100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Tue 02/10/09 10:40 AM
|
|
In response to your second response above: I should be exempt because I do not make it a habit of arguing topics that can not be proven to people with closed minds. If you are exempt from making rational statements based in logic and providing supportive evidence for your claims (other than scripture) then what do you want us to do about that if we are capable of this? It would be like me bringing out a Ferrari to race your 6 cylinder Honda Civic. I stated an opinion thats all. Really? It sounded more like you were attempting to create an argument. I am perfectly willing to listen to any new or additional information you can bring to the table at this point in time. I obviously must like to argue pointless debates that can not possibly be proven either way. I don’t agree with this statement. The overall evolutionary sequence is extensively documented and no longer open to credible dispute. You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread. Lets recap my first post today- It basically stated that the scientists are divided and that theories do not equal facts. With that being cleared up, how is that irrational? You agreed in your response that the scientists were divided but now you claim that I made an irrational statement. Hello. Furthermore, you now state that my first statement(my opinion) sounded to you like I was trying to create an argument. As stated you basically did not refute my statement but instead made excuses for the scientists being divided by offering a sarcasitic remark. Thats rational? In response to your last response- I have wasted enough time by defending my right to state an opinion(which obviously was a mistake). I am severally bored today but I have no interest at all in the theories that you believe to be facts in the last three pages of this thread. I do not wish to debate this topic despite what you believe. You will most certainly twist this around somehow- it doesn't take long after meeting you to understand this fact. You like to debate, that is fine. I respectfully disagree with your views on this topic. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. I should have known better than to post an opinion in response to a statement made by someone who averages 40 plus posts a day on this site-lol. Lets agree to disagree . Peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 02/10/09 10:55 AM
|
|
Lets recap my first post today- It basically stated that the scientists are divided and that theories do not equal facts. I asked you to show proof that scientists are divided. I told you that it is quite possible for scientists to disagree on the precise meanings of their findings. This is an integral part of the formulation of scientific hypothesis and enables a workable theory to be created. I didn’t realize you were unclear on this process. Hopefully we can now move forward with no confusion. With that being cleared up, how is that irrational? Stating that the account of creation depicted in Genesis is factual or that it has supportive evidence is irrational unless you can prove otherwise. You agreed in your response that the scientists were divided Read my above statement CLEARLY. Furthermore, you now state that my first statement(my opinion) sounded to you like I was trying to create an argument. This is true. As stated you basically did not refute my statement You have not offered anything for me to refute thus far. In response to your last response Why not just use quotes. I have wasted enough time by defending my right to state an opinion If you have an opinion, you are quite free to state this position. I am also at liberty to dispute your claims. That is how an open debate forum works. I am severally bored today but I have no interest at all in the theories that you believe to be facts in the last three pages of this thread. In other words, you are unwilling to read the thread and digest what has already been stated, yet you are perfectly willing to jump into the debate, post non related subject matter and arguments. I do not wish to debate this topic despite what you believe. Okay. You will most certainly twist this around somehow- it doesn't take long after meeting you to understand this fact. I have NEVER met you. Stick to the facts here please. You like to debate, that is fine. I respectfully disagree with your views on this topic. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. Wonderful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Tue 02/10/09 11:03 AM
|
|
You are right. Go in peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 02/10/09 11:12 AM
|
|
A totally unsubstantiated claim. Prove that this claim is unsubstantiated. And we have enough manuscripts to reference of the original languages to now that this claim is not only erronious - but provably false. If that were the case, wouldn’t you have offered this information for us about 15 posts back? It is clearly indicated in bibles these das what inconsistancies have been discovered through the translations of the Septuagent and Aramaic. This is not one of those passages. The discrepancy is explained by apologetics as being a "later editorial insertion." Like I said - believe who you want according to what your world view is. My world view includes none of this. I am taking the word of the apologetics in this case. They have offered a viable explanation to tell us why this contradiction exists. Me - I just look at the facts and see where they lead. I conclude that Jesus did not baptise because the script declares it so. Interesting you say "script" rather than "scripture."   Also, I have heard from a few other Christians on forum that he DID in fact batize. Sigh.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Tue 02/10/09 05:34 PM
|
|
Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat. Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien. Actually it can now be said that it is 100%. 96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!! In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones). It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!! Voile; I've heard contrary information to that "fact". There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different. It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure. At least this is what my research has shown. As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable. We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it. For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view. I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism. So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories. Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith.... Is it not? OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend. Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone. Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing. And that is the point I am trying to make with you here: ... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!! 'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest. Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.) And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count. The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine. If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!! But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma. Watch the video, and tell me what you think. There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested. I will. I've got classes all weekend - I'll get to it on monday. For now, I'm off. 6:00 am comes WAY too early for me. Okay - I can now operate an aerial lift without killing myself (See Boston Globe for tradgedy of accident on Saturday. Right after my class - this happened less than a ile away) Now... The video. I have two problems with this agrument about #2 Chromosone - one being what was said, the other with what has been conviently not stated. The difficulty with what was said is that it asks the question "IF we shared common ancesters we should be able to solve the cromo' issue". Well, alright - that's a given. Of course there are a lot of other dissimilarities which need to be adressed - but let's just examine "THIS ONE". The explination is almost plausable - except it does not explain why the fusion of the #2C took place, and why it only happened once! Also - how does this now not explain that we are directly discendent from the Ape - for how else can one justify that there was a previous "common" ancester that puts man "side by side" on the evolutionary tree, and not a direct descendant? What are the presumed characteristics of the Genome of this mysterious common anscester that does not indicate that the #2 chromosone SPLIT and that apes are not directly discendant from man? None of this is even asked - yet, how can I see this as a clear question to ask, yet those in the field who spend their life studying this not? Also - what is not adressed is that there are more than just the difference in the number of Chromo's that need to be adressed... There is an obsevable difference in the size of the end markers as well. What is the explination for this occurance - as there is no effect on the information caused by this difference - yet it is there. Shouldn't this difference be explained by cuasation - rather than occurance. Sorry Voile - I'm not convinced. This video is a clear example of circular reasoning to attempt to explain what occured with no reasoning behind the why. I know that science is not about the why, but science also tells us that we share lots of things with other animals. Similarities are - two eyes, two arms, two legs, ears, a nose, a heart, lungs... the list goes on. I would be suprised to see that we don't have NUMEROUS similarities with everything that walks on the planet - including those that don't (those that crawl - plant's - single celled whatever's) Yet - it would seem that just a single difference is enough to indicate that every "like kind" is unique unto itself through the generations, and nothing is definitive in the reverse extrapolation into the past - unless it can be demonstrated by repeating it - something that the science of Evolution (and I use that term science loosley) has yet to demonstrate, and likely never will. With all due respect 'eljay', I think you completely missed the point of the video. See I would never pass myself as an expert whom could offer an expert opinion on the subject of evolution, or a whole lot of other subjects we could choose to debate on these forums. Likewise, I wouldn't think for one moment that you would dare pass yourself as an 'expert', whose personnal opinion could be offered on these forums, with the authority of a credible 'expert'. If that were the case, we would both be very busy delivering our expert speeches, and presenting our expert opinions in front of numerous court hearings across the country on this hot SOCIAL topic. In short, my personnal opinion, or your personnal opinion matter very little in the realm of moving world concensus. That you or I are convinced or not about an issue, changes absolutely nothing in establishing world concensus. That is why I provided the Ken Miller link. The video explains in great detail, the state of US consensus with respect to 'creationism'. I warned you that it gave a summary of a recent 'down' verdict of a state court (if you wish I'll get it for you, along a long list of other 'down' verdicts from other state courts, as well as the Supreme Court 'down' judgment judging 'creationism' unconstitutional. At that very conference where Ken Miller (a devout christian) spoke, they had been planning a debate between the Evolution side (Ken Miller), and the Creationist side. I can't put names of the creationist guest experts because they never showed up. Worse, they cancelled at the last minute, causing some degree of panick with the organizers, whom had turned to Miller, whom in turn graciously agreed to sum up the results of the hearings he and creationist experts had participated in. Now, your opinion and my opinion do not matter much, as I pointed out earlier. But there are people out, whom are considered creationist experts, whom were invited to present their case AGAINST THE FUSION OF CHROMOSE #2, and THEIR OPINION WOULD HAVE MATTERED. Unfortunately for your side, the creationist experts were at the hearings, they had been informed about the chromose #2 session months ahead, and yet, deliberately chose to present NO COUNTER ARGUMENT. The hearings official offered them more time to provide a rebuttal! They replied that they had 'nothingm of peritnent substance' to add, or to counter with, on that specific topic. That was the point I underlined to you before you viewed the video, and you missed it. Your side's experts had NOTHING TO SAY, OR ADD. That where it MIGHT HAVE MATTERED 'eljay'. Not what you or I are convinced of, or refuse to believe in. The STATE OF THE UNION on creationism, is that every efforts, whether through the scientific community, or the judicial sytem, are being debunked or judged INEPT TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, until the creationists experts come up with a rebuttal, or counter proposition that either the ...SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ... or the JUDICIAL can make sense of, THE EVOLUTION ARGUMENT IN THE CASE OF CHROMOSONE #2, AND ANY OTHER EVOLUTION ARGUMENT OF YOUR CHOICE, STAND AS THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC, AS WELL AS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY OF THIS COUNTRY. ... and I understand and respect that your personnally are not convinced... I never claimed to be an expert in this particular disciline - but I'm not unfamiliar with it either. I spent a great deal of time studying chemistry in my youth - and have a degree in Math with emphasis on logic - so I have a fairly good idea when I'm asked to accept an premise that screams fallious reasoning. As is the case with the dating methods extrapolating fossils back millions of years ago. I remain unconvinced, and this is not due to my not being an expert in this field. It's due to reasoning and a gross lack of empirical evidence for the claim. Oh - one day there may be major demonstratable evidence - but it's not there. So - while I don't dispute the intelligence of these men, I do doubt their "theories", and don't accept them as proof. Just "viable idea's". This is the same reasoning that I use to accept the testimonies of the 1st disciples and their day to day walk with Jesus. I have no reason to doubt that they heard what they heard, and saw what they saw. When there is logical evidence to cause me to doubt this - I will. But usually, I find that those who cry "liars" - haven't even examined the text for themselves. Including the "experts". So - I do examine all of these contrary video's, and I generally study the flow of logic that brings about their concluisns - but they aren't any stronger than the logic that they're trying to refute. We're discussing theories here. Evolution (theory) and Creation (theory) The evidence I have witnessed supports either one without contradiction. There's no argument against a God creating species in their kind, and establing the ability of them to evole. Contrary to what scietists think - it makes more sense that he would have established the creation in this manner than it would have been to create every variance of species all at the same time. Why not let the creation exand in this way? We see the universe expanding as a perfect parallel to this very concept. Does not the consistancy make one stop and marvel? Cher 'Eljay', So far, your comments have shown clear confusion between ... YOUR personnal opinion, ... or anyone else's for that matter, ... including creationists who might happen to be scientists, AND, ... the POSITION OF THE SCIENCE as expressed by the few whom are publicly recognized as the 'CREDIBLE EXPERTS' representing the scientific community position, and the CREDIBLE EXPERTS from the creationist side, presenting or NOT PRESENTING scientifically accepted or newly acceptable proof (if there were such), about their respextive claims in this 'evo-crea' debate. That was the point of my earlier post 'eljay', that I repeat here. It will be kind of difficult to explore this further if you keep missing the point altogether. Whatever you or I would have to say about our personnal research, our personnal diplomas and our personnal convictions, would be totally impertinent and missing the point of this exchange altogether. You see 'ELJAY', neither you nor I have been invited to present the position 'for' or 'against' the evolution and creation sides in front of the numerous judicial hearings that have taken place in the past couple of decades (past hundred years, understandably we couldn't have anyway). Some people in both camps are publically credible and known out there as the one's representing their respective camp. They are the ones whom are instrumental in forging the infamous 'World View' you refer to often lately, or generally accepted consensus, giving us, mere mortals, a particular reality, or THE world view against which all other world views are measured, whether one agrees with it or not. And you see 'Eljay', ... when it comes to your legitimate right to 'believe' in the 'bible-inerrant' notions of creationism, ... and however much you might not agree with the theory of evolution, because YOU are not personnally convinced with the evidence of this particular 'world view', ... the scientific and judicial experts on the other hand, after more than 100 years of hearings, where claims against evolution have been presented, and yet none of these CREATIONIST CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT MIGHT HAVE CAST AS MUCH OF A SHADOW ON THE PROOF OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Ironically, fundamentalist-creationists are reinforcing the reality, or 'Meta World View' of the Theory of Evolution with their repeated and endlessly unsubstantiated claims: '... that evolution is false!!! ...' Very much like, '... what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger ...' (an evolution based evidence. This evolution reality is everywhere!!!) So that leaves us with a false debate so far, where false claims have been made and new unsubstantiated claims are peeking, without ever impacting reality, FROM A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES : ... where 'creationism' has been judged UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SUPREME COURT, OR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SCIENCE ... which has NEVER been presented with any form of testable proof that would invalidate the theory of evolution. The fundamentalists-creationists may never quit. That is their constitutionally protected freeomof religion and freedom of speech privilege. But the debate has been relegated to a stricly 'personnal belief' arena. Whether yours, mine or the creationist whom happens to hold a science degree, personnal beliefs or opinions alone, whatever the mass, will never change the 'Meta World View' or consensus on reality. The Meta World View once was that we existed on an earth centric universe, again out of a bible-inerrancy fundamentalist perspective. Of course the reality of our universe(s) is not bible-inerrant today, in spite the legitimate belief of some die-hards. So it is with Evolution. The Meta World View or reality we live within today is clearly 'evolutionary', in spite of a few 'bible-innerant' believers, whom hold onto a 'bible-inerrant human being centric' exclusive subordinated or junior world view, that is both scientifcally unproven, and judicially unconstitutional (creationism in schools). Is the point clearer with this additionnal information 'ELjay'? I would appreciate if you could respond to the point made here, in a specific manner: '... credible expert opinion, and scientifically accepted theories-proof, ... shaping judicial reality and impacting a 'meta world view', or consensus on reality, ... as opposed to personnal opinions and beliefs impacting only one's view, but not the consensus on reality.' 0,00262% of the world's christian population, arguing as lound as they could, ... WILL NOT A WORLD REALITY GIVE!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is quick to figure out.....lol
In response to your second response above: I should be exempt because I do not make it a habit of arguing topics that can not be proven to people with closed minds. If you are exempt from making rational statements based in logic and providing supportive evidence for your claims (other than scripture) then what do you want us to do about that if we are capable of this? It would be like me bringing out a Ferrari to race your 6 cylinder Honda Civic. I stated an opinion thats all. Really? It sounded more like you were attempting to create an argument. I am perfectly willing to listen to any new or additional information you can bring to the table at this point in time. I obviously must like to argue pointless debates that can not possibly be proven either way. I don’t agree with this statement. The overall evolutionary sequence is extensively documented and no longer open to credible dispute. You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread. Lets recap my first post today- It basically stated that the scientists are divided and that theories do not equal facts. With that being cleared up, how is that irrational? You agreed in your response that the scientists were divided but now you claim that I made an irrational statement. Hello. Furthermore, you now state that my first statement(my opinion) sounded to you like I was trying to create an argument. As stated you basically did not refute my statement but instead made excuses for the scientists being divided by offering a sarcasitic remark. Thats rational? In response to your last response- I have wasted enough time by defending my right to state an opinion(which obviously was a mistake). I am severally bored today but I have no interest at all in the theories that you believe to be facts in the last three pages of this thread. I do not wish to debate this topic despite what you believe. You will most certainly twist this around somehow- it doesn't take long after meeting you to understand this fact. You like to debate, that is fine. I respectfully disagree with your views on this topic. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. I should have known better than to post an opinion in response to a statement made by someone who averages 40 plus posts a day on this site-lol. Lets agree to disagree . Peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Thu 02/12/09 12:30 PM
|
|
This claim from creationists that would have scientists split up on the validity of factual foundation of the theory of evolution, is a profoundly misleading one.
The scientific community is as unanimous as can be with respect to the factual validity of the theory of evolution. More and more so, if that can be. Often times in science, there can be a split in the scientific schools of thought regarding certain emerging propositions. But to try and imply any form of an official split within the scientific community, when it comes to the theory of evolution, is just about as inconceivable as suggesting that gravity is BS and in deep crisis in the world of science. Throwing such 'convenient' claim, 'scientists are split', which accomodates a personal faith based position, is done so strictly to confuse the issue. People, whether they are taxi drivers, teachers, store owners or scientists, WILL HAVE PERSONAL OPINIONS. To suggest that a faith based personal opinion should have any form of credibility in attacking the integrity of a 'proven' scientific theory is deceitful. To keep doing it without ever providing a scientific counter argument, is further deceptive, ... and goes squarely against basic human intelligence that the god you might refer to, might have given us. A personal opinion, even when it is from a scientist, means nothing in front of the scientific community consensus. Not that scientific consensus couldn't change, but if all you got is a faith based personal opinion, hoping it will transform the consensus, you are truly acting on FAITH, SCIENTIST OR OTHERWISE. Scientists are humans beings. And human beings will always have personal opinions. Faith based personal opinions, especially from scientists, should not be confused with scientific consensus!!! If those scientists still wish to make a claim that might alter the existing scientific consensus with respect to the theory of evolution, ... let them put their faith based personal opinion aside, ... and let them demonstrate their scientific claim from a scientific perspective to scientists peers. So far, no scientist, christian, creationist, apologetist, fundamentalist or otherwise has come forth with any scientific argumentation for their claim. Conclusion??? Elementary Watson! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is quick to figure out. Who or what are you talking about? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 06:50 PM
|
|
I apologize. I cant even remember who brought up this contradiction but they did and then feral and Eljay jumped in. Someone needs to just start a separate biblical contradiction thread. I agree it has no place and this one in particular is stupid. All that happened was either whoever wrote this was drunk at the wheel or someone inserted a contradictory verse later because they didnt read John 3. You brought it up. That Gary guy brought it up and then you and Feral leaped on it like chimps at feeding time screeching. No Maam-that Gary guy did not bring it up- YOU my dear Krimsa brought it up- to use one of your quotes "You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread.". You brought it up and I posted a response. To recap Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit NOT water. One of the verses in John that you quoted is talking only of baptism by water(which Jesus did not perform) and the other is speaking of two different types of baptism. As I stated if Peter was in the river performing a baptism of water while Jesus was performing a baptism of the Holy Spirit "while they tarried", then Jesus was performing baptisms with his disciples. I don't expect you to understand or agree- I am posting this in case a babe in Christ is reading this thread and is confused. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was your original quote taken from this very thread when you ORIGIONALLY bought up this off topic discussion;
Gary said: Well according to you, God can not be tempted? Alright if you fail to see the contradiction there, I will move on. I keep notes as you are well aware.. Did Jesus baptize anyone? YES John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. NO John 4:2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. Krimsa John 4:2 States that Jesus baptized his disciples, it does not state that he did not perform any baptisms. You have taken this scripture out of context. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
krimsa said:
"You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread." Yes, I did tell you to read the last three pages of this thread which were about EVOLUTION. Isnt there something in the bible about not telling fibs Gary? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
krimsa said: "You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread." Yes, I did tell you to read the last three pages of this thread which were about EVOLUTION. Isnt there something in the bible about not telling fibs Gary? The entire Bible is filled with fibs, big heapin' helpin' loads of ........... fib! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
krimsa said: "You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread." Yes, I did tell you to read the last three pages of this thread which were about EVOLUTION. Isnt there something in the bible about not telling fibs Gary? "But that is just a story, it's not meant to be taken literally. . ." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To recap Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit NOT water. One of the verses in John that you quoted is talking only of baptism by water(which Jesus did not perform) and the other is speaking of two different types of baptism. As I stated if Peter was in the river performing a baptism of water while Jesus was performing a baptism of the Holy Spirit "while they tarried", then Jesus was performing baptisms with his disciples. I don't expect you to understand or agree- I am posting this in case a babe in Christ is reading this thread and is confused. A passage in the next chapter of the Gospel of John (John 4:1-4) mentions both that Jesus baptized and did not baptize. Many scholars consider the statement that Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples baptized (John 4:2), to be a later editorial insertion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 07:26 PM
|
|
This was your original quote taken from this very thread when you ORIGIONALLY bought up this off topic discussion; Gary said: Well according to you, God can not be tempted? Alright if you fail to see the contradiction there, I will move on. I keep notes as you are well aware.. Did Jesus baptize anyone? YES John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. NO John 4:2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. Krimsa John 4:2 States that Jesus baptized his disciples, it does not state that he did not perform any baptisms. You have taken this scripture out of context. HELLO- that is your quote and my reply! In order for me to reply to a quote the quote has to exist. What is so hard to understand here? You stated this what you call OFF TOPIC contradiction on THE FIRST PAGE of this thread- I didn't join until like the 25th page-HELLO And stop with the off topic crap, I see where you are going but the Mingle administrators aren't stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 07:08 PM
|
|
krimsa said: "You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread." Yes, I did tell you to read the last three pages of this thread which were about EVOLUTION. Isnt there something in the bible about not telling fibs Gary? Show me a fib Krimsa. You are crap starter plain and simple. You engage in character and creditbility assassination, even when it is unwarranted, at every opportunity and you dare judge me. Get a life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 07:10 PM
|
|
What are you talking about? This was stated way at the beginning of the thread. So you go and quote it and interrupt during a debate about evolution that was going on like 15 pages (or more later.) What I quoted was your interruption of that debate which was already in progress and ON TOPIC. I don’t understand your second comment at all. You were the one that interjected non related subject matter. Are you implying I did something wrong? I should report you right now. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
krimsa said: "You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread." Yes, I did tell you to read the last three pages of this thread which were about EVOLUTION. Isnt there something in the bible about not telling fibs Gary? Show me a fib Krimsa. You are crap starter plain and simple. You engage in character and creditbility assassination, even when it is unwarranted, at every opportunity and you dare judge me. Get a life. You told a fib when you stated that I was somehow responsible for interjecting this into the discussion about evolution when I clearly posted where you had interrupted the debate with it. |
|
|
|
|
