Sentences with phrase «of biblical evidence»

I do have to admit that Jerry almost converted me to a Young Earth Bible believing Christian who thinks all gays and progressives are going to hell but he didn't get the chance to fully debate his body of biblical evidence so I remain a hell - bound doomed soul.

One article (by Martin McNamara) examines some of the biblical evidence for process thought, while another (by Joseph Bracken) deals with Hartshorne's interpretation of the God - world relationship and assesses that relationship with particular reference to the doctrine of the Trinity.

The date was placed in late March, near the vernal equinox, only in 525 AD, for symbolic reasons rather than because of any biblical evidence.

They argue that when they quote Scripture at me, I am silenced by the weight of Biblical evidence.

Not exact matches

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus and MANY of the biblical stories, it is verifiable and not questioned by any real scholars today.

The «biblical» flood covered the whole world including all the mountaintops — there is no evidence of this.

LinCA: Dismissing the biblical and historical evidence based on your ignorance of it doesn't work.

You hit the nail squarely on the head for indeed so, biblical truths are «written on our heart» by way of the Presence of Christ's Indwelt Spirit Who is ever faithful to «guide you into all truth» and «show (us) things to come» (John 16:13) but the problem is (as is woefully evident with this Article \ s Author), too many people (believers) choose to eschew or disregard «sound doctrine» (2 Timothy 4:3) promulgating John 14:17 ignorance of the Doctrine of The Holy Spirit whose inevitable product is a darkened understanding (such as is evidenced by the Article's Author --RRB-.

You can't counter with any evidence the obvious biblical evidence recorded by REAL people describing ACTUAL events of the time.

All biblical evidence points to the fact that there was an understanding about the nature of the earth and many other topics far beyond the secular understanding of the time.

You ignore actual scientific evidence, -------------------- Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years before Nicea.

Yes youtube has a collected Biblical evidence of false churches against the truth of God.

And the lack of physical evidence when that evidence should be there, such as the absence of archaeological confirmation of the Exodus, can be used to reject the historicity of some biblical myths.

Furthermore, a Sumerian text from Nippur from the same early period gives clear evidence of domestication of the camel by then, by its allusions to camel's milk... For the early and middle second millennium BC, only limited use is presupposed by either the biblical or external evidence until the twelfth century BC.

«Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years before Nicea.

Now did I talk of failed Bible prophecies that u quote as evidence for the truth of Biblical God?

But there is evidence — beginning with Genesis 1, where we are told that God looked at the whole creation and saw that it was good — that biblical thinking is not nearly so anthropocentric as many interpreters of the Bible have supposed.

But the corollary doctrine that the Jews were condemned to wander the earth as visible evidence of God's judgment so thoroughly muddied the biblical teaching that Christians in both communions, Protestant and Catholic, were blind to the escalating existential threat to Jews in Germany and elsewhere.

The believer may claim that but have no evidence of that — the biblical creation myth is incorrect and it is the only thing offered as evidence.

The weakness of the seal argument is that there is no biblical evidence that it can't be broken if someone wants to be free of it.

There is a lot of evidence that the biblical god is false though.

... On such questions we have no Biblical evidence, and the Catholic is quite free to follow the teaching of science.»

Where is any significant biblical evidence that classical Israelite prophetism was predominantly manifested in a temporary and artificially induced state; that it was productive of a totally transformed personality; that it was a group - created - and - sustained state of emotion and, as such, a highly contagious condition induced by violent seizure and involving the absolute suspension of rationality?

The biblical evidence we have just surveyed points to a period of coexistence of seer and prophet and a popular tendency to equate the two offices.

Science became a «force of evil» only after the evidence clearly showed that many of the biblical stories didn't have any basis in history after all.

I have objective evidence of the biblical God and devil through spiritual revelation gift of prophecy and word of knowledge.

Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.

Not that the biblical god provides an objective system, or that it is the best objective system, but that somehow objective morality in an of itself is evidence for god's existence.»

The resolution noted that the Assemblies were formed on «several biblical Pentecostal distinctives, not the least of which is the belief that the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in other tongues.»

I said:» Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.»

In fact, their suffering is the best evidence of it, for as Jon Levenson has demonstrated in his powerful study on this biblical theme, it is the beloved, elect son who undoubtedly has the greatest sorrows in store.

I am not able to pinpoint a year, but as for evidence I have written a biblical explanation titled Whatever Became of Jesus Christ?

The immediate awareness of the Holy, the mysterium tremendum, ecstatic participation in the Sacred: this is language he can understand and with which he can identify, as is evidenced by his first book, Oriental Mysticism and Biblical Eschatology.

The only folks left claiming any «truth» to the bible are: — people who've redefined «fervent belief» to mean «truth» — people who somehow think that archaeological evidence of biblical - era cities somehow proves a miracle - working dude existed therein

Don't believe me, simply scan some of the postings above and you can easily spot an aethist's post, they're generally mean and sarcastic and clear evidence what the lack of Biblical principles will «evolve» a person into.

This could be the biblical story with the tallest mountain of evidence against it.

But I pointed out that there was new evidence — from biblical studies and from various empirical studies in the human sciences, especially psychology and sociology — that completely undermined the traditional understanding of homosexuality as a chosen and changeable state.

And not the tiniest thread of evidence to support biblical creationism.

He also could have easily placed the fake bones on dinosaurs under the ground to test those lacking in faith... as well as removed any evidence of the global flood after the fact because leaving definitive proof of biblical events is unnecessary when all you should really need is faith...

creationism is far from an adult theory, its a child like story with fantasy elements based on myth and NO science, we always hear about these crazy people trying to outlaw evolution.But has you stated we have billions of years of evidence, thanks for helping us evolutionists out, unfortunately you have none, just a book, no science, no artifacts, no garden of eden, no bones of adam or eve or even the snake for that matter, no ark, no proof of a biblical flood, no proof of a created world by a higher power, no nothing..

Only if everyone agreed that biblical prophecies have come true, when this be good evidence to use in your argument for the divinity of Jesus.

We seem to have biblical evidence for one in the first chapter of the Letter to the Galatians, where St. Paul describes, very telegraphically, how he came to grasp an astonishing truth: that the salvation promised to the People of Israel in the covenants with Abraham and Moses had been extended to the Gentiles.

However, there is plenty of evidence that the biblical account is false.

I also feel strongly that the evidence of the big bang lines up very well with Biblical study.

The main biblical evidence is (1) the stories of the creation (Gen.I: 26 - 27 with 5:1 - 2; 2:18 - 25) and the fall (3:16 - 20); (2) Jesus» respect for women, whom he consistently treated as men's equals (Luke 8:1 - 3; 10:38 - 42; 11:28 - 28; 13:10 - 17; 21:1 - 4; Mark 5:22 - 42; John 4:7 - 38; 8:3 - 11; 12:1 - 8; (3) references to women ministering in the apostolic church by prophesying, leading in prayer, teaching, practicing Samaritanship both informally and as widows and deacons, and laboring in the gospel with Apostles (Acts 2:17 - 21; 9:36 - 42; 18:24 - 26; 21:9 Rom.

Well, although I don't believe that there is any way to prove God nor do I think we will ever come particularly close even, I believe that the historical evidence in the form of copies of biblical manuscripts and the ancient towns archeologists have found that are in the Bible point to the Bible is a true authoritative book.

Because last I checked there was still not a single shred of tangible, measurable, empirical evidence in support of any form of Theism, let alone something as backwards, corrupt, and atrocious, morally reprehensible (historically), and specific as Catholicism, which isn't even a very accurate form of Christianity when compared to the oldest Biblical scripts we've yet found.

Buber does not regard his concept of history as applying only to Biblical history but merely as most clearly in evidence there.

Here recent developments in medical science, such as those in psychology, are offering invaluable confirmatory evidence of the biblical and Christian picture.

Biblical study, of the most exacting sort, can never answer the question of what precisely did happen, nor can it provide the evidence necessary to assure us of the specific and concrete events associated with Jesus» resurrection, whatever they were.