A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2012, 07:14 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
No, no.

I completely believe in the New Covenant.

I'm simply assisting you by showing you ways to not corrupt or demean your argued points.

It's preventative maintenance, so to speak. Moreover, it doesn't matter if you "like" the KJV version better, the simple fact is that it's not as reliable as the NASB and is often mistranslated.

If you are going to argue scripture, you need to quote from the NASB, YLT, or the DBY - as they are the most accurate according to the oldest manuscripts and original language.

This will save you from pointless translation injuctions, non sequitur fights, strawmans, and red herrings.

I also suggest that you take full advantage of biblos.com. This is easy access to the original language and word meanings.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 07:31 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I would like to point out, that even before the Sinaitic Covenant, (the one which the many editorial revisionists of the eventual Pentateuch left us with), the original historical Covenant had to do with the origins of the Yahweh god.

Which one?

If you mean the First Covenant, there is no question that the Hebrew people were idolaters. Thus...the Covenant of Law.

While there are those that would try to make Christianity (and apparently Judaism) fit the mold of Islam, the differences are worlds apart. Scripture tells us of the idolatry man fell into after the Fall, so it is not something we have to deny, as the muslims do.


(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ancient Hebrew culture accepted MANY gods. (There are things which are somewhat incorrect about this video, but it's a start : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg ), and the rebuttal videos, are also interesting in their details, (which rebut some of the details, but NOT the essential premise).

I am not interested in your video, but your personal view which relies on the views of others, apparently.

Can I just point out that while idolatry was definitely an error on the part of the Hebrew people, this really has nothing to do with the First Covenant? Other than give a basis for it's establishment.

(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  In the group of available gods to them, was Yahweh Sabaoth, who was called the "God of the Armies", or (as we have heard so often in modern times, we don't really listen to the actual words), the Lord of Hosts. (The word "hosts" was an arrayed battle formation of fighting warriors). The ancient Hebrews were polytheists, (despite claims to the contrary that their contribution to human history was monotheism...which it was NOT). The "covenant" with the god Yahweh Sabaoth was that, of all the available gods, they would worship only the Yahweh god, (NOT because they only believed in one god, but), because the Yahweh god, (the God of the Armies), would assist them in their battles, with their neighboring cities. "For Yahweh is a jealous god"... Yahweh (they thought), wanted their total allegiance, and if they would worship only Yahweh, (instead of, or along with, all the others available), he would be of more help in the battles. The development of the "chosen people" business was an attempt to justify their expansionary ambitions, with regard to the "promised land" idea, which justifed the violent struggle with their neighboring city-states. That was the original agreement with the Yahweh god, (the "Covenant").

Ever wonder why there are correlations between the false religions of the world. Ever thought of the fact that man had a knowledge of God in his beginnings, and that knowledge became corrupted, man basically deciding to believe what he wanted to, creating God and theology to his liking?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Israel, not the specific "Hebrew People," were created to be a Witness Nation for the Living God. And to them were given the oracles of God, that they might not sin against God and go after other gods.

In fact, it took very little time for even these people, delivered, saved (which you deny is present in Judaism) from their bondage in Egypt...to once again return to idolatry. The golden calf?

(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  In light of the historical facts, it mystifies me how anyone could possibly ever take the Yahweh god seriously.

This is not surprising: perhaps it will give insight to how the Hebrew people did not take God seriously. But wait...we have a historical record of that too. Of course, I guess we all have to place our faith in which historians we will choose to believe.

(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So New Covenant, Old Covenant, who cares. Find me a credible god first, then maybe we can talk.

And that is one of man's biggest problems: he is trying to find God or gods, when the fact of the matter is...it is God that finds man.

Are you really going to stick with this statement..."Who cares?" Is that your contribution to a discussion of the New Covenant, the New Covenant of scripture? Whether you accept scripture as true or a fairy tale, what it actually says has to be examined. Only in this way can you then judge what man has said about it.


(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As Mark has pointed out, the salvation paradigm did not arise in the Chritian cult, (which was for many years a sub-group in Judaism), until Saul of Tarsus introduced it.

Then you join the group which is in error concetnring the teaching of scripture.

Salvation "did not arise until the Christian cult?"

Have you ever actually read...anything in scripture?

Okay, here is a question: how is it that Israel looked for a Savior, and yet their religion was devoid of salvation?

As I mentioned before, progressive revelation places Israel, and all those under the First Covenat, in a period of expectation of salvation from the Lord. That they awaited salvation does not change the fact that they viewed God...as the Savior. So the statement(s) above do not represent the teaching of scripture, nor the faith of the Judaizer. Which means that this position must surely come from an external source, and, is it remarkable that this might be a popular view to those that do not believe?

(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The proof of that is that it is absent in the Q source, and the Gospel of Mark, (written first), but DOES appear in Paul, (written next)..and then in the other texts. The chronology is very good evidence for what Mark is saying. ((Actually the resurrection also was not a part of the original Gospel of Mark, which ended with (the far more poetic), empty tomb)).

I suggest to you that salvation and the knowledge among men of salvation through God begins in Genesis and runs without ceasing through all of scripture. Understanding the Covenants of scripture will help to understand salvation in scripture, but I suggest an actual reading of the scriptures themselves.

I'm not sure, do they run scripture on youtube?

(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As you can see over in the "Sympathy for Eve" thread, there is no need for a "salvation" paradigm in Hebrew culture, because that was not how they understood the human condition, (no "sin" idea).

This shows a lack of knowledge concerning salvation in regards to Hebrew Culture, which, it should be kept in mind, predates the First Covenant. Need to get things clarified a bit. And in regards to Israel, under the Covenant of Law, scripture is clear that Israel sinned, and fell into idolatry, and were judged of God.

Not sure why all of this seems to be a surefire dismissal of salvation. You have some of the facts right, but the conclusions you make simply reveal a desire to discredit. It just isn't going to make your case, sorry.

(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It would have made no sense, to them. The concept was an import from the Greeks. For many years, the Christians had no consiousness of themselves as a separate group. They thought they were good Jews. They did not really pull away definitively, from Judaism, until the Bar Kochba Revolt, (the Second Revolt), after the turn of the Second Century. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...tling.html , thus Paul's invention, (the salvation thingy), did not really take hold for many years.

Actually, the concept of sin began...in the beginning. You can read about that in Genesis, long before there was a Hebrew people. If you care to look at the Covenants, you might be surprised at how synchronized the progressive plan of God is, and how the Covenants work toward the eventual outcome, which is eternal salvation. Scripture calls the knowledge of the institution of the New Covenant basically a mystery, a previously unrevealed truth. It is no wonder that it is still a mystery to those that do not understand scripture.


(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  When the separatiion did take place it was complex. The various Christian communities pulled away at different times, in different places. Even as late as the 5th Century, some STILL were going to Synagogue, and doing the Jewish festivals.

Some still go to synagogue. As I said before, there is no command to the Jew to divorce himself from his heritage because he is a Christian. In the Millennial Kingdom, it is written that not only will the feasts take place, but it will be mandatory.



(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The famous preacher/Archbishop (from Antioch and Constantinople), St. John Chrysostom, (died in 407 CE) bitches at the Christians in his sermons ... the series of eight sermons to his congregation, "you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are." This is more proof that the break was gradual, and not uniform, or absolute, even that late. But in Paul's writings, which are the earliest clues we have, (apart from Mark and Q), the social separation in his foundational communities had already taken place. They're no longer meeting with Jews. By the time John was written, they hated the Jews, (in some places). They stopped going to Synagogue and met in private homes. Thus the change was NOT uniform, and certainly did NOT happen until late, (except in the Greek based communities), as far as we know.

One thing is for sure: in the histroy of Christianity and all that is called Christianity...nothing has been uniform. Now, can you tell why you are convinced that the "history" you have presented here should be embraced as being truth? The fact that your own commentary concerning the Old and New Covenants is not uniform should be enough to discredit any contribution you have to a discussion of this depth and breadth.


(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thus endeth the lesson. Thanks be to god ! Tongue

Lesson? How is it that making statements that can easily be shown from scripture to be in error is a lesson. If you wish to further the conversation about the New Covenant, I'll be glad to look at it with you. Bring your secular sources, just expect that I will present the actual record which is in question.

I would especially like to look at how "Paul introduced the concept of Salvation to the Hebrew people."

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 07:47 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 07:14 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  No, no.

I completely believe in the New Covenant.

Hello again KC, glad to hear your assertion of your belief in the New Covenant.




(30-05-2012 07:14 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm simply assisting you by showing you ways to not corrupt or demean your argued points.

And I appreciate that, really. But as I said before, it is a mistake, in my view, to stop at a translation. Hence the direction to biblos.com...lol. So I think we are probably likeminded in that regard.

(30-05-2012 07:14 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  It's preventative maintenance, so to speak. Moreover, it doesn't matter if you "like" the KJV version better, the simple fact is that it's not as reliable as the NASB and is often mistranslated.

Actually, I would have to disagree with you: the preferred translation of the believer is an important issue. I can direct you to a site where we can discuss "why the NASB is better" if you like, but for this forum, I try not to "force" more exposure to God's word than is necessary, as there is a resistance to it to begin with.

While I do believe there are parts of the KJV which can be translated better, those are few in number concerning major doctrine, which, when discussing doctrine...is the main thing. I have yet to see a translational issue concerning doctrine in regards to the KJV. But let me know if you are aware of them. But again, this is a discussion for another forum.

(30-05-2012 07:14 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  If you are going to argue scripture, you need to quote from the NASB, YLT, or the DBY - as they are the most accurate according to the oldest manuscripts and original language.

I will stick to the KJV, it is just a habit. When it is necessary to examine it in more detail, and to examine the original language, that will be done. But here, I have had few, if any, discussion where we got beyond the basic intent and content of any verse or passage.

(30-05-2012 07:14 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  This will save you from pointless translation injuctions, non sequitur fights, strawmans, and red herrings.

I have a pretty fair time of it regardless, lol.

This is not a Christian forum, as you know, discussion at that level really do not take place. I do not force scripture on anyone, and am always glad when some is actually willing to discuss scripture itself.

(30-05-2012 07:14 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I also suggest that you take full advantage of biblos.com. This is easy access to the original language and word meanings.

I appreciate it, KC. Again, glad to make your aquaintance. I just have one question: what in the world is up with your tag? lol Is that humor or are you charismatic?

Have to get to work, but look forward to discussing scripture with you, though, it would propbably be better, that we not irritate those here, that this be done on another site. Let me know if you are interested.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 07:53 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Sure thing. I just didn't want any of you points to get derailed with a "translation" issue (which I did Smile).

As for my sig... I personally thought it was hilarious. I mean... Benny Hinn smiting people with the Coat of Righteousness... how can that not be funny?

And no. I'm far from charismatic... or Word of Faith. I'm an Amillennial-Calvinist-Evolutionary Creationist.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 08:04 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 07:53 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Sure thing. I just didn't want any of you points to get derailed with a "translation" issue (which I did Smile).

As for my sig... I personally thought it was hilarious. I mean... Benny Hinn smiting people with the Coat of Righteousness... how can that not be funny?

And no. I'm far from charismatic... or Word of Faith. I'm an Amillennial-Calvinist-Evolutionary Creationist.
If it were not for the millions of people being deceived by Hinn, I would agree that it is humorous.
He is a direct cause, I believe...for atheism in certain people.
As far as your description of your faith, you are in good company, there have been some great men of God that have held to those views, though I would probably have to describe my position as futuristic-covenantal with a slight twist of dispensational theology. Hope you won't hold that against me...lol.
And now, two hours later, I have to get to work. I try to get this in when I can, as I have basically allowed a day (24 forum hours) in which to converse with those here, then, I will get out of their hair for a while. So, as I said, I really would be glad to discuss doctrine with you, but think this would better accomplished on another forum. I appreciate the fact that the moderators (at least one) has allowed me to be here, and I don't want to take advantage of that kindness.
Be back when I can,
God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 08:23 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
I see the issue here.

ST wants to talk about the actual written scripture, and the messages contained within.

That rarely works with atheists because typically before an atheist is willing to talk about the message they need to first decide whether the messenger is genuine, and what context the message arrived in, etc. If everything before the message is faulty then most atheists won't waste their time debating whether there is a worth while message written in there anywhere.

So far as most atheists are concerned, there are many other fictional books with better messages to deliver than any bible. They all tend to take less work to decipher and have fewer issues to debate. It wouldn't make sense for us to spend our time congratulating the bible for getting a couple of things right, because it seriously gets so many things wrong. It makes more sense to shine the light on all of it's negatives and hope people stop reading it as the word of some god, because there are some really bad ideas presented in there that I think even most christians would rather people didn't follow.

But feel free to talk about scripture all you want, just don't expect this to become the kind of bible study Christians like to attend. We won't just pick selected passages, or ignore the history behind it. We lack faith.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like lucradis's post
30-05-2012, 09:39 AM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2012 06:41 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
S.T. Ranger,

The use of the culturally pejorative/judgemental "idolatry" term, and following it with the non-sequitur, "Thus...the Covenant of Law", without any further explanation is meaningless. In addition the totally "out of the blue" introduction of the moon-god cult, (Islam), has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Where EXACTLY did I try to "make Christianity (and apparently Judaism) fit the mold of Islam" ? Are you hallucinating ?

You assertion that "Scripture tells us of the idolatry man fell into after the Fall", belies your fundamental problem. You are reading scripture as history, with no other external sources, (obviously). There simply is no point in any further discussion with such a totally fundamentalist, ignorant position. The "Scriptures" are faith texts, and have nothing to do with the modern concept of "historical accuracy", and indeed there even IS no word in Ancient Hebrew for the concept. My point of view has been formed by evidence, which has been assembled from many sources, something which you obviously find threatening, as you can't even look at a 15 minute video, and refute one assertion in it. "Idolatry" ((which YOU have no other explanation in your simplistic worldview for, other than to explain it by calling it, (moral) "error")) belies your judgemental fundie view of history. Saying " that while idolatry was definitely an error on the part of the Hebrew people, this really has nothing to do with the First Covenant", is a meaningless assertion, unsupported by even one reason. ? If it's the "basis for the establishment" it has EVERYTHING to do with the First Covenant.
S.T. Ranger Wrote:  "Ever wonder why there are correlations between the false religions of the world. Ever thought of the fact that man had a knowledge of God in his beginnings, and that knowledge became corrupted, man basically deciding to believe what he wanted to, creating God and theology to his liking?"
No. Not really.

Show me the Archaeological evidence for your "knowledge of God in his beginnings"...and all that other stuff.

The Hebrew people appropriated to themselves the "chosen people" idea, to justify the land expansion, (as they still do to this day), and to comfort themselves during and after the Babylonian Exile, when their world was rocked by the fact that a supposed "god chosen" nation had been defeated, (and the God of the Armies had proven ineffective). Where EXACTLY does any text say even one word about "the oracles of God". Along with any bible text be sure and include at least one extra biblical reference, for validation, otherwise, it's circular. Of course they said they were "the Witness Nation", (actually they NEVER said that). The VERY late comers, (the Christian fundies cooked that one up). Did you think they were going to call themselves the "Land Grabbers" ? The destructioin of the Temple around 70 CE, and the complete destruction of Jerusalem, (after the Second Revolt), caused a complete re-evaluation for the loss of the nation, and the lack of the advent of the sought after political messiah.

There were many known Semitic settlements in Canaan BEFORE the Mernepteh Stele documents an "exodus event". Your statement that "in fact, it took very little time for even these people, delivered, saved (which you deny is present in Judaism) from their bondage in Egypt...to once again return to idolatry. The golden calf", essentially just supports my position, or otherwise is also a non-sequitur. It proves they only saw the Yahweh god as one of many, (Baal being one).

The problem is, you "choose" to believe as historical, a non-historical set of texts, and close off the matter there. Mark and I are open to absolutely any real evidence. Every thing you have said is just parroting the old fundy BS, and shows not one original thought. Not one.

Your assertion that "god finds man" is not the subject here. But since you raise the Psychological issue, lets go at it. You have not one shred of evidence that what goes on in your head is NOT the result of your brain chemistry. In fact there are now many studies which show how the god delusion changes brain chemistry. Saying "god finds us" is just a cop out attempt to justify the delusion, by asserting passivity, (which we know from the studies, is false). It is also heretical, as Christians would say they have to assert "faith" before, (or at least concurrently) the "finding" can occur.

I AM sticking with "who cares".

Until I see a credible god, who stands up to Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, and Logic, I do not care. The attempt to get me to care, (ie follow you down the rabbit hole), ain't gonna work here. I am immune. Saying "You are in error" without explaining EXACTLY how, just makes you look ignorant , and very foolish. I might be willing to look at the mystical concept of the "Cloud of the Unknowing" (unknown Medieval author), but see no reason to do so. Humans don't need gods anymore. The Universe is explainable without them. They add nothing.

The only "savior" the Hebrews were looking for, was a political one, and that hope arose when they were defeated by the Babylonians, as Mark tried to tell us.

The fact that YOU actually think that there was a "spiritual" messiah, expected, (which BTW is TOTALLY different from the need for a sacrificial appeasement to a eons long pissed off god), tells us you know no real history. Don't even start with either Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah. They said the things they did in context of the Exile, about a POLITICAL messiah. Even the Apostles at the very end of Jesus' ministry, STILL thought of him as a political messiah. Acts 1:6 "Lord wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ?" (So yeah, I read it all, many times). The "salvation" in Paul, is NOT the "expectation" in Judaism. Christians attempt to connect the two, but fail historically. They are two totally different things. In Paul, it has morphed into an (Greek) ontological paradigm, of "atonement", of humans with a (Greek), idealised being, who shortly got slapped with the Greek Gnostic overlay of Jesus being the "word".

There was no "period of expectation of salvation from the Lord' until the Babylonian Exile, and after. If you have proof of it, let's see it. Do you even know when the texts of the Pentateuch were written ? YOU view their god as "the savior", because that is how you were taught to view him. It is not an historically accurate view. Salvation in Paul, means that the god sent the son to do the sacrifice, in order to appease himself. THAT means the eternal, immutable god CHANGED, AFTER seeing the sacrifice. There is so much about that, that is wrong, philosophically, a First Grader could refute it.

Go read Genesis again. No salvation needed. The "fall" is NOT what you think it was. The ONLY thing you have read is the Christian, mistaken interpretation of the myth. Read some Torah scholars. The Garden myth has been hijacked by Christianity to fit Paul's invention. See Martin Buber's "Good and Evil". It is not about sin and disobedience. It is a myth about Chaos and Order. It is NOT about "disobedience". That is PRECISELY what it is NOT about. The myth is about the Human Condition, and the impossibility of "encompassing the opposites", (allegorically stated as "eating the apple" from the Tree of Knowledge of BOTH "good and evil"). They could NOT BOTH "eat the apple, and NOT eat the apple". "Chaos" is "not making a choice". THAT is not "sin". You THINK it's about "sin" because that's what the Christians taught you, because they hijacked the myth to fit their salvation paradigm.

No one even actually reads the words anymore. They "think" they know the story, but don't look at the text. Genesis 3:5 says : "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." The temptation, as is obvious, right in front of your face, is NOT about apple ingestion, (disobedience), it's a mythological/allegorical attempt to "become like a god", (and it certainly has NOTHING to do with idol worship).

Or is it what you have now changed the "fall" to be, and cooked up the "idolatry" thing ? That is heresy.

If you actually look, every biblical text is very different from the other, in many ways. For example the "divinity" of Jesus is totally different in each one, (and was added to Mark later). Have you never actually taken any serious academic course on Exegisis or Form Criticism ? Or does it just all come from "Bible Study" ?

I don't know if they run scripture on You-Tube. I do know that, unlike you, I am not afraid to look for truth, no matter where the search leads. I have actually been listening to all the Craig stuff. No hope for him, yet. But I'll keep looking.

What exactly are your criticisms of Krauss or Dawkins ?

S.T. Ranger Wrote:  "This shows a lack of knowledge concerning salvation in regards to Hebrew Culture, which, it should be kept in mind, predates the First Covenant. Need to get things clarified a bit. And in regards to Israel, under the Covenant of Law, scripture is clear that Israel sinned, and fell into idolatry, and were judged of God."
Tell us EXACTLY what the lack is. Another unsupported, asserted, generalization.

First of all, even in traditional Christian Theology, the "fall" was NOT "into idolatry". So ding ding ding..the lights go on. You are a total amateur. You don 't even know your own religion. Even in traditional Christianity, the "fall" was disobedience.
S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Actually, the concept of sin began...in the beginning. You can read about that in Genesis, long before there was a Hebrew people.
And THAT'S EXACTLY your problem. You obviously do not know when and how Genesis was written, and when and why it was edited, or even how many times it was edited. You can "synchronize" anything you NEED to, (we are the Pattern Seeking Monkey after all), but it's all the same as doing the "bible code" stuff. It's all totally on subjective nonsense, unless you have EXTERNAL sources, which YOU NEVER ONCE mention. What EXACTLY does "in the beginning" with reference to sin mean. Did Neanderthals commit sin ? When in the history of human evolution, did the first soul get infused ?

Since you said the "Bible is the Word of God", can you tell us when you adopted Gnosticism ?
The first line of the Gospel of John says, (...BTW...thanks KC ... I only know it in Latin and Greek, and am totally ignorant of translation issues...you are the expert there...) : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". You stated above that the "Bible was the word", ("in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum"). Are you trying to say the Bible existed eternally, before it was written, before the (supposed) sins were freely chosen, or the supposed events had actually happened ? Or, are you saying that the bible actually IS the second person of the Trinity. Please clarify the relationships. Is the Bible the "word", or is the Gospel correct ? Or is the Bible god ?

If something has been "in error", you're gonna have to do better than say it's "in error", and tell us HOW EXACTLY it's in error. You don't actually think you're gonna come to an atheist site and preach do you ?

Thus endeth the second lesson. Thanks be to god. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
30-05-2012, 10:42 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
ST, what I see going on here is that you aren't trying to argue from a spiritual point of view; moreover, you're trying to engage Bucky on a historical, empirical level. The issue that I see is that you don't seem to be as knowledgeable as your opponent. Also, as seen with the KVJ thing, you refuse to use the most reputable and accurate sources because you prefer something else.

You cannot expect a peer of equal or greater intelligence than you on the subject to ignore the fact that you are using improper documents to try and argue your points. It is theologically accepted that scriptural interpretation should be done from the original languages, then the YLT and DBY, then the NASB.

I'm just saying... if you want to be taken seriously in the realm of biblical debate (against a theist or atheist) then you must use the correct sources.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
30-05-2012, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2012 06:39 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Good morning ST. How are you?

Guess what...I learnt something from you. When I went back to relook at what the terms 'old covenant' and "new covenant" meant, I was rather surprised at how many different opinions there were. These terms are obviously not well defined , and I didn't realise that. That is the beauty of forums...we learn from others.

I have also learnt a lot from Bucky's posts (in particular).

My challenge to you is this. Put your ego in your back pocket for a while and listen to what people are telling you. You just don't know how much you don't know. Bucky, Lucradis, Jedah, me and Kings Chosen have all hinted that you need to educate yourself a bit more. When 5 people all tell you more or less the same thing, don't you think there's a serious possibility they have a point? That does not mean that what you have to say is not important, but no one is going to listen to you when it is so blatantly obvious you are ignorant of the facts. You believe your god gave you a brain. Why don't you show your gratitude by using it a little?

The purpose of this correspondence is not to belittle you or to make me feel superior, or to shove my opinions down your throat. I am here to practice my self expression, and to learn how to connect with others, particularly theists. I am also here to learn how and when to pull my head in, when to give up being "right" all the time, and to learn. My point? How about you do a little of that too?

How? Have another read of Bucky's last post. Q document? What the hell is that? No resurrection in Mark's gospel? Huh? Really? Paul invented the idea of the sacrificial death of Jesus? You're kidding me! I gotta learn more about this!

ST, here are some brief, succinct introductions to these topics. This can be your launching pad from which you can do some more research for yourself. They are from a really credible source (LOL) http://www.markfulton.org/paul-a-complex-character

http://www.markfulton.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus

http://www.markfulton.org/%e2%80%9cjesus...e-creation

I GENUINELY look forward to your input (so I can learn from you), but only AFTER you have done some reading.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 05:32 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 08:23 AM)lucradis Wrote:  I see the issue here.

ST wants to talk about the actual written scripture, and the messages contained within.

That rarely works with atheists because typically before an atheist is willing to talk about the message they need to first decide whether the messenger is genuine, and what context the message arrived in, etc. If everything before the message is faulty then most atheists won't waste their time debating whether there is a worth while message written in there anywhere.

So far as most atheists are concerned, there are many other fictional books with better messages to deliver than any bible. They all tend to take less work to decipher and have fewer issues to debate. It wouldn't make sense for us to spend our time congratulating the bible for getting a couple of things right, because it seriously gets so many things wrong. It makes more sense to shine the light on all of it's negatives and hope people stop reading it as the word of some god, because there are some really bad ideas presented in there that I think even most christians would rather people didn't follow.

But feel free to talk about scripture all you want, just don't expect this to become the kind of bible study Christians like to attend. We won't just pick selected passages, or ignore the history behind it. We lack faith.


Hello lucradis, just wanted to thank you for pointing out the very simple point of actually looking at the scriptures. I thought I made it very clear with the Star Wars analogy.

As far as my expectation of this becoming a bible study, I have no real expectation of this. In all of the time I have been here, this has been avoided, for the most part, anyway.

And while I would like to comment further, I will leave it at that, as I will need to spend my time this morning on another post.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: