A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2012, 11:47 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2012 01:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
No siree bob. But thank you ver' much. [Image: th?id=I4676184888771759&pid=1.1] You are 110% dead wrong, yet again. (And the rules were, for every Babble verse you must post an EXTERNAL source), so you're now "one in the hole", and I want more than 2 cents back. , So, instead of babble-study, lets take a moment, and actually look at an example of some REAL scholarship. In light of what the gentleman posted, (in which he refuted himself), and since every scholar agrees that Mark and Matthew used Q as source material, (along with the never found, hypothetical "Book of Sayings"), and in light of the fact that EVERY scholar agrees that Mark was written first, http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm , the fact that the Pauline literature came from the mid-first Century, (which every scholar agrees), and the fact that Matthew indeed has the salvation thingy in his text, is PROOF, for all to see, that there was a development, in the cult. http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm . And since I wish to stay out of the rabbit hole, I will ONLY use Christian sources, to refute their claims. Mark > Paul > Matthew. No dispuite. Matthew is proof of nothing, (except that humans took the Jeebus stuff to the next level, and CHANGED the original material, to fit the growing and changing expansion of the cult, to embrace GREEK ideas. Elvis is IN the house. The Q Source : http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html , http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/History1.htm

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-06-2012, 01:52 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 07:47 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Okay, since the responses will go unanswered, I will just mention again the statement of Christ in Matthew 26:28 (and corresponding passages) and ask if He is speaking of the New Covenant or not?

It is suggested that Paul originated the concept of the New Covenant, yet, instead of actually looking at what is recorded in the books from which the doctrine is derived, it is merely stated "Paul made it up."



Matthew 26:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.



One verse. That is alll it takes to call into question the assertion that Paul originated the concept of not only the New Covenant, but the atonement of the Cross.

I have not said "You must believe!" I have only questioned the basis for your belief. I am repeatedly told that I am not only stupid, but ignorant, yet, I have responded to every question and commment in detail, only to be met with more teenage antics.

lol

Do you really think an objective observer of these conversations are going to think you guys have offered intelligent response?

Is it really necessary to divert attention from one thing to another? How much more simple can I make this? Here is the question again: Is the Lord Jesus Christ speaking about the New Covenant or not? It's not a trick question...just a question. If that can be answered, whether yea or nay, then we can talk about it.


May God bless the individual that seems to miss my post ending (<---look guys, set that one up for you...have fun...lol).

I hope all of you have a great day, and will just give a little bit of thought to what has been discussed thus far. It is my hope that by examining the basis of our beliefs we might discover something that we have not previously considered.

GTY
Since Biblical and textual scholarship, archeology, and historical evidence all point to the Bible being largely a fiction, how can anyone argue about what the words really say or mean?

I don't accept revelation as factual. Revelation is what someone says was revealed - without any evidence. It is unverifiable. Why would you accept its truth?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-06-2012, 02:01 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  ST, you're a theist on an atheist board,

Yes, I know...lol. Have you ever noticed this...

Quote:Atheism and Theism
Because what else would you talk about on TheThinkingAtheist.com?

What else would one talk about, other than atheism and theism?



(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  of course you're gonna take flak. Keep a steady hand on the yoke, you'll get past the AA batteries (or get shot down Tongue),

Duly noted, thanks for the encouragement. Smile


(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  but lookit KC. Not only tolerated but well liked, because he became part of the community rather than being an aloof proselytizer.

Very curious.

(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  So then, no.

So you are saying that this verse does not refer to the New Covenant? Just want to be clear.

(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  'Cause "blood," to peeps back in the day, equated to "spirit" or "life force."

"Blood" does very much refer to the "life" of a person. You get an "A" for having this understanding.

So knowing that you understand this very basic principle, we can understand what scripture is meaning when it references the blood of Christ.

It is unfortunate that, having stated this, you go on to reference vampirism, which would lead me to wonder if this knowledge of scripture's intent when speaking of the blood of Christ is the result of a quick research effort.

But since you have publicly stated that you understand this as in fact declare this to be the better understanding, we can actually proceed a little further with the discussion.

Christ did not bleed for the atonemnet of sin, but in fact gave His life. In many places He states that He must die. Now we can look at another passage that further looks at the blood, and the New Covenant:

(and this may seem long, but it can be read in just a few moments)


Hebrews 9:11-16

King James Version (KJV)

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.


I will refrain from a lot of commentary and just say I have underlined and emboldened a little to point out a few things.

Understanding "blood" in the light of "life" rather than just literal blood bmakes this passage a little easier to understand. There are a number of sayings and words that like this one, cause some to improperly view a passage.

I will also just say that the contrast found here (and I call Hebrews a "book of contrasts") is between the blood by which the First Covenant was ratified with...and the blood of the New. Now that we can agree that the "blood" is a reference to His life, rather than the blood coursing through His veins, we can then look back at Matthew and ask the question again..."Are these passages speaking about the same thing, or are there two different issues in view?"



(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  They did the science.

Well, it does not take a genius to understand that if the blood runs out of a person or animal, they stop living. These were people that sacrificed animals, well, for all of their history and well beyond that to ancient times.

It is seldom pointed out that before the Law, people sacrificed. Abel. Noah. Abraham. Lot.

While we do not have specific "This is what you will do" given as it was under the First Covenant, we can see in the sacrifice Abel brought (which was acceptable) and the offering of Cain (which was not) that there was an understanding at that point that animals were substituted in the place of men, meaning, the penalty of sin, the wages of sin, is death. Which means that though we have no record in scripture of this, it was common knowledge and practice among men to sacrifice a substitution in their place.

And this pointed to the death of Christ, the One sacrifice that would once and for all bring forgiveness for sin, leaving no need for further sacrifice.

(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Something that lives, loses all its blood, ain't living no morez.

They actually understood this, long before we had the technology not only to understand it, but to explain it.



Leviticus 17:11-14

King James Version (KJV)

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

The sacrifice, the shedding of blood, was a substitionary means for temporary remission, or, forgiveness. The blood of the Levitical sacrifice pointed to the blood of Christ.

As we see in Hebrews, this sacrifice is said to...


13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Whereas the sacrifice of Christ, the blood of Christ, the death of Christ...


14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?



(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  So, the way I take it, is that this quote's use of the term "blood" is congruent to Paul's call to be "baptized in spirit."

Two entirely different issues.

When Christ said...


Matthew 26:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.



...He spoke of what He would do that atonement might be accomplished. John the baptist said...



Matthew 3:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:



Now herer we have a number of words which we would do well to do a little study on. I won't bore you with details but to say that 1) baptism in scipture carries a few tagalong principles, one being a connotation of association; 2) baptism with the Holy Spirit (also a promise of God concerning the New Covenant) speaks of salvation whereas baptism with fire speaks of judgment, as John conveniently defines his intent:


Matthew 3:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


We have just scratched the surface here, but, I will say thanks for pointing out that blood refers to more than just...blood.

(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I can't believe that peeps think there's some actual vampirism going on here.

From what I hear, not only do we have vampirism going on (this cannot be denied), we now have zombie activity going on (someone eating the face of a guy, in Florida, I think?).

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2012, 02:12 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  So then, no. 'Cause "blood," to peeps back in the day, equated to "spirit" or "life force." They did the science. Something that lives, loses all its blood, ain't living no morez. So, the way I take it, is that this quote's use of the term "blood" is congruent to Paul's call to be "baptized in spirit." I can't believe that peeps think there's some actual vampirism going on here.


Stop that. Right now. Now see what ya did ? If ya put in a quarter ya get 10 quotes out. If ya put in a nickel, you'll only get one or two out. That'll learn ya. Weeping

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
03-06-2012, 02:23 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 02:01 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  So you are saying that this verse does not refer to the New Covenant? Just want to be clear.

Nope. I'm saying that verse does not necessarily mean this:

Quote:That is alll it takes to call into question the assertion that Paul originated the concept of not only the New Covenant, but the atonement of the Cross.

(03-06-2012 02:01 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  "Blood" does very much refer to the "life" of a person. You get an "A" for having this understanding.

Of course I get an A. I'm a prophet. I'm supposed to know stuff. Big Grin

The problem we're gonna have is that I do not accept that Jesus Christ was an actual person, whereas you are convinced otherwise. I consider that as Paul developed his theology among his contemporaries, it was their need to have a concrete being that lead to the gospels of the Christ.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-06-2012, 02:24 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 02:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  So then, no. 'Cause "blood," to peeps back in the day, equated to "spirit" or "life force." They did the science. Something that lives, loses all its blood, ain't living no morez. So, the way I take it, is that this quote's use of the term "blood" is congruent to Paul's call to be "baptized in spirit." I can't believe that peeps think there's some actual vampirism going on here.


Stop that. Right now. Now see what ya did ? If ya put in a quarter ya get 10 quotes out. If ya put in a nickel, you'll only get one or two out. That'll learn ya. Weeping

Jelly. Laughat

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2012, 02:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2012 02:51 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No siree bob. But thank you ver' much. You are 110% dead wrong, yet again.

You have yet to "prove" me wrong about a single issue that has been discussed.

What you have done, though, is to prove me right concerning not only your knowledge, but the basis for that knowledge, which is...someone else's ideas or opinions. It is the height of hypocrisy to go around claiming people of faith are mindless followers that parrot what somebody else has taught them when you do the exact...same...thing.

lol

Now, if that were not humorous enough, you will again seek to divert attention to your ever exposed ignorance and the probability that you have never once actually done anything that amounts to actual research of your own. Relying on others to do the work that you refuse to do.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (And the rules were, for every Babble verse you must post an EXTERNAL source),

Perhaps it is common for those you associate with to give your controlling nature a second thought, but, your demands are seen for what they are by me...deflection.

There are no rules that I am held to beyond the rules of this forum. When I responded to defacto, I did so because he offered a genuine appeal for discussion, and sought to know the means by which I became a believer. You sought to mock this...how did that turn out for you, my friend?

Because you have need for external sources to present a basis for the beliefs you hold only illustrates the fact that you have built your understanding upon something other than your own research. Proving, as I have said, the correlation between religious people and atheists. You can sputter, hem and haw, and deny this, but it doesn't change the facts. If you have ever actually taken time to invest more than just reading something somebody else has said...it doesn't show.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  so you're now "one in the hole", and I want more than 2 cents back. ,

Better to be "in the hole" than to live in a fantasy realm. lol

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So, instead of babble-study, lets take a moment, and actually look at an example of some REAL scholarship.

So you are now "HE WHO DEFINES REAL SCHOLARSHIP."

What a joke.

It is rather amusing, though, to be called one who embraces fairy tales for embracing a teaching that dates back centuries, millennia, yet, you believe in a non-existant work(s) and claim them to be...real.

Incredible.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  In light of what the gentleman posted, (in which he refuted himself),

You are welcome to point this out.

Much work went into addressing your posts, which I guess the norm is that, as I said before, you are not used to being held accountable for the nonsense that you offer. I guess it irritates that I have not bowed the knee to my superior, and backed away.

But until you begin to work from something that belongs to you, rather than an information base which if you were honest, you would admit you could not verufy if your life depended upon it, you will continue to make yourself look foolish.

It is sad that people pat you on the back, as it helps to encourage you to continue in this pattern.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  and since every scholar agrees that Mark and Matthew used Q as source material,

Just not true. Every scholar does not agree on this, in fact, every true scholar will admit that there is no real evidence of it's existance. If you would like to read a few real scholars, let me know. (I won't hold my breath).

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (along with the never found, hypothetical "Book of Sayings"),

So we can make concrete conclusions based upon non-existant elements of hypothesis? And I am called unscientific...lol.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  and in light of the fact that EVERY scholar agrees that Mark was written first,

There is a general consensus.

And your point is? You know how limited I am, you need to spell it out a little better. Smile

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm ,

Read most of this. Well, at least half of it, but I think I got most of the way through.

Is the plan to provide enough links and I will be tied up? lol

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  the fact that the Pauline literature came from the mid-first Century, (which every scholar agrees),

Your use of "every scholar" is interesting. So if a scholar declares something, this is truth?



(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  and the fact that Matthew indeed has the salvation thingy in his text, is PROOF, for all to see, that there was a development, in the cult.

Well, if you can set your pride to the side for just long enough to see what a Christian, a least, this Christian (never claimed to be a gentleman...lol) believes, you might begin to see not only the harmony of the Gospels, but the harmony of the Bible.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm .

Points out the need to appeal to external sources. Come on, Bucky, put that mind to work! Stop running from conversation.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And since I wish to stay out of the rabbit hole, I will ONLY use Christian sources, to refute their claims.

And again, you have shown that recognizing Christians and their doctrine is outside of your knowledge base. You can only present the ideas and claims of others.

Can you get some of them to come on the forum?

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Mark > Paul > Matthew. No dispuite.

This is true.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Matthew is proof of nothing, (except that humans took the Jeebus stuff to the next level, and CHANGED the original material, to fit the growing and changing expansion of the cult, to embrace GREEK ideas.

I guess discrediting Matthew indicates that this particular book holds some form of validity in your mind. This is good to know.

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Elvis is IN the house.

Well, Elvis, will you continue in this pattern? Or will start to do some real work.

That is, thinking for yourself, rather than indoctrinating yourself in what other men say?

(03-06-2012 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Q Source : http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html , http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/History1.htm

Of all the things to try to use to discredit scripture, much less Biblical teaching concerning the New Covenant, this has got to be the most humorous of all.

Okay, here is an out: you can say that because some scholars have a belief in the Q source, some scholars are guilty of exactly what you are...giving validity to a theory, placing it in a light of unquestionable fact.

Remember what I said about your teachers? If you will but do that which you exhort believers to do...you will profit in your understanding.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2012, 02:41 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 02:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-06-2012 07:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  So then, no. 'Cause "blood," to peeps back in the day, equated to "spirit" or "life force." They did the science. Something that lives, loses all its blood, ain't living no morez. So, the way I take it, is that this quote's use of the term "blood" is congruent to Paul's call to be "baptized in spirit." I can't believe that peeps think there's some actual vampirism going on here.


Stop that. Right now. Now see what ya did ? If ya put in a quarter ya get 10 quotes out. If ya put in a nickel, you'll only get one or two out. That'll learn ya. Weeping


Don't look now but I think somebody wants me to shush.

lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2012, 02:47 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 02:23 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(03-06-2012 02:01 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  So you are saying that this verse does not refer to the New Covenant? Just want to be clear.

Nope. I'm saying that verse does not necessarily mean this:

Quote:That is alll it takes to call into question the assertion that Paul originated the concept of not only the New Covenant, but the atonement of the Cross.

Okay, I can understand that.

And the next statement makes it clear as to why this is said.


(03-06-2012 02:23 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(03-06-2012 02:01 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  "Blood" does very much refer to the "life" of a person. You get an "A" for having this understanding.

Of course I get an A. I'm a prophet. I'm supposed to know stuff. Big Grin

The problem we're gonna have is that I do not accept that Jesus Christ was an actual person, whereas you are convinced otherwise. I consider that as Paul developed his theology among his contemporaries, it was their need to have a concrete being that lead to the gospels of the Christ.

lol

Okay, so you believe that Jesus did not exist at all. Can you tell me why you would not?

And I would just reiterate that the doctrine of Paul does not contradict the doctrine of the OT.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2012, 02:52 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Okay, fellas, that's all for today.
Hope you have a great rest of your weekend, and hope someone will take up the conversation in a serious manner.
GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: