Why I reject Word of Faith as false

Tallen

Active member
Why I reject the wof religion is because at its best it is full of error and misleading, at its worse it is heretical and destructive.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
I was dead in my sins...Jesus took my sins...He became as dead as I was...only more so. And He rose. There came a moment when the light refused to shine. As it is written, "In your light we see light..."
Which doesn't address my statement. You've separated the persons (correctly, me thinks), but only spoke of one.

Not quite...
I'll take this as an answer to my Sly question....

The Father willed, the Spirit brooded and the Word spoke. Each agent operated in His capacity to create, and each equally necessary.
....and this as agreement to the rest of my words.

This is nonsense. I have proof that has met the standard I set...but I did the research. Experience is not something you can give away. It's a story...a testimony...a word that can be heard, by which faith can come. Faith brings experience because faith that is not tried is only theory.,
Nothing is proof until you can prove it to those who didn't believe you in the first place. It is not proof because you met your own standard. I'll try that with astrophysics and see how far I get. Experience still, no matter how extraordinary, can be coincidence. And, mostly, it is your story about what happened to you.

But when we begin talking about faith, then we are talking about the biblical construct that God gave us to reach out to him when he calls and believe in things hoped for that we cannot see. But that is not proof. You simply cannot prove God. You must have faith for yourself that God exists and that he is who he says he is in scripture. But then, different peoples all have their own Scripture/Koran/Bag Vigidah/whatever and each have faith in what they have faith in. Which one is proof?? Each has a story to tell. Each has their miracles. Each has their word from heaven. Each has their prophets. If you can prove what you know then they would all turn to your proof and be converted.

Understanding follows...after faith has been tested.
And even here, it is only faith that proves your (our) conviction that Jesus is raised from the dead. (But you can't prove it.)

There is a difference between a parable and a doctrine. This is the doctrine of the principles of faith, illustrated by a dead tree. Your workaround does not produce understanding of the point Jesus made so well..."If you...then..." is quite clear.
If it were a biblical, undeniable doctrine, then all denominations would embrace it. I don't see too many teaching the moving of literal mountains -- the only ones I see teaching this couldn't move a grain of sand from a window sill (if it's been moved to the new house, that is).

There is also a difference between a parable and an allegory. A parable tells a story; an allegory teaches a point. Jesus did not tell anyone or the church in whole to go move physical mountains. Nobody has. Jesus has not. Even God from heaven hasn't seen fit to do this (except for, perhaps, the volcanic eruptions he set in motion to kill the people he loves). It simply is not a literal teaching.

When Jesus taught a literal teaching, he showed his disciples. He touched the leper, the leper is healed; now go into the highways and heal the sick and tell them about the kingdom.

So what? It wasn't time for an actual mountain to move...yet. And the fulfillment is coming soon.
Uh huh. So if you refer to Jesus coming back and splitting a mountain in two..... that is not a human disciple picking up a mountain and casting it into the sea. Sorry, you can't dance and change the focus of the problem -- you just don't dance well enough.

Genocide?
Any creature can be the victim of genocide. But, ok, familicide. Better? Of course not.

Still wondering why God would kill his creation for you. God's having enough fun killing it for himself.

I could say something, but Joe might get on my case for being mean. I spoke to the plague of fleas and it went away.
At least you let the fleas live.

The apathy is your choice...That's one of the choices folks made in scripture...Job sounds a lot like you. So does Ecclesiastes. David cheers me up, on the other hand...and the farming material hit the fan with him several times.
So do you put Job and Ecclesiastes aside because they don't make you feel good? You only read the stuff that cheers you up? I'm sure that couldn't be true -- but then you do claim to be a form of Word of Faith. God is good. Oh, don't look at Job's first wife and family -- yeah, their dead because God allowed them to be dead, but he gave Job back twice the family and two wives :oops: . That's a good thing, right? I mean after what I read in Proverbs about needing to sit on the corner of one's roof.

So what...have not seen...still believe...blessed. Jesus said that to Thomas. I get it.
Which is well and fine and biblical. I get it. Still, no mountain has moved, nor will one at any Christian disciples hand.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
My part 1 of 2
Part 2 of 2
God doesn't watch believers fail...
No, he makes them fail. They learn better that way.

God doesn't watch believers fail...when faith is the ultimate goal:
So he doesn't watch upon condition? So sometimes he watches? Sometimes they meet the condition?

God doesn't watch believers fail...when faith is the ultimate goal: there are only three things that matter because they last...faith hope and love. And love is the greatest. If you died believing, as a stranger in a foreign land, you're looking for a city whose builder and maker is God. You did not die a loser.
Which has little to do with what I said. All this is well and fine and true. People had faith in God and God did not live up to their expectation and they died. I have personal experience with this story.

My wife did not die a loser -- I believe she's in heaven. But God did not -- did not -- live up to the promises that he gave her. Get under his wing and he will keep the disease and plague from touching you. So let's blame her now. Or we can say that we (WoF?) did not understand scripture the way that God intended it to be -- and now we are back to your experiences..... let our experiences define what scripture means. Oh, but that's backwards from what WoF teaches. We must understand the literal words: which she did and now she is dead.

No...He welcomed them and said "Well done. You understood." Now they're all watching to see if we get it. You somehow seem to think death is the end...."These all died believing..." Faith is THE end. Death is part of the test.
No, verse 39 clearly says: ".... yet they did not receive what was promised."
What they were promised.
What they were promised.
What they were promised.

They did not receive.

God made a promise. God lied. God gave them something better after the excruciating experiences (there we are again) of being stoned, sawed in half (you ever been sawed in half? Me neither. Bet it hurts).

Hebrews 11:latter half needs to be taken into account BEFORE you start speaking of literal mountains. Because the mountain isn't moving and the guy with the saw is coming for you.

Movements get flushed. I'm not into movements. The Word of Faith hermeneutics is the most successful paradigm for biblical exegesis I've found. Kenyon followed it. Wigglesworth followed it. Robby Dawkins walks it into Muslim mosques. To the degree that Hagin followed it, I can be with him...but where it becomes a ritual of right words, he loses me. Where WoF becomes an excuse for tithe extraction, Paul's warnings to Timothy ring out. WoF is not a means of gain. WoF is not movement or theory for me, but instruction for righteous conduct. And although I'm instructed by the distinctions you make so consistently, I really do not care that the definition of WoF that Paul coined first does not meet the definition you've extracted from the misconduct of those who have enriched themselves using the principles
You're putting the cart before the horse. Word of Faith existed in the 20th century and beyond, not in the 1st. Word of Faith attempted to take biblical principles and make a movement out of them. The movement did not exist in the bible for people of the 20th century to pick up and say "yes, this is what we do." No, they saw what they thought the bible said and then they said we will do this, and we will call it Word of Faith.

And Paul DID NOT coin the phrase "word of faith" any more than he coined a phrase "architect and builder" (Heb 11:10) so that we can have the Architect & Builder movement.

He said the "word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart(that is, the word that we preach)." What word? The word that preaches faith -- the word of faith. Not coining a phrase. Kenyon or Hagin, or their follower, did that. Paul was simply using words and stringing them together for your understanding.

Yep...Paul preceded Hagin by a handful of days.
Trite.

Your argument is specious. Had Paul written in English, it would have been THEWORDOFFAITH. ('OLOGOSTOYPICTOY) Every letter capitalized.
What? To emphasize it. Is that why he put it in parenthesis and set it off as a simple added sauce? You told me you knew how languages work. Now you sit here and play Cleo with Paul's mind??

Paul founded a movement that actually never ended. I found revival moments throughout history. Francis of Assisi knew the principles. Tyndale was warmed by the principles...we just celebrated the anniversary of his warming around the sixth of October.
Yes, Paul founded the movement of Christianity.

Again, cart ... horse. All these people knew the principles - not of Word of Faith, but of the Bible. And men in the 20th century took and assembled principles of their own liking and called it Word of Faith. (Others took and assembled principles in a different order and called it Baptist, others Methodist, etc.) You can't look back and see George Müller's great faith, who never called out the words "Word of Faith" and say: "Look, Müller is a Word of Faith practitioner!!" How disingenuous is that?

What you're saying makes no sense, Bob. If I'm not applying the principles I learned from Paul and the 1st century church, I'm reinventing an invention. I know many churches claim to "have the real deal." Westboro Baptist claims to have the "real deal." Claims can all be examined, like the critics do here. When you examine Hinn's claims you uncover his inventions, and you remove him from the claim. Simple as that. Any deviation from the doctrine Paul taught is invention and could be dangerous. And this is the best place I've found to examine claims.
Exactly (except what I struck). The Word of Faith movement is taking what they think is being said by Paul and others and forming their own understanding of doctrines and theology. They did not pick up something called "Word of Faith" from the Bible. They called it that in hindsight because of a parenthetical trio of words in Paul's writing. But Paul did not call this invention the Word of Faith.

Wait! What? I thought it didn't start until Hagin!
I'm quoting you, my genius. Go back and look. Ahh, nevermind, you said once you don't have the time to go back and find the context, so I'll reproduce it for you with a special little arrow for you to go back and see it yourself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referenced quote from the Pete man:
Something of reality struck the Word of Faith movement that began at Pentecost that day James was beheaded.​
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Word of Faith began when God looked at formlessness and void and called that which is not as though it was. When God spoke to the darkness and said "Light be," we saw the mountain move for the very first time.
So now you contradict yourself.

The principles of faith began to be taught with Abel, and Abraham...and where they were followed the fruit of the Spirit is manifested. There is nothing in the NT that does not find root in the OT.
I have no issue with this as written. Even: the word of faith was taught to Abel. But: the Word of Faith started in the 20th century.

Part 2 to follow.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
Part 2 of 2

I think you're wrong. Daniel shows me they had access to the prophets. He evoked Jeremiah when he saw that seventy years had passed. They had a promise...they came after Isaiah. Here's what they did know: 43:2 "When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze."
You make things up from silence. They claimed no promises from the prophets (as Word of Faith claims anything they can call a promise). They only walked in faith. They only claimed faith and God's righteousness.

I'm going to go start a movement called Bobism. And then I'm going to go through the Bible and find great men of faith and claim that they practiced Bobism. Look they are doing exactly what Bobism says to do. They knew!!

And it came from hearing, and hearing from the Word.
Yes. I'm sure God won't measure it to an idiot who doesn't know what to do with it. They would have had to have been taught somehow -- hmm, hearing and hearing and hearing.

Isaiah was pretty literal, wasn't it?
Huh?

The Word instructs us as to what we shall believe. It also produces the friction that makes believing a challenge. "I don't know" is always the impetus for more prayer and study and conversation with friends.
Eek. the time for prayer and study and conversations with friends has passed for my wife, who believed what Word of Faith said The Word was instructing her to do. She followed those instructions to a tee. (Just applying some of that ole "experience" here.)

The doctor was practically dancing for joy...the tumor was a 1A...as close to "benign" as melanoma can be...We're waiting for the biopsies from her lymph nodes...

...and recovering from the intrusion. Thanks.
Praise God that his world (yes with an 'L', as in creation set in motion) can produce good results alongside the bad. I hope and pray that her tumor is benign. And if they say it needs to come out -- get it out and don't listen to Andrew Wommack. Please.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Body and soul and spirit are not three persons...I think describing Father and son and spirit as "three persons" is inadequate...and it lends to the confusion pagans have over our tripartite God in Whose image we are made.

On the other hand, "triunity" actually works for me. It's a clever solution.

Maybe not though .....

Isn't there scripture that say's the God .... or god if you prefer ..... the one walking alone?

As in not a triune thingy.

body soul and spirit?

Maybe an embodied spirit. but when they add the soul thing .... what is that?

What does that mean?


Hey Pete how are you "feeling".

Do you want to cut of you're disobedient hand?

Well may be .... he seems to be a highly destructive member.

But I don't want to loose my natural hand.

IMO ... OPINION WE ARE NOT A SOUL.

We are embodied spirits ....
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Part one of two of part one of who knows?
Nothing is proof until you can prove it to those who didn't believe you in the first place. It is not proof because you met your own standard. I'll try that with astrophysics and see how far I get. Experience still, no matter how extraordinary, can be coincidence. And, mostly, it is your story about what happened to you.
This, too, is nonsense. Proof is proof...History suggests repeatedly that there is no guarantee that the proof, howsoever compelling, will be met with acceptance, even by the experts.

Let's look in modern terms: I have proof that Michael Flynn was framed by a rogue FBI/CIA/DOJ urged on by a corrupt DNC. Proof resulted in Michael Flynn's arrest, and not the arrest of the complicit perpetrators. His arrest contributed to two felonious attempts to overthrow the sitting president by impeachment based on evidence invented and paid for by the same parties listed above. I have proof of 40000 fraudulent ballots cast in the election in AZ, a state that the President Alleged allegedly won by 10000 votes. None of this proof is accepted. This does not altar the truth, but it shows the tyrannical nature of those who are enforcing the corruption and calling for a "reset" to "fix" things more than they already have.

I have proof that buildings do not collapse, without meticulous and deliberate planning, into their own footprint, and steel will not stay in its molten form for six months without the presence of nano pyrite to maintain its liquid state. I have proof that a third building will not collapse spontaneously at free fall, twenty minutes after the BBC announces its collapse on international TV, without human agency...and the steel will not melt and remain in its molten state without the presence of nano pyrite deliberately set. None of that proof will change the narrative of 911. The proof is all there. Does that change your opinion? It hasn't changed anyone else's who is not a conspiracy enthusiast, not riddled with willing credulity and faith in corruption to do what's right.

And so...shall I reject the proof I've seen first hand because others reject it? In this case, I encountered the resurrected Lord, like Lucy encountered Aslan in the wood. He expects me to walk in obedience to his directive, as if I've seen Him, despite what my older siblings say or do.

But when we begin talking about faith, then we are talking about the biblical construct that God gave us to reach out to him when he calls and believe in things hoped for that we cannot see. But that is not proof. You simply cannot prove God.
David Duplessis used to say, "God will have no grandchildren. Only children. I cannot believe for you...I can only testify to you what I have seen and heard, and what my hands have handled concerning the Word of Life. God made me a witness like He said He would...and I am compelled to do what witnesses do. I did not set out to prove anything to you. I set out only to satisfy my need for proof. My faith is not blind faith...it's based on One Who has proven Himself faithful with incontrovertible proofs. My contention is that He will do the same for all who seek Him.

You must have faith for yourself that God exists and that he is who he says he is in scripture.
That is what I'm saying...and...

But then, different peoples all have their own Scripture/Koran/Bag Vigidah/whatever and each have faith in what they have faith in. Which one is proof?? Each has a story to tell. Each has their miracles. Each has their word from heaven. Each has their prophets. If you can prove what you know then they would all turn to your proof and be converted.
Each has their tomb where their "prophet" is buried. That's compelling proof. Jesus, having established credibility by His resurrection from the dead, set the standard for truth in the revelation of His Word. When the gospel says He rose from the dead, and the Quran says he didn't die, one lies. Both cannot be true. When the Bible proclaims there is One God...and the Baghavadghita says there is a multiplicity...all having rank and authority, one lies. Buddha has a final resting place. Muhammed has a final resting place. Jesus...meh...nope.
And even here, it is only faith that proves your (our) conviction that Jesus is raised from the dead. (But you can't prove it.)
No...I was moved first by the empirical evidence, then by the revealed Word. The historic evidence of the mysterious disappearance of the cadaver of a "religious zealot" in a regional capital city that was crawling with Roman Guards trying to explain the empty tomb or die, and hostile Jews scrambling to find where the body was hidden or lose all credibility, there was only a handful of fisher-followers who had never had the upper hand when it came to leadership that maintained sufficient credibility in their eye-witness testimony as to impact an empire.
If it were a biblical, undeniable doctrine, then all denominations would embrace it.
Ummmm...What doctrine is undeniable when deception is chosen over doctrine, or tradition is allowed to nullify the Word? In every instance of interpretation, a relationship with the Holy Spirit holds the only key to its validity.

I don't see too many teaching the moving of literal mountains -- the only ones I see teaching this couldn't move a grain of sand from a window sill (if it's been moved to the new house, that is).
I've seen the presence of a grain of sand on a window sill used to refute what Jesus actually said..."He didn't mean mountain, because...You can't dust off my window sill." That's a little like saying, "He cannot be the Son of God, because He can't just climb down off the cross and save Himself." Great proof that Jesus could not be the Son of God...but not proof.

There is also a difference between a parable and an allegory. A parable tells a story; an allegory teaches a point.
You know this falls apart, right? Animal Farm doesn't tell a story? The parable of the sower doesn't teach a point? A parable illustrates spiritual reality with natural, physical and familiar subjects. Seeds and fields. Sheep and shepherds. Allegory is a literary tool to illustrate one theme using objects of a different nature.

Jesus did not tell anyone or the church in whole to go move physical mountains. Nobody has. Jesus has not. Even God from heaven hasn't seen fit to do this (except for, perhaps, the volcanic eruptions he set in motion to kill the people he loves). It simply is not a literal teaching.
And yet, this is not a parable...this is a teaching on the principles of faith, and the potential faith holds. It's not a parable. I do not know, neither can you prove, that no mountain has ever moved. Marco Polo speaks of a mountain moving. It's an ancient legend brought back with him from his travels. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Travels_of_Marco_Polo/Book_1/Chapter_10

The claim "It's never happened" is specious. It's never been recorded by reputable historians...but, let's ignore the number of "reputable" historians that actually exist from antiquity, shall we? Josephus? Hardly. Did Chinese emperors actually live thousands of years, as it has been claimed? Can't prove that they didn't...and that doesn't prove a thing.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Part two of two of part one of who knows?
When Jesus taught a literal teaching, he showed his disciples. He touched the leper, the leper is healed; now go into the highways and heal the sick and tell them about the kingdom.
He cursed the fig tree and in twenty-four hours it was a shriveled dead tree. And you need more than that to convince you that Jesus was speaking literally? I don't. Cursing the fig tree was the most frivolous thing Jesus did in the entirety of the gospels: It was not the time for figs...and he was mad that a fig tree bore no fruit in the spring time, months before fig harvest. Has that never struck you as odd?
Uh huh. So if you refer to Jesus coming back and splitting a mountain in two..... that is not a human disciple picking up a mountain and casting it into the sea. Sorry, you can't dance and change the focus of the problem -- you just don't dance well enough.
I had to look to where I said "...time for Jesus to split a mountain..." I didn't. Never even connected Zechariah with Jesus' promise in Mark 12. My thing is a walk by faith not sight....faith not sight. Blessed are they who have not seen and still believe. Why do you offer me an alternative to simply believing? I'm really not interested. Jesus said, "Sycamore...mountain...moved at your word." I say...OK...fine. I've not had a reason to "put God to the test" yet...but I did have fleas once, and they died and the plague was ended. Same principle, but the ground where our house was standing was pretty precious to us. No point in moving the ground and losing the house. Only the fleas needed to go...

Any creature can be the victim of genocide. But, ok, familicide. Better? Of course not.
I like to think mass suicide, not genocide. Or...fratricide...they killed each other like the five armies Jehoshaphat faced.

Still wondering why God would kill his creation for you. God's having enough fun killing it for himself.
I'm thinking some envelopes need not be pushed...but then, you said it. Apply your reasoning to flies, frogs and locusts...and quail for that matter. Plagues are plagues.

At least you let the fleas live.
Did I? I don't know, but I slept and awoke with no flaming red bites for the first time since we signed the lease.


So do you put Job and Ecclesiastes aside because they don't make you feel good? You only read the stuff that cheers you up?
You're gaslighting again. I don't take my lessons in response to trials from Job or Ecclesiastes, well...until I get to the teacher's last verses. That is the essence of the Word of Faith paradigm, isn't it? But when I read their books, I think, "Look how easily feelings can misdirect the mind when the Holy Spirit isn't inside teaching." Job didn't get it either until the face to face confrontation.

I'm sure that couldn't be true -- but then you do claim to be a form of Word of Faith. God is good. Oh, don't look at Job's first wife and family -- yeah, they're dead because God allowed them to be dead, but he gave Job back twice the family and two wives :oops: . That's a good thing, right? I mean after what I read in Proverbs about needing to sit on the corner of one's roof.
You say they're dead. Jesus says, "God is not the God of the dead." And I think a daughter named Jemimah is a good thing.


Which is well and fine and biblical. I get it. Still, no mountain has moved, nor will one at any Christian disciples hand.
Prove it.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Part two of two of part one of who knows?He cursed the fig tree and in twenty-four hours it was a shriveled dead tree. And you need more than that to convince you that Jesus was speaking literally? I don't. Cursing the fig tree was the most frivolous thing Jesus did in the entirety of the gospels: It was not the time for figs...and he was mad that a fig tree bore no fruit in the spring time, months before fig harvest. Has that never struck you as odd?
I had to look to where I said "...time for Jesus to split a mountain..." I didn't. Never even connected Zechariah with Jesus' promise in Mark 12. My thing is a walk by faith not sight....faith not sight. Blessed are they who have not seen and still believe. Why do you offer me an alternative to simply believing? I'm really not interested. Jesus said, "Sycamore...mountain...moved at your word." I say...OK...fine. I've not had a reason to "put God to the test" yet...but I did have fleas once, and they died and the plague was ended. Same principle, but the ground where our house was standing was pretty precious to us. No point in moving the ground and losing the house. Only the fleas needed to go...

I like to think mass suicide, not genocide. Or...fratricide...they killed each other like the five armies Jehoshaphat faced.

I'm thinking some envelopes need not be pushed...but then, you said it. Apply your reasoning to flies, frogs and locusts...and quail for that matter. Plagues are plagues.

Did I? I don't know, but I slept and awoke with no flaming red bites for the first time since we signed the lease.


You're gaslighting again. I don't take my lessons in response to trials from Job or Ecclesiastes, well...until I get to the teacher's last verses. That is the essence of the Word of Faith paradigm, isn't it? But when I read their books, I think, "Look how easily feelings can misdirect the mind when the Holy Spirit isn't inside teaching." Job didn't get it either until the face to face confrontation.

You say they're dead. Jesus says, "God is not the God of the dead." And I think a daughter named Jemimah is a good thing.


Prove it.

And they buffeted us.

No grass no green only dying to never be.

Jemimah ..... Jemimah ... was her name .....

She liked pancakes just the same.

are we to live on flap jacks and pancakes.

Perhaps a chance to never be .......

How to be, is it and end ..?

No more ... no more was all she said .....
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
My part 1 of 2
No, he makes them fail. They learn better that way.
If they're still learning, they have not failed. You fail when you stop growing...or your fruit turns rotten on the vine.
So he doesn't watch upon condition? So sometimes he watches? Sometimes they meet the condition?
No...He teaches. I never watched my students fail...I caught them and led them back to understanding. Fluency is the ultimate goal in my classroom, not failure.

My son could not pronounce "orange juice." He want "ohjew". I have him orange juice. He did not fail...and he eventually learned to speak without his father's accent...and then with a multiplicity of accents, because he got good at listening and imitating.
Which has little to do with what I said. All this is well and fine and true. People had faith in God and God did not live up to their expectation and they died. I have personal experience with this story. My wife did not die a loser -- I believe she's in heaven. But God did not -- did not -- live up to the promises that he gave her. Get under his wing and he will keep the disease and plague from touching you. So let's blame her now.
Why? She now has all the answers. I'd rather pray for wisdom, and understand. There is zero consolation in blame.
Or we can say that we (WoF?) did not understand scripture the way that God intended it to be -- and now we are back to your experiences..... let our experiences define what scripture means.
This is nonsense too. No! Let our experiences be our testimony. Yours IS a testimony. So is that of James the apostle, first to lose his head. Peter's is another...fully expecting to die, he got kicked awake by an Angel. The "prayer warriors" at John Mark's house have a testimony too....They're all "Praying, believing that God will send His angels to Peter to set their dear brother free..." and they're all set to pray all night. I'm sure they didn't appreciate the knock at the door that interrupted their prayers. They laughed at Rhoda, claiming the ridiculous. No one had ever been "set free by angels" before. All of this is testimony, not doctrine. "Believe God, and do what He tells you." That's doctrine.
Oh, but that's backwards from what WoF teaches. We must understand the literal words: which she did and now she is dead.
[snip]God made a promise. God lied. God gave them something better after the excruciating experiences (there we are again) of being stoned, sawed in half (you ever been sawed in half? Me neither. Bet it hurts).
Looking for where it says "God lied..." Can't find it. You are interpreting what God actually said differently than the author did: "39These were all commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. 40God had planned something better for us, so that together with us they would be made perfect." They were commended for their faith...Commended is a good thing...especially if you're commended as your wife surely was, though she did not receive...because God has planned something better for us...so that TOGETHER WITH US they would be made perfect.[/u] There is a better coming that is the fulfillment of every promise. The reward is the same for those who died believing without seeing as for those who believed and also received...Samson's on the list, and he was an equatorial body part.[/B]

Hebrews 11:latter half needs to be taken into account BEFORE you start speaking of literal mountains. Because the mountain isn't moving and the guy with the saw is coming for you.
The mountain is not the object of faith any more than it is the proof of faith. The Word is the object of faith, and the Word is proof in itself, without seeing. That is the Word of Faith that Paul preached.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Word of Faith existed in the 20th century and beyond, not in the 1st.[snip]
You're still stuck in your own reality. Paul preached the only word of faith that I acknowledge...others coined it in the 20th century and even boasted in their version...any gospel that deviates from Paul's is not Word of Faith. That is what Paul's Word teaches.
Word of Faith attempted to take biblical principles and make a movement out of them. [snip]
Whatever, Bob. Paul coined the term. Not Hagin. Not Kenyon. Folks who pick up on a term do not get naming rights...no matter how often you ascribe to them that right.

And Paul DID NOT coin the phrase "word of faith" any more than he coined a phrase "architect and builder" (Heb 11:10) so that we can have the Architect & Builder movement.
But we don't. We have the "Word of Faith" that Paul preached...simple as that. And he named it...And anyone who preaches as Paul preached what Paul preached preach the Word of Faith that Paul preached. And YOU can't name and claim that "Paul DID NOT coin the phrase" and make it true by the claim. Not even if every critic on CARM lines up in lock step with your name it and claim it claim that you name. :eek:

He said the "word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart(that is, the word that we preach)." [snip]
Nice try. "That is the Word of Faith that we preach." Why did you change it to fit your own misinterpretation. Paul's the same guy who misquotes the psalm, "I believed and therefore I speak...", creating with one misquote, the basis for confession as an expression of faith..."name it and claim it."
Probably. Also undeniable....and noteworthy. don't ignore facts that establish the point I'm making. If you are preaching the gospel Paul preached your preaching the word of faith that he preached, with or without caps.
What? To emphasize it. Is that why he put it in parenthesis and set it off as a simple added sauce? You told me you knew how languages work. Now you sit here and play Cleo with Paul's mind??
Gaslighting. What made you squirm this time? Every manuscript is printed in all caps with no spaces between words. You have to play "Cleo" when you decide in your translation what word is capitalized and what is not. That's the challenge of translating from the Koine Greek.
Yes, Paul founded the movement of Christianity.
Well...founded is a bit of a stretch. He certainly set the tone, the tenor and tenets once he met the Risen Lord.

Again, cart ... horse.
It's not...but your claim makes you look disingenuous. In fact, you look desperate. Your concept of "history" is not a small tad off. Inasmuch as Muller was an imitation of Paul, he was a practitioner of Paul's gospel, which he himself named, whether or not you take that as a name. Smith Wigglesworth understood. So did John G. Lake. And it really doesn't matter, because the gospel is defined by Paul more than any other outside of Jesus Himself...and he called us to imitate him. The most successful imitation of Paul has the right to make a claim. And Mueller would not have bothered making the claim, because the title was not the object of his faith...his orphans were. Hudson Taylor was not interested in a movement. His focus was China and his fruit remained. Ted gets twisted into a pretzel when Andrew Murray's doctrine enters into the message of a WoFer...Ted's focus is on the movement. Murray's was on faith in God. Any doctrine that stresses a movement to magnify our differences has deviated from the gospel Paul preached.


Exactly (except what I struck). The Word of Faith movement is taking what they think is being said by Paul and others and forming their own understanding of doctrines and theology. They did not pick up something called "Word of Faith" from the Bible. They called it that in hindsight because of a parenthetical trio of words in Paul's writing. But Paul did not call this invention the Word of Faith.
Way too much Cleo here. You're telling me what motivates Robby Dawkins? Francis Frangipane? Todd White? Not one of the effective ministers of the gospel give a rip what you call them or what association you need to invent to highlight their guilt. As long as you don't interfere with their work in the streets, they care for two things: They be effective. They minister. And success doesn't rise or fall with your review, but with every confession of faith pronounced in the streets of increasingly contagious adversity.

This argument is a total waste of time. If your gospel is consigned to a debate on CARM, it really doesn't matter. Does it?


I'm quoting you, my genius. Go back and look. Ahh, never mind, you said once you don't have the time to go back and find the context, so I'll reproduce it for you with a special little arrow for you to go back and see it yourself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referenced quote from the Pete man:
"Something of reality struck the Word of Faith movement that began at Pentecost that day James was beheaded."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhhh....so. You now see the light! You understand that this is not a 20th century fad. Great. I didn't expect you to understand. Sorry. Glad you could grasp the truth...it is important as you're about to see:

So now you contradict yourself.
...No. I'm looking to where the first word was spoken in faith, and Who spoke it. The Word has been quite consistent throughout history, and His function hasn't changed.


I have no issue with this as written. Even: the word of faith was taught to Abel. But: the Word of Faith started in the 20th century.
Sigh...thought you understood. I guess I'm not a genius.

Part 2 to follow.
Can't wait.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Part 2 of 2
Well worth the wait.
You make things up from silence. They claimed no promises from the prophets (as Word of Faith claims anything they can call a promise). They only walked in faith. They only claimed faith and God's righteousness.
I do not need to "make things up from silence," Bob. I have Daniel reading Jeremiah, and I know therefore that the exiles possessed the prophets. Here's what Isaiah wrote one hundred years prior to the four friends in the furnace: 43:"2When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you go through the rivers, they will not overwhelm you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched; the flames will not set you ablaze." You can say I made it up...or you can Cleo and say these guys who were among the best educated in the empire paid no attention to their own sacred writings. You can say..."It doesn't apply, because even though it say, '...not be burned...', and 'flames will not set you ablaze...', He didn't say, 'I'll be with you in the fire.'" To me, these guys had something tangible to grasp, facing a fire.

I'm going to go start a movement called Bobism. And then I'm going to go through the Bible and find great men of faith and claim that they practiced Bobism. Look they are doing exactly what Bobism says to do. They knew!!
Sure. Do it. There's gas to light.
Yes. I'm sure God won't measure it to an idiot who doesn't know what to do with it. They would have had to have been taught somehow -- hmm, hearing and hearing and hearing.
WTH are you doing? Seriously? They were in the best school in Babylon, and, like Daniel, they had access to the scrolls. And faith comes by exposure to the Word of God. Call it Abednegoism...or something.
"Isaiah was pretty literal. Wasn't he?" Fire...not burned...no flames on clothes...All literal. Fulfillment.
Eek. the time for prayer and study and conversations with friends has passed for my wife, who believed what Word of Faith said The Word was instructing her to do. She followed those instructions to a tee. (Just applying some of that ole "experience" here.)
Yes...and hers are the promises...She's not done. Work begins when this work is over.
Praise God that his world (yes with an 'L', as in creation set in motion) can produce good results alongside the bad. I hope and pray that her tumor is benign. And if they say it needs to come out -- get it out and don't listen to Andrew Wommack. Please.
Right...I'm listening to you a lot lately, and appreciate your words more than you can imagine.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
Part one of two of part one of who knows?This, too, is nonsense.
Your nonsense is nonsense, Pete. Stop the ad homs.

Proof is proof...History suggests repeatedly that there is no guarantee that the proof, howsoever compelling, will be met with acceptance, even by the experts.
1+1=2. This has been proven. In fact, in mathematics there is a proof for it. Things can be proven.

Let's look in modern terms: I have proof that Michael Flynn was framed...
No, you do not. YOU have newspaper reports and YOU choose to believe what you want to believe. You do not have proof.
...by a rogue FBI/CIA/DOJ urged on by a corrupt DNC. Proof resulted in Michael Flynn's arrest, and not the arrest of the complicit perpetrators. His arrest contributed to two felonious attempts to overthrow the sitting president by impeachment based on evidence invented and paid for by the same parties listed above. I have proof of 40000 fraudulent ballots cast in the election in AZ....
No, you do NOT have proof of such ballots in my home state. I don't even have such proof and I'd love to see it.

..., a state that the President Alleged allegedly won by 10000 votes. None of this proof is accepted.
Which is why it is not proof. It may be truth that some, many or all will not accept -- but that does not constitute proof.

This does not altar the truth, but it shows the tyrannical nature of those who are enforcing the corruption and calling for a "reset" to "fix" things more than they already have.
Right. But truth is not proof.

I have proof that buildings do not collapse, without meticulous and deliberate planning,
There was no planning in Florida when part of a condo collapsed a couple months ago or so.

into their own footprint, and steel will not stay in its molten form for six months without the presence of nano pyrite to maintain its liquid state. I have proof that a third building will not collapse spontaneously at free fall, twenty minutes after the BBC announces its collapse on international TV, without human agency...and the steel will not melt and remain in its molten state without the presence of nano pyrite deliberately set. None of that proof will change the narrative of 911. The proof is all there. Does that change your opinion? It hasn't changed anyone else's who is not a conspiracy enthusiast, not riddled with willing credulity and faith in corruption to do what's right.
As long as we're talking about buildings, ok.

And so...shall I reject the proof I've seen first hand because others reject it? In this case, I encountered the resurrected Lord, like Lucy encountered Aslan in the wood. He expects me to walk in obedience to his directive, as if I've seen Him, despite what my older siblings say or do.
Faith is not proof. It is strong conviction to you and you will never be swayed (you'd hope) from those convictions. It proves nothing. It only shows you are convinced in something. Perhaps you can get someone to follow in your convictions, by arousing their own convictions, but still not proof.

David Duplessis used to say, "God will have no grandchildren. Only children. I cannot believe for you...I can only testify to you what I have seen and heard, and what my hands have handled concerning the Word of Life. God made me a witness like He said He would...and I am compelled to do what witnesses do. I did not set out to prove anything to you. I set out only to satisfy my need for proof. My faith is not blind faith...it's based on One Who has proven Himself faithful with incontrovertible proofs. My contention is that He will do the same for all who seek Him.
But yet not a proof. Only David's conviction making him strong in his belief.

That is what I'm saying...and...
If this is what you're saying then we wouldn't be going on and on.

Each has their tomb where their "prophet" is buried. That's compelling proof.
No. It is proof that someone like Muhammed lived and died. They have his tomb. But that is not proof for them or anyone else that Allah is who they say he is. If it were proof, you would become Muslim.

Jesus, having established credibility by His resurrection from the dead, ...
THIS is a belief. You can not prove this. It comes from believing the scripture is true. And ultimately it comes from your conviction that all of this is real and true to you.

The Mormons call it the burning in the bosom. If that were a proof, we'd all be Mormons.

...set the standard for truth in the revelation of His Word. When the gospel says He rose from the dead, and the Quran says he didn't die, one lies. Both cannot be true.
Yes, and if you had PROOF then the one that lies could be ended very quickly.

When the Bible proclaims there is One God...and the Baghavadghita says there is a multiplicity...all having rank and authority, one lies.
As an aside: technically, Hinduism at this level can fit within Christianity/Judaism. God simply said there is no god beside him. He didn't say there are no gods at all. There are none worthy of being worshiped. Jesus quoted the OT saying that "you are gods." The Hindu problem, giving my Christian beliefs, is that they worship and assign power to those "lower gods."

Buddha has a final resting place.
Buddha is not a god. Buddhism has no god.

Muhammed has a final resting place.
This is true.

Jesus...meh...nope.
This is our belief. But it cannot be proven. We have conviction that it is true because we have conviction that the bible is true.

No...I was moved first by the empirical evidence, then by the revealed Word.
What empirical evidence do you have in the resurrection of Jesus?

The historic evidence of the mysterious disappearance of the cadaver of a "religious zealot" in a regional capital city that was crawling with Roman Guards trying to explain the empty tomb or die, and hostile Jews scrambling to find where the body was hidden or lose all credibility, there was only a handful of fisher-followers who had never had the upper hand when it came to leadership that maintained sufficient credibility in their eye-witness testimony as to impact an empire.
Ummmm...What doctrine is undeniable when deception is chosen over doctrine, or tradition is allowed to nullify the Word? In every instance of interpretation, a relationship with the Holy Spirit holds the only key to its validity.
Your last statement holds the truth that this is belief and conviction in your faith. The rest has been "explained" to the non-believers senses a hundred times over. You can't even prove that Jesus actually existed. There is NO physical or archaeological evidence of his person. The only mention of him outside of scripture were written long after his death. But none of this constitutes proof that he was God, or that he rose from the dead, or that his body disappeared.

I've seen the presence of a grain of sand on a window sill used to refute what Jesus actually said..."He didn't mean mountain, because...You can't dust off my window sill." That's a little like saying, "He cannot be the Son of God, because He can't just climb down off the cross and save Himself." Great proof that Jesus could not be the Son of God...but not proof.
Huh?

You know this falls apart, right? Animal Farm doesn't tell a story? The parable of the sower doesn't teach a point? A parable illustrates spiritual reality with natural, physical and familiar subjects. Seeds and fields. Sheep and shepherds. Allegory is a literary tool to illustrate one theme using objects of a different nature.
You know the difference I'm referring to. Don't be didactic.

And yet, this is not a parable...this is a teaching on the principles of faith, and the potential faith holds. It's not a parable. I do not know, neither can you prove, that no mountain has ever moved. Marco Polo speaks of a mountain moving. It's an ancient legend brought back with him from his travels. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Travels_of_Marco_Polo/Book_1/Chapter_10
Where did I say it was a parable?

And I see you now seem to understand a little of what can/can't be proved.

Plus, Marco Polo brought back a legend -- Mahomedans tales of fancy, of which they have many.

The claim "It's never happened" is specious. It's never been recorded by reputable historians...but, let's ignore the number of "reputable" historians that actually exist from antiquity, shall we? Josephus? Hardly. Did Chinese emperors actually live thousands of years, as it has been claimed? Can't prove that they didn't...and that doesn't prove a thing.
Exactly.....that doesn't prove a thing. Specious claims do not make fact and proof.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Your nonsense is nonsense, Pete. Stop the ad homs.
Not an ad hom, Bob. Get off your hobby charger again. I do my best since the early days to avoid reflecting the ad homs that became so characteristic of every discussion.

My clip was unfortunate. I should have ended your quote at the end of the nonsense you claimed as valid: "Nothing is proof until you can prove it to those who didn't believe you in the first place. It is not proof because you met your own standard. I'll try that with astrophysics and see how far I get." That is what I was calling nonsense, because it makes no sense.

Not an ad hom...just a response to your suggestion. Here's why. Truth is indelible and is in no ways subject to your unbelief. If, as an astrophysicist, I prove the strength and nature of the gravitational pull of a black hole...it doesn't matter who accepts my proof. If my own deductions and calculations stand, they stand an immovable bulwark against any criticism, howsoever popular and universal that criticism is. Think Galileo. I do not have to prove truth to anyone. I'm very comfortable on this board as the loan remaining proponent of the WoF paradigm, and I have no problem with the slings and arrows of outrageous...objections...from the critics. ;)

1+1=2. This has been proven.
I understand that quantum mechanics has placed that assertion in doubt.
In fact, in mathematics there is a proof for it. Things can be proven.
Yes...and those things that have been adequately proven can still be denied by a misguided majority voice. Look at the Climate "Crisis" debate that's been raging since the 1920's...where global warming and the threat of an ice age have been alternately proven, then disproven and then relegated to a blanket and ever-ambiguously revolving threat of "climate change" to entertain the globalists and confound the credulous.

No, you do not. YOU have newspaper reports and YOU choose to believe what you want to believe. You do not have proof.

No, you do NOT have proof of such ballots in my home state. I don't even have such proof and I'd love to see it.

Which is why it is not proof. It may be truth that some, many or all will not accept -- but that does not constitute proof.

Right. But truth is not proof.
"Truth is not proof." SMH You realize, don't you, that all this is weird. Proof is what it is, and it's accepted or rejected. It's not because there is ample proof that the truth will be accepted. All you're doing is highlighting why and how often people, even juries confronted with the best evidence, like a leather glove with blood, can make mistakes when they choose to reject the evidence they have been given.

There was no planning in Florida when part of a condo collapsed a couple months ago or so.
OK...And the building did not collapse into its own footprint, with a backwash of molten steel for six months, due to the nano pyrite that got used to take down the building.
As long as we're talking about buildings, ok.
You didn't answer the rhetorical question. When I point out the evidence that 911 was planned and an inside job, I'm called things that are not remotely like "researcher", or "well-reasoned advocate." In fact the tighter and more incontrovertible the evidence, the more it turns out that the steel that remained molten in the footprint for months had to have melted to that super heated degree after a wash of airline fuel allegedly "softened the steel." The stronger the evidence, the greater vehemence of the protest that the presenter has lost his marbles.

There is no evidence anywhere that three buildings can each collapse coincidentally, within minutes of each other, at freefall into its own footprint. Proof represents truth. Proof doesn't establish faith. That's all you're saying.
Faith is not proof.[/quote
Of course not. It's a choice...like love is a choice...like hope is a choice.
It is strong conviction to you and you will never be swayed (you'd hope) from those convictions. It proves nothing. It only shows you are convinced in something. Perhaps you can get someone to follow in your convictions, by arousing their own convictions, but still not proof.
Immaterial. An encounter proves the existence of the One encountered.
But yet not a proof. Only David's conviction making him strong in his belief.
Naahhh...sixty years of ministry around the globe contributed as well.
If this is what you're saying then we wouldn't be going on and on.
And yet, here we are...
No. It is proof that someone like Muhammed lived and died. They have his tomb. But that is not proof for them or anyone else that Allah is who they say he is. If it were proof, you would become Muslim.
THIS is a belief. You can not prove this. It comes from believing the scripture is true. And ultimately it comes from your conviction that all of this is real and true to you.
The Mormons call it the burning in the bosom. If that were a proof, we'd all be Mormons.
Yes, and if you had PROOF then the one that lies could be ended very quickly.
Naah...Having proof is no guarantee of credence. If I prove something to you, and you still want to cling to your opinion...my proof is still proof, albeit impotent. Proof is only one aspect of faith, and sometimes the least ardent aspect, when emotion or peer pressure tend toward another direction. A national derangement was sparked, fanned and maintained for four years without a single vestige of proof, and that personalized animus became the only "proof" needed that Trump lost the most fraudulent election in the history of democracy.
As an aside: technically, Hinduism at this level can fit within Christianity/Judaism. God simply said there is no god beside him. He didn't say there are no gods at all. There are none worthy of being worshiped. Jesus quoted the OT saying that "you are gods." The Hindu problem, giving my Christian beliefs, is that they worship and assign power to those "lower gods."
Buddha is not a god. Buddhism has no god.
This is true.
This is our belief. But it cannot be proven. We have conviction that it is true because we have conviction that the bible is true.
What empirical evidence do you have in the resurrection of Jesus?
I met Him.
Your last statement holds the truth that this is belief and conviction in your faith. The rest has been "explained" to the non-believers senses a hundred times over. You can't even prove that Jesus actually existed. There is NO physical or archaeological evidence of his person. The only mention of him outside of scripture were written long after his death. But none of this constitutes proof that he was God, or that he rose from the dead, or that his body disappeared.
You're misinformed...Pliny is first century.
[quoteHuh?
You know the difference I'm referring to. Don't be didactic.
Don't be pedantic. If you don't want me to clarify your mistakes, claim that you have proof that all you write is inspired.
Where did I say it was a parable?
To Bob you said, " It is an allegory for the power that the church has in the world. Nobody has ever, by faith, pulled up a mountain and cast it into the sea -- not even Jesus."

To me you just said, "Jesus spoke in parables a lot. He spoke in allegory a lot. He spoke a lot to the church wherein movements like Word of Faith take it as an individual assignment. We want that power so we take it -- whether it is there to be taken or not."

Correct me if I'm wrong...you do not believe that Jesus was actually teaching the Church, "You can move an actual mountain." You think Jesus was using hyperbole, not example. I am telling you, Jesus killed the tree with a word and told us, using the same principles He used, we can pluck up the tree and chuck it wherever. The principle moves the molecules.

And I see you now seem to understand a little of what can/can't be proved.

Plus, Marco Polo brought back a legend -- Mahomedans tales of fancy, of which they have many.
I have understood what proof does and what it doesn't do. You seem confused. You claim "No one has ever..." and I've shown you that that assertion cannot be made. It is not as firm a basis of unbelief as you think it is.
Exactly.....that doesn't prove a thing. Specious claims do not make fact and proof.
Right. So I wonder why you insist on using them in a post. Claims like "It has never been done..." is a useless claim when you want to say Jesus did not really mean "You can..." when He said, "You can."
 
Last edited:

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
Part two of two of part one of who knows?He cursed the fig tree and in twenty-four hours it was a shriveled dead tree. And you need more than that to convince you that Jesus was speaking literally? I don't. Cursing the fig tree was the most frivolous thing Jesus did in the entirety of the gospels: It was not the time for figs...and he was mad that a fig tree bore no fruit in the spring time, months before fig harvest. Has that never struck you as odd?
And still no mountain moved.

I had to look to where I said "...time for Jesus to split a mountain..." I didn't. Never even connected Zechariah with Jesus' promise in Mark 12. My thing is a walk by faith not sight....faith not sight. Blessed are they who have not seen and still believe. Why do you offer me an alternative to simply believing? I'm really not interested. Jesus said, "Sycamore...mountain...moved at your word." I say...OK...fine. I've not had a reason to "put God to the test" yet...but I did have fleas once, and they died and the plague was ended. Same principle, but the ground where our house was standing was pretty precious to us. No point in moving the ground and losing the house. Only the fleas needed to go...
No, I said "So IF YOU REFER TO..." I never said you said it.

I like to think mass suicide, not genocide. Or...fratricide...they killed each other like the five armies Jehoshaphat faced.

I'm thinking some envelopes need not be pushed...but then, you said it. Apply your reasoning to flies, frogs and locusts...and quail for that matter. Plagues are plagues.
I'll apply my reasoning to God and his children. He saves our soul, but seems to be willing to destroy all else -- and call it good.

Did I? I don't know, but I slept and awoke with no flaming red bites for the first time since we signed the lease.
Who knows, they generally have a two to three month lifespan. They probably died off naturally with your coincidental prayer.

You're gaslighting again. I don't take my lessons in response to trials from Job or Ecclesiastes, well...until I get to the teacher's last verses. That is the essence of the Word of Faith paradigm, isn't it? But when I read their books, I think, "Look how easily feelings can misdirect the mind when the Holy Spirit isn't inside teaching." Job didn't get it either until the face to face confrontation.

You say they're dead. Jesus says, "God is not the God of the dead." And I think a daughter named Jemimah is a good thing.


Prove it.

Not an ad hom, Bob. Get off your hobby charger again. I do my best since the early days to avoid reflecting the ad homs that became so characteristic of every discussion.

My clip was unfortunate. I should have ended your quote at the end of the nonsense you claimed as valid: "Nothing is proof until you can prove it to those who didn't believe you in the first place. It is not proof because you met your own standard. I'll try that with astrophysics and see how far I get." That is what I was calling nonsense, because it makes no sense.

Not an ad hom...just a response to your suggestion. Here's why. Truth is indelible and is in no ways subject to your unbelief. If, as an astrophysicist, I prove the strength and nature of the gravitational pull of a black hole...it doesn't matter who accepts my proof. If my own deductions and calculations stand, they stand an immovable bulwark against any criticism, howsoever popular and universal that criticism is. Think Galileo. I do not have to prove truth to anyone. I'm very comfortable on this board as the loan remaining proponent of the WoF paradigm, and I have no problem with the slings and arrows of outrageous...objections...from the critics. ;)
If, as an astrophysicist, you ....have deductions and calculations that you alone think are right and work, but others do not think they work, then you have likely deluded yourself. At best, you have not proven your point. And until you can prove it, it is not a proof. Prove....proof. See how that works.

As for the rest of it: stop the ad homs. ;)

I understand that quantum mechanics has placed that assertion in doubt.
Um, no. Quantum mechanics is its own world and is the world of the very tiny -- which is what makes up the very large. But nothing in quantum mechanics will trump the truth (or the proof therein) that if I have 1 apple and I add 1 apple, then I have 2 apples. Quantum mechanics changes the manner in which we look at things (mostly because when we look at things we change them in the quantum world -- pun intended). It is almost like a different world down there. But they did not throw out basic mathematics and create a fundamentally new mathematics. They did have to come up with all new theorems about how basic things work at the sub-atomic level that is not transferable to Newtonian physics -- where if 1 apple fell on Newton's head, and then 1 more apple fell on Newton's head, then 2 apples fell on Newton's head. Of this I am not uncertain. But if you would like to Bohr into this some more, I'm sure we could find a Planck to sit on and discuss all the quarks of the subject.

Yes...and those things that have been adequately proven can still be denied by a misguided majority voice.
Much to your chagrin, at that point it would not be a proof any longer -- as it has failed to prove its point to others. Perhaps it is accepted as an axiom; perhaps not. If it fails to gain the acceptance of the community who would be swayed, then it is simply a hypothesis.

Look at the Climate "Crisis" debate that's been raging since the 1920's...where global warming and the threat of an ice age have been alternately proven, then disproven and then relegated to a blanket and ever-ambiguously revolving threat of "climate change" to entertain the globalists and confound the credulous.
Huh? Show me a proof (even if discarded) of global warming, global cooling or climate change. I'll wait. No I won't: we don't even understand weather across our world to predict more than a week out and even then, during the week they get it wrong half the time. Except here in AZ where a guess of "sunny" will be right 320 days a year.

"Truth is not proof." SMH You realize, don't you, that all this is weird. Proof is what it is, and it's accepted or rejected. It's not because there is ample proof that the truth will be accepted. All you're doing is highlighting why and how often people, even juries confronted with the best evidence, like a leather glove with blood, can make mistakes when they choose to reject the evidence they have been given.
Sentence by sentence:
1: this is correct (because I said it ;))
2: Not weird at all. Quantum physics - now that's weird.
3: A proof is a proof BECAUSE of its acceptance.
4: That is correct. Truth can be truth without being proven. After all, it is truth. But then again, I said that in #1.
5: No, I'm highlighting the fact that the glove did not fit and was carried around in a car by a detective that was proven to be a racist who hated blacks, AND has a personal vendetta against the defendant because said defendant was arrested by said detective for spousal abuse on a prior occasion.

OK...And the building did not collapse into its own footprint, with a backwash of molten steel for six months, due to the nano pyrite that got used to take down the building.
The rubble quit burning just over 3 months after the attack. It was 100 days, not six months. How long do you want to keep these useless parts of our discussion going? You're trying to prove something with a very pointed example that simply doesn't have merit in the larger discussion.

You didn't answer the rhetorical question.
If it's rhetorical, doesn't that mean that it does not want to be answered?? o_O

When I point out the evidence that 911 was planned and an inside job, I'm called things that are not remotely like "researcher", or "well-reasoned advocate." In fact the tighter and more incontrovertible the evidence, the more it turns out that the steel that remained molten in the footprint for months had to have melted to that super heated degree after a wash of airline fuel allegedly "softened the steel." The stronger the evidence, the greater vehemence of the protest that the presenter has lost his marbles.
I made no assessment of your statements other than to show inconsistencies for the overarching subject of proofs, truths and wonderlust. The topic is the "proof" that Jesus rose from the dead and now you chide me as if I didn't believe you that the Bush administration did an inside job? I made no comment to such topics. Did I miss others commenting such? If so, why would that be in the thread between you and me?

end of part 14,523. next part to come.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
part 14,524. uh huh.


There is no evidence anywhere that three buildings can each collapse coincidentally, within minutes of each other, at freefall into its own footprint. Proof represents truth. Proof doesn't establish faith. That's all you're saying.
Why do you keep saying three buildings? Two were hit by jets. Two burned for a while. The last (small) fire quit burning 100 days later. Because of the collapse, the seismic shaking and the debris thrown to the sides damaged buildings around the Trade Centers.

At the time I worked as a contractor for American Express in Phoenix. American Express had a travel office on the 94th floor of One World Trade Center (the North Tower). We had 11 employees on that floor. We had 4,000 working across the street in 7 World Trade Center -- which I assume is the third building you refer to since it is the largest building to collapse apart from the Twin Towers. We had a few workers in the street coming to work when the first plane hit. Some of our employees were hit by debris, but these did not die. The 4000 in 7 WTC evacuated safely. The building sustained damage when the towers fell, damage caused by burning debris that was thrown into it. This debris brought with it jet fuel, which exacerbated the fire problem. Further the sprinkler system in the building was not fully automatic. The impact and debris damage did not bring this building down. The jet fuel fires brought it down after 7 hours. The fires of 7 WTC were fully extinguished that day.

I didn't know any of the people who died, but in an indirect but very close way, this attack is very near to me. It is all I heard about for a month afterward.

Back to your comment: "Proof represents truth." A proof needs truth to even be a proof, if this is what you mean. "Proof doesn't establish faith." This is true, but non-sequitur. "That's all you're saying." I'm saying that the truths you believe in from the bible are your truths because you have faith that the given truths are indeed true. None of this is a proof. And most of what you believe by faith cannot be proven. You cannot prove the existence of God. You cannot prove that Jesus actually died on the cross. There is only Christian documents that say this. You absolutely cannot prove that Jesus rose from the dead. There simply is no archeological or physical evidence of him. We know of him because of the bible, Christian extant writings, and writings by people who were hostile to the spread of Christianity far later than Jesus death, who mention him only because he is the central theme of the Christian movement of the day -- not because they could prove his death and missing body. We believe in the teachings of the Christian church because of faith in what was written down and passed down through the years. It is faith. It is not proof.

None of this makes me question whether Jesus existed and walked the earth. None of this makes me question his death on the cross or my belief that he rose from the dead. None of this makes me question that he is God. But none of what I believe can be proven.

Don't be pedantic. If you don't want me to clarify your mistakes, claim that you have proof that all you write is inspired.
I don't believe I was pedantic anywhere in what you quoted.

To Bob you said, " It is an allegory for the power that the church has in the world. Nobody has ever, by faith, pulled up a mountain and cast it into the sea -- not even Jesus."

To me you just said, "Jesus spoke in parables a lot. He spoke in allegory a lot. He spoke a lot to the church wherein movements like Word of Faith take it as an individual assignment. We want that power so we take it -- whether it is there to be taken or not."

Correct me if I'm wrong...you do not believe that Jesus was actually teaching the Church, "You can move an actual mountain." You think Jesus was using hyperbole, not example. I am telling you, Jesus killed the tree with a word and told us, using the same principles He used, we can pluck up the tree and chuck it wherever. The principle moves the molecules.
I said Jesus spoke in parables. I did not say the "moving the mountain" was a parable. I said it was allegory.

Jesus did not actually teach for us to move physical mountains. Yes, Jesus killed a tree (it took all night, and it took him two tries to heal a blind man, too). Jesus NEVER moved a mountain NOR did he ever tear a sycamore tree out of the ground and toss it into the sea. He DID teach his followers that mighty things will occur within the church because of faith.

I have understood what proof does and what it doesn't do. You seem confused. You claim "No one has ever..." and I've shown you that that assertion cannot be made. It is not as firm a basis of unbelief as you think it is.
If "someone had ever" then that would be a poster child subject for whatever they did. If a Benny Hinn waves his coat at someone and they scream out "I've been healed!!" but the following Monday they are back in the doctor's office to be checked out so they can renew their prescription, then "nobody ever."

Right. So I wonder why you insist on using them in a post. Claims like "It has never been done..." is a useless claim when you want to say Jesus did not really mean "You can..." when He said, "You can."
Show me the poster.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
Well worth the wait.
I do not need to "make things up from silence," Bob. I have Daniel reading Jeremiah, and I know therefore that the exiles possessed the prophets. Here's what Isaiah wrote one hundred years prior to the four friends in the furnace: 43:"2When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you go through the rivers, they will not overwhelm you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched; the flames will not set you ablaze." You can say I made it up...or you can Cleo and say these guys who were among the best educated in the empire paid no attention to their own sacred writings. You can say..."It doesn't apply, because even though it say, '...not be burned...', and 'flames will not set you ablaze...', He didn't say, 'I'll be with you in the fire.'" To me, these guys had something tangible to grasp, facing a fire.
You missed the point. You need to go back a post or two. I said that the three boys did not claim a promise for protection. They simply stated that they would be spared. Where they got this from is not stated. You can pick from the silence and say "Oh, they must have meant this set of verses because Daniel read Jeremiah, blah blah. Scripture doesn't tell us that. Scripture doesn't tell us that these boys were "standing on a scripture." That is what I said. What you responded with here is pure Word of Faith: pick some verses that seem to fit and voila, we have a promise.

Sure. Do it. There's gas to light.
And if you think that has any gas with it you continue to add to the data that you do not know what gaslighting is. You should look it up. And then tell me why mentioning "Bobism" somehow messes with your sanity. I'll wait.

WTH are you doing? Seriously? They were in the best school in Babylon, and, like Daniel, they had access to the scrolls. And faith comes by exposure to the Word of God. Call it Abednegoism...or something.
What am I doing? I just said they had knowledge. God didn't just dump a measure of faith on a monkey.

"Isaiah was pretty literal. Wasn't he?" Fire...not burned...no flames on clothes...All literal. Fulfillment.
Yeah. But we weren't talking about that. Thus my confusion at your interjection.

Yes...and hers are the promises...She's not done. Work begins when this work is over.
No, she believed in what was supposed to be a promise. It was told to her by the Word of Faith preachers. But the promise didn't come true. You can't suddenly run to the Hebrews 11:latter and save the day (especially since WoF preachers won't touch Hebrews 11:latter). This can't be your safety blanket when all else doesn't work. Nowhere in scripture does it give us even a clue or vapor that we are to run to Hebrews 11:latter when the promises don't work.

Right...I'm listening to you a lot lately, and appreciate your words more than you can imagine.
I'll put all the perceived gaslighting and other sarcasms aside if you need. But our paradigm is different now. What I'm saying here is do not dismiss what the medical community tells you out of "faith." Nowhere in scripture are we TOLD not to go to a doctor. We see some for whom doctors didn't work, but we aren't told when they did. Jairus was not a story to deny others; it is a story not to put them above God. God first. Medicine and helps never denied. God will use all things for good to his glory. He can use doctors. He can use mud. He can spit. He can heal before the doctors go in to do their thing. Trust him, but don't get humanly stupid. Faith doesn't need stupidity to work.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
part 14,524. uh huh.
Why do you keep saying three buildings?
Three fell, the two tallest at practical free fall directly into their own footprint, spewing molten steel out the side, the third fell absolutely at free fall (although official reports denied the fact for more than a month) fifteen minutes after the BBC announced its collapse on international TV, while standing with the still intact building as the background to their shoot.

Two were [allegedly]hit by jets. Two burned for a while. The last (small) fire quit burning 100 days later. Because of the collapse, the seismic shaking and the debris thrown to the sides damaged buildings around the Trade Centers.
More fun facts...the single intact passport allegedly found on the sidewalk after the collapse of the buildings just happened to belong to one of the alleged hijackers who was allegedly in one of the alleged airliners.

Another fun fact...Alleged "conspiracy" "debunkers" state categorically that the aluminum fuselage of an airliner can penetrate straight through the steel girders and exit undamaged through the other side of the building, as the video shows, without any of the plane shattering and losing any of its exterior parts including motors and wings.

At the time I worked as a contractor for American Express in Phoenix. American Express had a travel office on the 94th floor of One World Trade Center (the North Tower). We had 11 employees on that floor. We had 4,000 working across the street in 7 World Trade Center -- which I assume is the third building you refer to since it is the largest building to collapse apart from the Twin Towers. We had a few workers in the street coming to work when the first plane hit. Some of our employees were hit by debris, but these did not die. The 4000 in 7 WTC evacuated safely.
Building 7 was pulled.
The building sustained damage when the towers fell, damage caused by burning debris that was thrown into it. This debris brought with it jet fuel, which exacerbated the fire problem. Further the sprinkler system in the building was not fully automatic. The impact and debris damage did not bring this building down. The jet fuel fires brought it down after 7 hours. The fires of 7 WTC were fully extinguished that day.
And so...miraculously, we are told, every single pillar in the entire construction failed catastrophically and simultaneously, permitting a total collapse at free fall.

And a new level of ignorant credulity struck, and did not go unnoticed. Even Popular Mechanics got into the "fact" checking, and lied claiming that simultaneous failure of every pillar in an entire structure can be brought on by burning office furniture on selected floors and splashed on jet fuel that was more than enough to collapse the building with the two towers it likewise destroyed by massive, simultaneous, catastrophic failure of the entire structure.

Bob...I don't have proof that it was deliberate. There is plenty of proof that it's impossible that it was not deliberate. The pillars of a building must fail simultaneously if you are going to produce a collapse of that building at free fall...No official organ could sustain the lie that the building did not collapse at free fall. They had to rescind their claim.
I didn't know any of the people who died, but in an indirect but very close way, this attack is very near to me. It is all I heard about for a month afterward.

Back to your comment: "Proof represents truth." A proof needs truth to even be a proof, if this is what you mean. "Proof doesn't establish faith." This is true, but non-sequitur.
This is not non-sequitur. It's actually sine qua non, when you're saying "If you had proof people would believe." Proof does not convince anyone who is unwilling to believe. Look again above. The FACT that WTC7 collapsed into its footprint at free fall means that every column in the building had to fail simultaneously. That is proof that the collapse had to be deliberate. Are you willing to concede the point? I doubt it.

"That's all you're saying." I'm saying that the truths you believe in from the bible are your truths because you have faith that the given truths are indeed true. None of this is a proof. And most of what you believe by faith cannot be proven. You cannot prove the existence of God. You cannot prove that Jesus actually died on the cross.
I can, if you believe the gospel accounts.

When the soldier stabbed Jesus with the spear, water and blood flowed from the wound. That cannot happen unless the plasma had separated from the hemoglobin. And that separation can only happen when the blood stops flowing...meaning the heart had stopped beating for sufficient time to allow the separation. Jesus was dead when they took Him down.

There is only Christian documents that say this. You absolutely cannot prove that Jesus rose from the dead. There simply is no archeological or physical evidence of him.
In that case we have no archaeological or physical evidence of the existence of anyone prior to the invention of the camera. There is better evidence for the historic accuracy of the gospels than there is for the murder of Julius Caesar on the steps of the senate...and I've hung out with the cats who have been given sanctuary there in Rome on those very steps.

The fact is, every writing extant and contemporary with the lives of the apostles stands as acceptable historic evidence. Paul's eyewitness account of the resurrected Lord, makes him count as both hostile and friendly witness...because he was both.
We know of him because of the bible, Christian extant writings, and writings by people who were hostile to the spread of Christianity far later than Jesus death, who mention him only because he is the central theme of the Christian movement of the day -- not because they could prove his death and missing body. We believe in the teachings of the Christian church because of faith in what was written down and passed down through the years. It is faith. It is not proof.
Then no historic claim can be proven. What your saying is that history itself cannot be claimed or proven.

And that's false. Relatively speaking, Christianity has far more corroborating evidence to satisfy serious historians than almost any events contemporary with him on a global scale.

None of this makes me question whether Jesus existed and walked the earth. None of this makes me question his death on the cross or my belief that he rose from the dead. None of this makes me question that he is God. But none of what I believe can be proven.
The proof I need is the proof I need. When I met Him and heard His voice for the first time, I did not need more proof. He proved Himself, and verified the truth of the Words you rightly question. As far as I know, no one will be able to draw off "my" proof. In that sense, I agree with you.
I don't believe I was pedantic anywhere in what you quoted.
You called me didactic. I don't believe I was being didactic...you don't need to be taught anything. ;)
I said Jesus spoke in parables. I did not say the "moving the mountain" was a parable. I said it was allegory.
You're nitpicking. I said, "You do not believe Jesus was speaking of the mountain as a mountain, and of faith as capable of displacing the physical mountain."

My point is: His doctrine is based on the example of a tree that died at a word...spoken in faith. An actual, physical mountain will move at a like word...and that was His point. You could not get more physical than his example allowed.

Jesus did not actually teach for us to move physical mountains. Yes, Jesus killed a tree (it took all night, and it took him two tries to heal a blind man, too). Jesus NEVER moved a mountain NOR did he ever tear a sycamore tree out of the ground and toss it into the sea. He DID teach his followers that mighty things will occur within the church because of faith.
In Matthew's account the tree shriveled immediately. He didn't need to do mountain or tree...he only expanded on the possibilities. "This was only a fig tree...wait til you see what you do when you speak to a mountain or a sycamore." This Is the entire debate we've been having on "echete pistin theou" and what it implies. If theou is possessive, "Have God's faith..." doesn't hold the promise that "Have 'this kind' of divine faith" has, meaning Jesus' own faith made available to us. The fact that this act was so random convinces me that he meant both mountain and tree...
If "someone had ever" then that would be a poster child subject for whatever they did.
Why?

1 Cor 13 tells me to beware of someone who can move mountains but acts without love. The miracle by faith is not as impressive as the obedience of faith.
If a Benny Hinn waves his coat at someone and they scream out "I've been healed!!" but the following Monday they are back in the doctor's office to be checked out so they can renew their prescription, then "nobody ever."
I've always agreed with that...And I also recognize that Jesus did not always ever heal everyone in the room...at the pool of Bethesda, I count...one miracle.

Show me the poster.
I'm not sure you or I would necessarily ever see the proof of the uprooted tree. Jesus did not do His miracles, as impressive as so many were, to impress. It's blasphemy to me to suppose that Jesus only healed to prove He was God. Jesus only ever healed because someone needed healing...He never healed a well man. Ever.
 
Last edited:

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
Three fell, the two tallest at practical free fall directly into their own footprint, spewing molten steel out the side, the third fell absolutely at free fall (although official reports denied the fact for more than a month) fifteen minutes after the BBC announced its collapse on international TV, while standing with the still intact building as the background to their shoot.
Well, I'm glad you dropped the "three buildings can each collapse coincidentally, within minutes of each other." The third building, the one I was most intimate with came down 7 hours -- not minutes -- later.
More fun facts...the single intact passport allegedly found on the sidewalk after the collapse of the buildings just happened to belong to one of the alleged hijackers who was allegedly in one of the alleged airliners.
Yes, and they found two others in the rubble at the Pentagon. Not impossible.
Another fun fact...Alleged "conspiracy" "debunkers" state categorically that the aluminum fuselage of an airliner can penetrate straight through the steel girders and exit undamaged through the other side of the building, as the video shows, without any of the plane shattering and losing any of its exterior parts including motors and wings.
What came out the other side was part of the fuselage. EVERY network and many, many private smartphones captured the second plane hitting the tower. They show what happened. This is not in question.
Building 7 was pulled. And so...miraculously, we are told, every single pillar in the entire construction failed catastrophically and simultaneously, permitting a total collapse at free fall.
No, not "every single pillar." The pillar that failed is the main, center support pillar. Read up on it before posting falsehoods.
And a new level of ignorant credulity struck, and did not go unnoticed. Even Popular Mechanics got into the "fact" checking, and lied claiming that simultaneous failure of every pillar in an entire structure can be brought on by burning office furniture on selected floors and splashed on jet fuel that was more than enough to collapse the building with the two towers it likewise destroyed by massive, simultaneous, catastrophic failure of the entire structure.
There was no "simultaneous failure of every pillar in an entire structure."
Bob...I don't have proof that it was deliberate. There is plenty of proof that it's impossible that it was not deliberate. The pillars of a building must fail simultaneously if you are going to produce a collapse of that building at free fall...No official organ could sustain the lie that the building did not collapse at free fall. They had to rescind their claim.
The two WTC were built around a central shaft. When that failed the building collapsed. The collapse directly downward is an architected design for someday if the buildings would ever have to be demolished. Buildings are built that way. (Did I ever mention that when I started at Arizona State University that my major was Architecture? I switched later. Not that I'm an expert on building design, but I did learn some very basic premises to design, both building and civil -- one of which is how buildings fall when demolished.)

Osama bin Laden et. al., said later that they did not anticipate the collapse of the buildings. They called that a gift from Allah.
This is not non-sequitur. It's actually sine qua non, when you're saying "If you had proof people would believe." Proof does not convince anyone who is unwilling to believe. Look again above. The FACT that WTC7 collapsed into its footprint at free fall means that every column in the building had to fail simultaneously. That is proof that the collapse had to be deliberate. Are you willing to concede the point? I doubt it.
No it is a non-sequitur because faith does not work on proofs. They have nothing to do with one another.
No, the FACT that any building collapses the way they do is because they are architected to do so.
I can, if you believe the gospel accounts.
That is not proof. That is faith. For it to be a proof you have to prove out every facet, that would include every tittle of the bible. And you can't do that. To ask one to accept that condition A is true, then I will show condition B, is not a proof. It is a hypothesis.
When the soldier stabbed Jesus with the spear, water and blood flowed from the wound. That cannot happen unless the plasma had separated from the hemoglobin. And that separation can only happen when the blood stops flowing...meaning the heart had stopped beating for sufficient time to allow the separation. Jesus was dead when they took Him down.
Since the story comes from the bible, it is not a proof, since you can't prove the bible stories. From a secular point of view first century peoples could have dealt with dead bodies, seeing that blood separates. From a biblical point of view we believe that God is omniscient -- he knows everything and could have this event written out. From a practical point of view: blood does NOT separate into "water and blood." When blood separates, what would look like water would be plasma (which is more yellow in color). God should know the difference. But there is, of course, a more spiritual reason to say water and blood.
In that case we have no archaeological or physical evidence of the existence of anyone prior to the invention of the camera.
Huh? We have tons of archaeological AND physical evidence of many things, peoples, cities, civilizations. The pyramids of Egypt are a prime example. Mammoths frozen in the ice are another. Why would one need a camera for ancient evidence? That is a bizarre thought.
The fact is, every writing extant and contemporary with the lives of the apostles stands as acceptable historic evidence. Paul's eyewitness account of the resurrected Lord, makes him count as both hostile and friendly witness...because he was both.
And some think of them as a cult that wrote a strange religion. I mean, Joseph Smith wrote plenty of things, so I guess the angel Moroni was real.
Then no historic claim can be proven. What your saying is that history itself cannot be claimed or proven.
When did I say history itself? Why do you build men from straw? The paragraph you're answering is about the ability to prove scripture empirically. It says nothing of history.
And that's false. Relatively speaking, Christianity has far more corroborating evidence to satisfy serious historians than almost any events contemporary with him on a global scale.
And who broadened the discussion to Christianity? We were talking about Jesus' resurrection. We know that the writings we have of the bible exist, other writings exist and they prove that the men called apostles either wrote them or had them written. It doesn't make the subject matter provable anymore than Mark Twain's writings make Huckleberry Finn a real person. But as Christians we believe the content.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
The proof I need is the proof I need.
Exactly.
You're nitpicking. I said, "You do not believe Jesus was speaking of the mountain as a mountain, and of faith as capable of displacing the physical mountain."
You also specifically said parable vs allegory. And as far as this quoted statement, I already answered that: the mountain he spoke of was allegory.
My point is: His doctrine is based on the example of a tree that died at a word...spoken in faith. An actual, physical mountain will move at a like word...and that was His point. You could not get more physical than his example allowed.
He killed a plant; he didn't move a mountain.
In Matthew's account the tree shriveled immediately.
Which shows the inconsistencies of the bible stories. You should do this type of study on the resurrection. There are different stories that could NOT possible be all true (they contradict each other) in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and 1 Corinthians. By the way, your Roman soldiers that somehow proves the resurrection, these Roman soldiers sent to seal the tomb and guard it ONLY show up in Matthew's account. They are absent in Mark, Luke, John and Acts. And Paul never mentions them.
He didn't need to do mountain or tree...he only expanded on the possibilities. "This was only a fig tree...wait til you see what you do when you speak to a mountain or a sycamore." This Is the entire debate we've been having on "echete pistin theou" and what it implies. If theou is possessive, "Have God's faith..." doesn't hold the promise that "Have 'this kind' of divine faith" has, meaning Jesus' own faith made available to us. The fact that this act was so random convinces me that he meant both mountain and tree...
Why do you have to paraphrase scripture to make your point? Is your point not actually IN scripture? Not only did Jesus NOT say what you imply here, but Jesus words do not leave open this interpretation.
Why?

1 Cor 13 tells me to beware of someone who can move mountains but acts without love. The miracle by faith is not as impressive as the obedience of faith.
Because if "someone had ever" then they would be pointed to as special.

And in 1 Cor 13 NOBODY moved a mountain. Paul is speaking, as Jesus did, in allegory.
I've always agreed with that...And I also recognize that Jesus did not always ever heal everyone in the room...at the pool of Bethesda, I count...one miracle.
Yes, and let's not forget the blind man that Jesus couldn't even heal on the first try. Jesus never spoke to him about a lack of faith, never taught him to have more. No, Jesus just tried a second time and it worked that time.
I'm not sure you or I would necessarily ever see the proof of the uprooted tree. Jesus did not do His miracles, as impressive as so many were, to impress. It's blasphemy to me to suppose that Jesus only healed to prove He was God. Jesus only ever healed because someone needed healing...He never healed a well man. Ever.
Well, you already said that Jesus did NOT heal because someone needed healing (pool of Bethesda). Jesus told us why he healed: it was so that the works of God could be displayed through them; it was for the glory of God.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Well, I'm glad you dropped the "three buildings can each collapse coincidentally, within minutes of each other." The third building, the one I was most intimate with came down 7 hours -- not minutes -- later.
420 minutes...and the latter announced fifteen minutes before the building was pulled, on BBC, Internationally viewed...with the building as the backdrop to the shoot. The building was pulled.

You see? Proof doesn't prove anything to the willingly credulous.

Yes, and they found two others in the rubble at the Pentagon. Not impossible.
Without getting planted, entirely impossible. As was the passport they happened to find in the woods in PA.

What came out the other side was part of the fuselage. EVERY network and many, many private smartphones captured the second plane hitting the tower. They show what happened. This is not in question.
What came out the other side was an aluminum nose cone that showed no damage and went back into the flames...You need to watch it again with someone who's good at CGI and editing. There are expert videos out there that show how easy it is to fake.

No, not "every single pillar." The pillar that failed is the main, center support pillar. Read up on it before posting falsehoods.
Bob...stop...just stop.

For a building to collapse straight down at free fall, you have to engineer near simultaneous catastrophic failure at ever level. Read up before posting farming material. WTC 7 was clocked at free fall. The twins were so near free fall as to be undeniably engineered.

There was no "simultaneous failure of every pillar in an entire structure."
Free fall, Bob. Free fall...Near simultaneous catastrophic failure at every level.

The two WTC were built around a central shaft. When that failed the building collapsed. The collapse directly downward is an architected design for someday if the buildings would ever have to be demolished. Buildings are built that way. (Did I ever mention that when I started at Arizona State University that my major was Architecture? I switched later. Not that I'm an expert on building design, but I did learn some very basic premises to design, both building and civil -- one of which is how buildings fall when demolished.)
Great...I'm no expert...and I've been reading everything since that day. Nano pyrite is not used in the construction of a skyscraper...and I've found no one to make that claim. The "fact checkers" point to the elasticity of steal at elevated temperatures to explain total catastrophic failure on every level of the building. They do not explain molten steal that burned for ninety days...the last articles I just read claim the steal stayed molten because there were cars in the garage with gasoline...combined with smoldering office furniture...that could not be extinguished. Popular Mechanics published some of the most hilarious "conspiracy debunking" theory I've read so far.

Osama bin Laden et. al., said later that they did not anticipate the collapse of the buildings. They called that a gift from Allah.
And there is no evidence he had anything to do with it. (He wasn't big on working with Saudi Arabia...was he?)

No it is a non-sequitur because faith does not work on proofs. They have nothing to do with one another.
No, the FACT that any building collapses the way they do is because they are architected to do so.
Not without help...not at free fall.

That is not proof. That is faith. For it to be a proof you have to prove out every facet, that would include every tittle of the bible. And you can't do that. To ask one to accept that condition A is true, then I will show condition B, is not a proof. It is a hypothesis.
This is getting tedious, notwithstanding the fascination I have from your responses...I'm feeling like I'm back to my Cogito Ergo Sum days in College Philosophy.

What do you believe, Bob...and what satisfies your standard for "proof?" Can you give me an idea? How do you know that there was ever any history before you took your first breath? Do you believe there was a George Washington, for instance? Let's start there.
 
Top