the Bible, then it's not accurate and
politically controlled. This is where we will run into
trouble.

It will be a test of our own knowledge of archeology to be able
to discuss such issues in detail.
I am only of general knowledge - but even so - we could agree on
some points?
That archeology isn't as accurate or as knowing as it is made out
to be. That much of our history is unknown.
Even if we were to discuss only the last 2,000 - 3,000 years I'd
think we have difficulties agreeing - on what is what.
Which is my point about misunderstanding the bible - that we
don't understand 'it' so clearly as you think you do...
There has been a tremendous change in technology and knowledge
(eg. medicine as one example). You may say? That this does not
affect morality and spiritual matters - but I think they do.
I'm not saying that they can't be spiritual in a 'primitive'
society - but that you have to be sure they are 'spiritual' and
not simply believing in something 'else'.
My main argument for the bible not being so accurate - is that
the morality and motive of the people of the time (who had
control and editorship of the bible, churches, etc) is in question.
And always shall be.
Christians like to think that the apostles were 100% true and
accurate - but I don't think that is the case at all.
Paul is hardly a reliable and trustworthy character.
His history proves it.

The fact is, we have no records going back any farther
than 5 or 6,000 years and the date of 10,000 years that
many try to apply, is based on an implication that
cannot be verified.

The Bible and Christianity doesn't answer the big questions adequately.

According to you. Or, it doesn't fit your desired
response.

Well, please sum up briefly the major tenets of christianity, which
answers the following.
What happens when one dies. Where does the spirit go?
Did the resurrection happen? Prove it.
Is Jesus the son of god? Prove it.
(Proof is anything you care to put forward as proof, whether
actual physical evidence of any kind, or even a logical line of
argument showing the logic and reason of it.)
What is the realationship of Christianity and the Bible, with everything
else in the world? eg.
With Jews and the Muslims?
With everything else.

You have to look at the history of the world for answers.

For some answers. The history of the world does not
answer the big questions at all, let alone adequately.

Events after the crucifixion. Anything significant events happening?
Any events afterwards which shows evidence of Christianity and the Bible
being accurate and true?

Similarly at the frontiers of science, uncovering more information about
the universe.

According to presumptions made and forcing the data to
fit into them.

You can have a theory - and then you see if the data fits the theory.
The data that does not fit, show inconsistancies in the theory.
All data that is valid, must be valid. If you have to exclude certain data,
then the theory is not perfect. I would guess.

Harvey
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	17 Feb 2005 05:20:56 PM

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:33:05 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

If archeology was the exact science it is suppose to be, then it
could be used as some reliable means of verification.

So if it affirms the Bible, then it's not accurate and
politically controlled. This is where we will run into
trouble.

Why don't we make it easier and agree that we will
assume the historical aspect of the Bible to be
accurate, for the sake of this discussion. Frankly, I
don't have time to dig through the archaeological world
with you.

There has been a tremendous change in technology and knowledge
(eg. medicine as one example). You may say? That this does not
affect morality and spiritual matters - but I think they do.
I'm not saying that they can't be spiritual in a 'primitive'
society - but that you have to be sure they are 'spiritual' and
not simply believing in something 'else'.

You assume that man was some cave dwelling ignoramus.
True research shows that the farther back we go, the
more complex language got. Even languages recently
found, took scholars decades to decipher. Research
shows that the Egyptians had batteries 5,000 years ago.
these are but two examples, so I will not buy into your
"primitive man" scenario. True science contradicts it.

My main argument for the bible not being so accurate - is that
the morality and motive of the people of the time (who had
control and editorship of the bible, churches, etc) is in question.
And always shall be.

The fact is, you will be using out of date information,
still spewed out by the liberals and atheists. All of
that garbage about the Bible being edited and us not
having the real Scriptures and all that other garbage,
is just that... garbage.
If you wish to debate Biblical issues, then we will
again have to accept that the Bible we have is what it
is supposed to be. If there is a God, then He is in
control and man is not going to thwart His plan to keep
His word in our hands. If He can make a universe, then
I think He can handle that. :)

Christians like to think that the apostles were 100% true and
accurate - but I don't think that is the case at all.
Paul is hardly a reliable and trustworthy character.
His history proves it.

A claim isn't evidence. And now bear in mind, that
when you say, "his history", you are automatically
stating that the writings are historically accurate.
You see, you don't get to say that just when it's
convenient for your argument and then later claim
inaccuracy, when I show a point in the Bible that
rebuts you. Remember that.

The Bible and Christianity doesn't answer the big questions adequately.

According to you. Or, it doesn't fit your desired
response.

Well, please sum up briefly the major tenets of christianity, which
answers the following.

What happens when one dies. Where does the spirit go?

That's a question that I don't claim to have all of the
answers to. I can tell you that when a Christian dies,
their spirit goes to Heaven. When an unbeliever dies,
whether their spirit ceases to exist, or goes to a
place called Hell for eternity, is a subject I haven't
quite solved yet.

Did the resurrection happen? Prove it.

I'm not going to try. The fact is, that you want
people to prove the resurrection and then demand that
they not use the Bible. Tell you what... Prove to me
that the chemical table exists, but don't use any books
that involve chemicals.

Is Jesus the son of god? Prove it.

See above.

(Proof is anything you care to put forward as proof, whether
actual physical evidence of any kind, or even a logical line of
argument showing the logic and reason of it.)

See above.
The fact is, that the life of Jesus is better attested
to than the life of any other figure from ancient
history. The fact is that you accept as historical
many other characters from ancient history that have
far less evidence and that evidence is much father away
from the time of the events than the writings about
Jesus. That's a hypocritical approach, don't you
think?

What is the realationship of Christianity and the Bible, with everything
else in the world? eg.

The Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of the living
God. It is the ruler by which we measure right and
wrong.

With Jews and the Muslims?

God's saving grace is open to all who would have it.
If a Jew or Muslim chooses not to, that's on them.

With everything else.

A rather vague question.

You have to look at the history of the world for answers.

For some answers. The history of the world does not
answer the big questions at all, let alone adequately.

Events after the crucifixion. Anything significant events happening?
Any events afterwards which shows evidence of Christianity and the Bible
being accurate and true?

Yes, letters being written that name witnesses.
Witnesses that could easily have been checked and I'm
sure, were, by many. These texts were not written
hundreds of years after the events and the late dates
that the liberals try to put on them, were dismissed
long ago. But they hang onto them and keep trying to
spread them as truth. Kind of like you will find
Haeckel's drawings in "science" books today.

Similarly at the frontiers of science, uncovering more information about
the universe.

According to presumptions made and forcing the data to
fit into them.

You can have a theory - and then you see if the data fits the theory.
The data that does not fit, show inconsistancies in the theory.

All data that is valid, must be valid. If you have to exclude certain data,
then the theory is not perfect. I would guess.

You cannot disprove the Resurrection. Science isn't in
the business of proof. It is in the business of
disproving. In reality, the ball is in your court.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Your Name Here=Harvey"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	17 Feb 2005 11:39:22 PM

In article <ls8a11l90m1u8o2sa8b70ep518sm783tqk@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:33:05 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

If archeology was the exact science it is suppose to be, then it
could be used as some reliable means of verification.

So if it affirms the Bible, then it's not accurate and
politically controlled. This is where we will run into
trouble.

What do you mean by 'the historical aspect' of the Bible to
be accurate?
In trying to understand the earlier point - I don't think you
can get away from agreeing with certain points, and disagreeing
with others.
re: archaeology, likewise accuracy within the Bible.

There is the evidence to suggest that a high civilisation was
attained at different times at different parts of the world
(and not solely the region that the bible covers) - and that
they declined through one disaster or another.
Myths of different countries suggest or say this.
And there are ancient sites around the world (and not so
ancient) which suggest a high level of technology - which we
cannot exactly duplicate today - name various megalithic structures
and constructions.
Then you have to account how the first great civilisation started?
What drove that civilisation to such heights.

The fact is, you will be using out of date information,
still spewed out by the liberals and atheists. All of
that garbage about the Bible being edited and us not
having the real Scriptures and all that other garbage,
is just that... garbage.

If you wish to debate Biblical issues, then we will
again have to accept that the Bible we have is what it
is supposed to be. If there is a God, then He is in
control and man is not going to thwart His plan to keep
His word in our hands. If He can make a universe, then
I think He can handle that. :)

Christians like to think that the apostles were 100% true and
accurate - but I don't think that is the case at all.
Paul is hardly a reliable and trustworthy character.
His history proves it.

A lot of people have heard about Paul being Saul
who persecuted Jesus's followers - then was converted
in a instant to being a follower, then became more
than that.
This is hardly an example of a man with a fine and
reputable character.

The Bible and Christianity doesn't answer the big questions adequately.

According to you. Or, it doesn't fit your desired
response.

Well, please sum up briefly the major tenets of christianity, which
answers the following.

What happens when one dies. Where does the spirit go?

And what about the day of judgement? And resurrection?
How is that suppose to play out?
What you explained above briefly - hardly seems sensible,
or logical.
How can a 'belief' changes one's destination at time of
one's death?

Did the resurrection happen? Prove it.

I didn't take chemistry at High School, only general science.
I guess you're talking about the Periodic Table of Elements?
The Periodic Table is only a graphical representation that
shows the relationship of elements to each other, with their
specific information.
One can assume that there would be more - if we knew about
them, that do not exist here on Earth.

Is Jesus the son of god? Prove it.

See above.

(Proof is anything you care to put forward as proof, whether
actual physical evidence of any kind, or even a logical line of
argument showing the logic and reason of it.)

See above.

The fact is, that the life of Jesus is better attested
to than the life of any other figure from ancient
history. The fact is that you accept as historical
many other characters from ancient history that have
far less evidence and that evidence is much father away
from the time of the events than the writings about
Jesus. That's a hypocritical approach, don't you
think?

What is the realationship of Christianity and the Bible, with everything
else in the world? eg.

The Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of the living
God. It is the ruler by which we measure right and
wrong.

With Jews and the Muslims?

God's saving grace is open to all who would have it.
If a Jew or Muslim chooses not to, that's on them.

With everything else.

A rather vague question.

You have to look at the history of the world for answers.

For some answers. The history of the world does not
answer the big questions at all, let alone adequately.

Events after the crucifixion. Anything significant events happening?
Any events afterwards which shows evidence of Christianity and the Bible
being accurate and true?

Similarly at the frontiers of science, uncovering more information about
the universe.

According to presumptions made and forcing the data to
fit into them.

You can have a theory - and then you see if the data fits the theory.
The data that does not fit, show inconsistancies in the theory.

All data that is valid, must be valid. If you have to exclude certain data,
then the theory is not perfect. I would guess.

You cannot disprove the Resurrection. Science isn't in
the business of proof. It is in the business of
disproving. In reality, the ball is in your court.

Well, there is the view that resurrection did not happen but a
resusicitation of Jesus, that the spear the Centurion put into
Jesus was only superficially done, to see if he was conscious -
to see that he did not flinch or show signs of being conscious.
That Joseph of Arimathea administered herbs over 3 days and
nights to revive him - that Jesus survived the crucifixion and
lived for many years afterwards.
www.tombofjesus.com
That Jesus settled down in Kashmir and died there.
The tomb actually exists, with his footprints showing he was
crucified.
That which is handed down to us about Jesus, etc - is not accurate.
Some of it is true, some of it is very wrong.
The teachings of Jesus and Mohammed were both distorted, such that
the religions that followed after them did not reflect their true
teachings.
King of Travelers
In 1963, Meier was the co-discoverer of ancient scrolls in a long abandoned
tomb near Jerusalem. Now known as the Talmud of Jmmanuel, the scrolls contain
very controversial, and previously unknown, information about the life of
Jmmanuel, the man we know as "Jesus".
'King of Travelers - Jesus Lost Years in India by Edward T. Martin
In the first book, King of Travelers, maverick researcher and explorer Edward
T. Martin seeks to find out what really happened to Jesus Christ (Jmmanuel)
during the mysterious missing 18 years in his life, from the age of 12 to 30,
what truths have been hidden from us and why. He journeys to remote, exotic
locations in India, Nepal, and elsewhere in Central Asia, unraveling the
mysteries of Jesus/Jmmanuel's lost years. Follow the author on a thrilling
journey of spiritual discovery as he travels the world, from Alaska to the
Himalayas, in an extremely fascinating and well written search for lost
knowledge, adventure, and much more!
Martin writes with a genuine warmth that makes you wish you were traveling
along with him, not only to share the experience but to hear him tell you
first hand about his own life. His travels through Afghanistan and India in
search of more information about Jesus/Jmmanuel's years spent in India are
pure adventure. Great photos compliment the story and Edward T. Martin's love
of travel and freedom surely make him a King of Travelers as well. '
Well, if you think that the above 'claims' are not valid, that is
your own view - but why not check it out?
If you are after the 'truth' then doing so, will not hurt your views
one little bit. After all, you are so sure your own views are correct?
Harvey

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	18 Feb 2005 08:52:10 AM

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:39:22 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

In article <ls8a11l90m1u8o2sa8b70ep518sm783tqk@4ax.com>,
newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com says...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:33:05 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts,

(Your Name Here=Harvey)
spake thusly:

If archeology was the exact science it is suppose to be, then it
could be used as some reliable means of verification.

So if it affirms the Bible, then it's not accurate and
politically controlled. This is where we will run into
trouble.

What do you mean by 'the historical aspect' of the Bible to
be accurate?

In trying to understand the earlier point - I don't think you
can get away from agreeing with certain points, and disagreeing
with others.
re: archaeology, likewise accuracy within the Bible.

As I said, I don't have time to argue archaeology with
you and the Bible has never been demonstrated to be
wrong in this regard.

There is the evidence to suggest that a high civilisation was
attained at different times at different parts of the world
(and not solely the region that the bible covers) - and that
they declined through one disaster or another.
Myths of different countries suggest or say this.

And there are ancient sites around the world (and not so
ancient) which suggest a high level of technology - which we
cannot exactly duplicate today - name various megalithic structures
and constructions.

Then you have to account how the first great civilisation started?
What drove that civilisation to such heights.

You assume they were "driven" there and didn't have
that ability already.

The fact is, you will be using out of date information,
still spewed out by the liberals and atheists. All of
that garbage about the Bible being edited and us not
having the real Scriptures and all that other garbage,
is just that... garbage.

If you wish to debate Biblical issues, then we will
again have to accept that the Bible we have is what it
is supposed to be. If there is a God, then He is in
control and man is not going to thwart His plan to keep
His word in our hands. If He can make a universe, then
I think He can handle that. :)

Christians like to think that the apostles were 100% true and
accurate - but I don't think that is the case at all.
Paul is hardly a reliable and trustworthy character.
His history proves it.

So if one turns to the right way, one is not reputable?

The Bible and Christianity doesn't answer the big questions adequately.

According to you. Or, it doesn't fit your desired
response.

Well, please sum up briefly the major tenets of christianity, which
answers the following.

What happens when one dies. Where does the spirit go?

And what about the day of judgement? And resurrection?
How is that suppose to play out?

That is not one post, but a book, my friend. :)

What you explained above briefly - hardly seems sensible,
or logical.
How can a 'belief' changes one's destination at time of
one's death?

How does turning the wheel in your car change where you
arrive?

Did the resurrection happen? Prove it.

You haven't recognized my point.

Is Jesus the son of god? Prove it.

See above.

(Proof is anything you care to put forward as proof, whether
actual physical evidence of any kind, or even a logical line of
argument showing the logic and reason of it.)

See above.

The fact is, that the life of Jesus is better attested
to than the life of any other figure from ancient
history. The fact is that you accept as historical
many other characters from ancient history that have
far less evidence and that evidence is much father away
from the time of the events than the writings about
Jesus. That's a hypocritical approach, don't you
think?

What is the realationship of Christianity and the Bible, with everything
else in the world? eg.

The Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of the living
God. It is the ruler by which we measure right and
wrong.

With Jews and the Muslims?

God's saving grace is open to all who would have it.
If a Jew or Muslim chooses not to, that's on them.

With everything else.

A rather vague question.

You have to look at the history of the world for answers.

For some answers. The history of the world does not
answer the big questions at all, let alone adequately.

Events after the crucifixion. Anything significant events happening?
Any events afterwards which shows evidence of Christianity and the Bible
being accurate and true?

Similarly at the frontiers of science, uncovering more information about
the universe.

According to presumptions made and forcing the data to
fit into them.

You can have a theory - and then you see if the data fits the theory.
The data that does not fit, show inconsistancies in the theory.

All data that is valid, must be valid. If you have to exclude certain data,
then the theory is not perfect. I would guess.

You cannot disprove the Resurrection. Science isn't in
the business of proof. It is in the business of
disproving. In reality, the ball is in your court.

According to you.
The theory about Jesus reviving is nonsensical. I'll
tell you what. Pick up two books.
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith.
They'll answer many questions for you.

The teachings of Jesus and Mohammed were both distorted, such that
the religions that followed after them did not reflect their true
teachings.

That is a claim, not evidence.

King of Travelers

In 1963, Meier was the co-discoverer of ancient scrolls in a long abandoned
tomb near Jerusalem. Now known as the Talmud of Jmmanuel, the scrolls contain
very controversial, and previously unknown, information about the life of
Jmmanuel, the man we know as "Jesus".

'King of Travelers - Jesus Lost Years in India by Edward T. Martin

In the first book, King of Travelers, maverick researcher and explorer Edward
T. Martin seeks to find out what really happened to Jesus Christ (Jmmanuel)
during the mysterious missing 18 years in his life, from the age of 12 to 30,
what truths have been hidden from us and why. He journeys to remote, exotic
locations in India, Nepal, and elsewhere in Central Asia, unraveling the
mysteries of Jesus/Jmmanuel's lost years. Follow the author on a thrilling
journey of spiritual discovery as he travels the world, from Alaska to the
Himalayas, in an extremely fascinating and well written search for lost
knowledge, adventure, and much more!

Martin writes with a genuine warmth that makes you wish you were traveling
along with him, not only to share the experience but to hear him tell you
first hand about his own life. His travels through Afghanistan and India in
search of more information about Jesus/Jmmanuel's years spent in India are
pure adventure. Great photos compliment the story and Edward T. Martin's love
of travel and freedom surely make him a King of Travelers as well. '

Well, if you think that the above 'claims' are not valid, that is
your own view - but why not check it out?
If you are after the 'truth' then doing so, will not hurt your views
one little bit. After all, you are so sure your own views are correct?

Jesus in India is a load of trash and the author gives
no proof of it occurring. And I notice that you
hypocritically willingly believe what this man wrote,
without putting it under the same scrutiny.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "RAYPHOS"
Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE	18 Feb 2005 11:36:58 AM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C515B6.8E99C340
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gentlemen,
I am coming in at the tail end of your conversation and I will not =
review except for the three questions that you asked. The only way to =
correctly respond to a closed mind is with scripture! Our belief is =
solely based on the written word of God. Go argue with him!
What happens when one dies. Where does the spirit go?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
The spirit or soul of man returns to the one who created it, God who =
thereafter will judge all of mankind. Notice that God says the "living =
soul" but not the physical body is His!
Ezek 18:4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as =
the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will =
die.=20
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die [G599], but after =
this the judgment:
Eccl 12:7 and the dust [H6083] returns to the ground it came from, and =
the spirit [H7307] returns to God who gave it.
Did the resurrection happen? &
Is Jesus the son of god? Prove it.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The verse asks Who Will Believe will be given understanding? For those =
Jews who do not believe, I have take quotes only from the OLD Testament =
to respond and prove that the Messiah was foretold "he would ride into =
Jerusalem on a donkey". =20
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of =
Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, =
gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. See Mat =
21:5 same wording.
Isa 53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the =
LORD been revealed?
Isa 53:2 [JESUS] He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a =
root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to =
him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. [UGLY LOOKING]
Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and =
familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was =
despised, and we esteemed him not.[AS A SERVANT]
Isa 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet =
we considered him stricken by God, sm