Fortigurn

BEREA Admin Team
  • Content count

    13,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    396

Fortigurn last won the day on March 21

Fortigurn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,138 Excellent

About Fortigurn

  • Rank
    Addicted to BEREA
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,887 profile views
  1. And behold, I even linked to a book to explain it. The one that was before. That is why in our community we don't mandate how often and don't force fortified wine. A ma who is mortal needs to be saved from mortality. A man who is actually dead needs to be saved from death. But since you don't believe Jesus was ever a man, and since you don't believe Jesus ever died, I can imagine this causes some problems for you. And that quotation says the same; "this devil", not "a devil". How can you possibly equate them? But it tells us it was the cup for the passover meal, which we know was wine. The fruit of the vine in those days was wine, not grape juice. It doesn't say that. Jesus seems to have missed that memo. But this is all just nonsense. The Bible never says this. God can do it, and so can men to whom God gives that power.
  2. You don't even know what this is talking about. This criticism only applies to one specific area of Ehrman's work. The general agreement of professional scholars in a field. No it is nothing like that, because mainstream confessional scholarship agrees with Ehrman on the point under dispute. You missed out these parts of the article. In fact you didn't even quote the footnote properly. Here's what it says.
  3. Yes. But there's no evidence for this. The Jews certainly did not believe in a "Godhead", and the singular pronoun is used throughout the chapter. I do not know what you mean. There is no publisher for Australia. The BASF is pretty standard. Here. God has done lots of things which Jesus has never done. Like creating the universe for example. Like raising Jesus from the dead. Like giving Jesus the power to perform miracles. Like telling the future of Himself.
  4. It is God (one person), addressing the angels. However, in the very next verse we are told that God acted alone. That is just gibberish. No not actually 100%. But he does act in ways that God does, because he was appointed as God's representative. The apostles even say this directly, referring to him as a man appointed by God, a man through whom God worked. Unless you view this within its original socio-historical context (instead of fourth century Greek nonsense), you won't make any sense of it. Er, no. A lot of Adelaide is viewed as quaint, old fashioned, and even cultish by other Christadelphians in Australia. And for good reason. We are not talking about scholars who don't believe Jesus was divine, but who don't believe Jesus thought he was divine, and who don't believe his disciples thought he was divine, and who don't believe the apostles thought he was divine, and who instead believe that it was only a century later that Christians started believing Jesus was divine. Look at standard commentaries on Jesus' words "Why do you call me good?", and you will see that most of them understand Jesus was not calling himself God. "While it is possible that Jesus is making a subtle claim to being deity, it is unlikely that he would expect this man to understand such a subtle remark. It is more likely that Jesus is either responding to the implication that inheriting eternal life is based on goodness or that Jesus is responding to the man’s insincere flattery. In either case Jesus is not engaging the question of his own goodness. Eternal life is a gift of God’s goodness and is not based on human goodness: “No one is good.”" Mark C. Black, Luke (College Press NIV Commentary; Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 1995), Lk 18:18–19. "This rhetorical question directed the ruler to focus on God so the he would be responsive to God [AB, BECNT, Gdt, ICC, MGC, NAC]. Jesus’ statement that only God was good brings out God’s unique holiness and righteousness and if the ruler wanted to follow the ‘good’ One, he must follow God and obey the instructions of the teacher from God [BECNT]. Only God is truly good and the source of goodness when it is found in others, so if the ruler recognized any goodness in Jesus, he must attribute it to the right source [AB]. Jesus’ goodness was the goodness of God working through him [Gdt, ICC, MGC]." Richard C. Blight, An Exegetical Summary of Luke 12–24 (2nd ed.; Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 258–259. "If this was Jesus’ intention, it is certainly a veiled proclamation. In fact, Jesus saw his role as pointing people to God through him, rather than drawing exclusive attention to himself. There are more probable explanations than that it is a subtle rebuke." Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 9:51–24:53 (vol. 2; Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 1477. "Jesus wants the ruler to focus on God and his will so that he will be genuinely responsive to God (Fitzmyer 1985: 1199; Warfield 1914: 211 [repr. p. 139]). This explanation is the most contextually satisfying, since 18:20 goes on to cite God’s commandments." Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 9:51–24:53 (vol. 2; Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 1477–1478.
  5. I am closing this thread due to SDA failing to address evidence and repeatedly quoting from invalid sources.
  6. No, data cannot be fitted to almost any model. Not when you are doing science.
  7. But you don't have any scientific basis for this. You have a lot to learn about evolution.
  8. Yes they are. There are two separate notes on line 1031.
  9. Yes, in the sense that you are deliberately calling it "not evolution" even though by definition it is evolution. You don't even know the entire history of domestic breeding. The entire history of domestic breeding shows how new species can arise through selection.
  10. But you are just making things up. The emergence of new species via processes such as natural selection is actually evolution. That's precisely why natural selection helps explain the diversity of species.
  11. I am sorry but "baraminology" is simply fantasy. It was made up by Young Earth Creationists who have no idea what they are talking about. Please read the NCSE article to which you linked, which explains why "baraminology" is junk science. It seems you have not even read the article. If you believe that natural selection made new species then you accept evolution. What you have described is evolution.
  12. How are you interpreting the Hebrew word for "kinds", and what evidence do you have for your interpretation? Additionally, what evidence do you have that God magically made tens of thousands of new species after the flood? That is not what the Bible says.
  13. No it isn't a large box. A large box wouldn't even hold several of the skeletons. Six thousand is thousands and thousands. But you are just making things up. Yes you do. The archaeological evidence. A post-flood dispersal doesn't create new creatures.
  14. They include entire skeletons. Even the small number I listed is far more than would fit in a large box. There are thousands and thousands of human fossils. "From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals." http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils Then stop proposing it until you do. The extinction at the K/T boundary does not fit anything in the Bible record.