Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 10:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nice try. Fail Again. You know no Greek and you know it.
First you attempt to say it's "about the dollar", when it was about your Fundie ignorance of the FIELD, which you demonstrated. That was the ONLY reason I engaged with you at all. My POINT was, (and every Greek translation I referenced was also agreed with by CHRISTIAN seminary professor, Dr. B. B. Scott. So take it up with him.) Your knowledge (and virtually every Fundie's knowledge) of the milieu (the Hebrew Apocalyptic period) from which Paulianity (Christianity) developed is nil. Zip. Nada. Zero.

From my :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-Look

"In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

'The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand.' "


And now I suppose you're going to tell me you know more than these people ?

I do not know more than those people. Here's what I do know:

1) Giving me a negative comment on my profile ten minutes ago was a wholly immature response to my post (not to mention the fact that you ducked the questions I've raised about Matthew 28 again) with "Dr. B.B. Scott believes this [non-traditional, non-standard, non-Greek Greek stuff I make up] too!" Here's the sound of my two hands clapping, representing one person acknowledging one Greek scholar's fringe interpretation. Drinking Beverage

2) You are somewhat, if not utterly, misrepresenting the Interpreter's Bible. Here are some quotations from that lofty work, emphases mine (and you don't know more than those people, either):

Life After Death. There are not a few adum-
brations of life after death. To be sure, there
was the abode in Sheol, but it was not a sig-
nificant existence, not one to look forward to.
Only Isa. 26:19 and Dan. 12:2 present us with
clear statements, and in both of these we have
resurrection of the body
.

The Christian faith affirms that God's saving
action "into" and "in and through" history in
Jesus Christ did not come to an end with the
death of Jesus on Calvary. The action still con-
tinues. It is still going on through the church,
of which Christ is the living head, and in which
he is present through the Holy Spirit as the
creative and constitutive principle of its being
and life. There are deep theological problems
involved in this affirmation, into which it is
not our business to enter here; but there can be
no question that this conviction of the continu-
ing, redeeming presence of Christ in the world
is axiomatic in the Christian faith and life
. It
is only in relation to this belief that the mean-
ing and the centrality of the Resurrection in
the Christian gospel can be understood. The
essence of the Christian faith concerning the
Resurrection, as it is set forth in the New
Testament, is not that Christ survived death
according to some general capacity for survival
inherent in the human soul as such, but rather
that God raised him up
; that is to say, the
Resurrection was part of God's mighty act of
redemption to save mankind and establish his
kingdom. Furthermore, it is part of the same
act of redemption that Christ thus raised up
has not passed into the "beyond/' out of touch
with men except as an inspiring memory. On
the contrary, he has been raised to "God's right
hand," and this means that he is now accessible,
as a living, active presence mediated through
the Holy Spirit, to all who give themselves to
him in discipleship and faith.


While I affirm with the Interpreter's Bible that while in THIS life,

The biblical doctrine is of a
resurrection life for those who "have the Spirit"
and are "in Christ,"

there are also

...variations as to the fate of the wicked and unrepentant between
"the outer darkness" and a resurrection to
judgment and the fires of destruction
.

Kindly save yourself from further embarrassment and do not quibble with me as to what "a resurrection is". Everyone reading this thread (regardless of how few of the atheists admit it) knows that if mainline academic scholars, whether they are believers or unbelievers, believed the Greek text states the resurrection in the New Testament isn't what we all think of in the plainest terms of the word, we'd all know about it, and there would be threads and links here as on other non-atheist websites worldwide about this important "scholarly discovery" that undoes the scholarship of all conservative and liberal Greek scholars of the past, um, two millennia.

As to your definition of "miracle", that is sad. Perhaps you only participate in those threads where you are trying to learn more about the New Testament text (I read elsewhere at TTA that you are a scholar of religious studies but not the NT per se, right?) but you must have missed the THOUSANDS of threads AT THIS WEBSITE that endlessly, ceaselessly mock Bible believers for trusting in:

*a universal flood
*a six-day Creation event of six 24-hour time periods
*Sarah having a baby at age 90
*early humans living hundreds of years

and

*a bodily resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ

That last one being one I personally affirm and will argue with you until my face falls off as opposed to the others, so don't bother.

Bucky, whether Rabbi, priest or pastor, fundamentalist or revisionist, we all know what a MIRACLE is and what the Bible claims about MIRACLES.

Atheist, please!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
Quote:If ALL DOUBTED, then they didn't know what they were seeing, and in the context of Hebrew shades, and Jewish Apocalypticism, that makes a lot more sense than a "bodily resurrection" in light of the FACT, that THE FIRST gospel had no resurrection. IF the real first followers HAD seen and experienced what people LATER claimed they did, why would they omit putting it in the FIRST telling of the story ? It doesn't matter if "some worshipped". If it was a REAL PHYSICAL body, ALL would have recognized what they were looking at, and there would be nothing to doubt, by anyone.

The fact is, the Fundie literalist position on this question, as well as many others, are not the ONLY Christian position, which in fact vary quite widely.

The first gospel had no resurrection?! Gosh, I take it that you would say Mark 16:9-20 shouldn't be in there and was a later insertion. FINE. Now deal with verses 6-8:

6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Perhaps someday you'll read the Bible for yourself in addition to listening only to those professors of yours who are skeptics. If you look, you might even find a born again Christian professor at Ball State or Eastern Kentucky or Yale or wherever you are "learning". THE FIRST GOSPEL CONTAINS A RESURRECTION WITHOUT the end of Mark 16.

I do see your point about why would some doubt...? Are you saying it was a ghost? No, you don't believe in ghosts. You could say Jesus had a twin and they thought it was Didymus if that helps you personally.

I would say instead that normal people in the Galil would be like "WHOA! That's JESUS IN A BODY, ALIVE! Can this be REAL?!" and then the accurate chronicler(s) of Matthew's gospel wrote down what people experienced THEN AND THERE. Fortunately, Jesus appeared several more times in a body, eating fish and etc.!

Sorry, I'm still a born again Christian despite your Greek "skill" and the "reasonings" of a few fringe scholars.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 10:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The first gospel had no resurrection?! Gosh, I take it that you would say Mark 16:9-20 shouldn't be in there and were a later assertion. FINE. Now deal with verses 6-8:

6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Perhaps someday you'll read the Bible for yourself in addition to listening only to those professors of yours who are skeptics. If you look, you might even find a born again Christian professor at Ball State or Eastern Kentucky or Yale or wherever you are "learning". THE FIRST GOSPEL CONTAINS A RESURRECTION WITHOUT the end of Mark 16.

Dead wrong. And how embarrassing after all that arrogance. What you cited is a claim of a resurrection. The physical appearances of Jesus to other people is the only thing that could qualify as evidence of an actual resurrection and those were not even claimed in the original Mark.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2014 11:39 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 10:41 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1) Giving me a negative comment on my profile ten minutes ago was a wholly immature response to my post (not to mention the fact that you ducked the questions I've raised about Matthew 28 again) with "Dr. B.B. Scott believes this [non-traditional, non-standard, non-Greek Greek stuff I make up] too!" Here's the sound of my two hands clapping, representing one person acknowledging one Greek scholar's fringe interpretation.

You can stop preaching anytime. You're wasting your breath. (What are you doing here anyway ?)

Calling something a "fringe interpretation" which you have provided NOT ONE reference for, or reason for, just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are.
I neg-repped you because YOU LIED about what I said, and MIS_represented what I said. I stand by it.

I'll quibble with you when and if I please you Fundie idiot. I realize it's inconvenient for you Fundie idiots to be reminded that the Fundie view is not THE ONLY VIEW. The "Interpreters Bible" did not say "bodily resurrection'' YOU read that in. There is nothing in the quote you provided that could not make sense in the position I have suggested.

I could care less what you do or don't do. I have demonstrated that your assumptions about what the Bible means or could mean were totally false, and not only that you were total unaware of the state of scholarship in the field.

Jesus never did anything. He never existed. They made him up. The world is exactly the same as it was before he (supposedly) "saved" it, (which was NOT THE ROLE of a messiah in the first place).

Of course you tell yourself you're a "born again". No one expected a patronizing lying misrepresenting ignoramus to be anything else.

The fact is I demonstrated here that there IS no Christian consensus on these matters, and the views of the "born agains" are really not in line with the culture that produced their cult. Apaocalyptic "exaltation" as Ehrman writes about in his latest book IS in line with it, AND the idea of a "shade" (which is NOT a "resurrected body" but a "dormant one") IS more in line with Hebrew culture. A "shade" is not a "ghost", but the peculiarities and intricacies Hebrew culture are not something Fundies want to deal with. They only want "literal" childish Babble.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-11-2014, 01:11 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(24-11-2014 10:54 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  One of my metrics for what makes a true Christian is that they believe the Bible was written by people, not space aliens. Agree or disagree? Have I judged rightly or wrongly?

Why would that possibly matter? If you are stating that you feel all Christians believe the Bible was written by humans and not space aliens, I'll agree that you're probably right. That being said, I have no idea on why that belief would be a prerequisite for Christianity. This whole thing seems like either a non sequitur, or possibly deliberate misdirection.

The whole notion of God is nonfalsifiable. Any one given interpretation for what the Bible says that could be used as a benchmark for "true" Christianity has never been proven to be true. They're all opinions.


Lets try another angle: You're assuming that a certain interpretation of the Bible is necessary to separate the "true" Christians from the posers. Can you prove that the Bible is true and that it's meant to be taken seriously? If so, please explain. If not, then how is this anything other than your opinion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
25-11-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 09:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Unfortunately, it cannot be the dictionary definition, at least until we pick one of these 11 choices!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
You're going full potato aren't you. Never go full potato. You don't get to decide the def. Dictionary doesn't *either*. Def is by consensus and dictionary is a kinda handbook of then-current consensus. You *cannot* just declare "I don't like the dictionary definition, so I'll make up my own". That *is* committing the NTS fallacy.

Quote:And I was NOT claiming that believing the Bible was written by humans or non-humans makes one a Christian or not a Christian. I'm stating that apart from the issue of what makes one truly a Christian, I am capable, as are you, of determining the correct Bible interpretation for a given statement (within certain limits and limitations).
ORLY? So any time I disagree with your interpretation it's because I'm not a true Christian. How convenient.

Quote:If we define a Christian not just as "one who follows Jesus" but "one who is religiously motivated to follow Jesus to attempt to get to Heaven" then I have issues with people who say they are Christians but do not see the need to be born again, since Jesus said:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” - John 3:3
As wonderful as that is, you still got no right to say to them that they are not truly Christians, any more than they can say the same to you. It's *subjective*.

Quote:Unless you think I've made a misinterpretation by saying when you get to heaven you can see it!
Are you high?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 10:57 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 10:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The first gospel had no resurrection?! Gosh, I take it that you would say Mark 16:9-20 shouldn't be in there and were a later assertion. FINE. Now deal with verses 6-8:

6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Perhaps someday you'll read the Bible for yourself in addition to listening only to those professors of yours who are skeptics. If you look, you might even find a born again Christian professor at Ball State or Eastern Kentucky or Yale or wherever you are "learning". THE FIRST GOSPEL CONTAINS A RESURRECTION WITHOUT the end of Mark 16.

Dead wrong. And how embarrassing after all that arrogance. What you cited is a claim of a resurrection. The physical appearances of Jesus to other people is the only thing that could qualify as evidence of an actual resurrection and those were not even claimed in the original Mark.

On a level playing field, all I have and you have are claims of both a resurrection and then a bodily resurrection. Sure. I'd still point out the necessity of a claim in the "original" Mark as an apologetic for an empty tomb that had been guarded by Romans soldiers.

And then at some point, everything's a claim. Like the claims of atheists that prayer doesn't work because they sincerely tried it. And my claims that Christians are here to witness to atheist because God remembers those prayers!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(01-10-2014 02:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 12:36 PM)dimaniac Wrote:  Creationist here.
Unlike my last thread this is an abortion debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
So did Hitler win? Is eugenics good?

He himself killed almost (almost??) no one. So there's that little annoying fact for you retards to deal with.
Hitler had some really messed up thoughts, but, here's another fact I give him credit for.... opening the first No-Kill animal shelters in Germany.

Please remember the Native American Indians Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 10:41 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1) Giving me a negative comment on my profile ten minutes ago was a wholly immature response to my post (not to mention the fact that you ducked the questions I've raised about Matthew 28 again) with "Dr. B.B. Scott believes this [non-traditional, non-standard, non-Greek Greek stuff I make up] too!" Here's the sound of my two hands clapping, representing one person acknowledging one Greek scholar's fringe interpretation.

You can stop preaching anytime. You're wasting your breath. (What are you doing here anyway ?)

Calling something a "fringe interpretation" which you have provided NOT ONE reference for, or reason for, just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are.
I neg-repped you because YOU LIED about what I said, and MIS_represented what I said. I stand by it.

I'll quibble with you when and if I please you Fundie idiot. I realize it's inconvenient for you Fundie idiots to be reminded that the Fundie view is not THE ONLY VIEW. The "Interpreters Bible" did not say "bodily resurrection'' YOU read that in. There is nothing in the quote you provided that could not make sense in the position I have suggested.

I could care less what you do or don't do. I have demonstrated that your assumptions about what the Bible means or could mean were totally false, and not only that you were total unaware of the state of scholarship in the field.

Jesus never did anything. He never existed. They made him up. The world is exactly the same as it was before he (supposedly) "saved" it, (which was NOT THE ROLE of a messiah in the first place).

Of course you tell yourself you're a "born again". No one expected a patronizing lying misrepresenting ignoramus to be anything else.

The fact is I demonstrated here that there IS no Christian consensus on these matters, and the views of the "born agains" are really not in line with the culture that produced their cult. Apaocalyptic "exaltation" as Ehrman writes about in his latest book IS in line with it, AND the idea of a "shade" (which is NOT a "resurrected body" but a "dormant one") IS more in line with Hebrew culture. A "shade" is not a "ghost", but the peculiarities and intricacies Hebrew culture are not something Fundies want to deal with. They only want "literal" childish Babble.

I see. You demonstrated that there are certainly cats among the pigeons, however few, by citing three sources 1) one PhD 2) Crossan who has been widely denounced for poor scholarship even more so than any blasphemous renderings of the text 3) yourself. Well, that's three scholars out of 30,000 worldwide, anyway.

I would counter that "magically" (which is saying a lot to a materialist!) YOU read in that it WASN'T a bodily resurrection, or isn't this clear enough for you FROM the Interpreter's Bible:

The
essence of the Christian faith concerning the
Resurrection, as it is set forth in the New
Testament, is not that Christ survived death
according to some general capacity for survival
inherent in the human soul as such, but rather
that God raised him up; that is to say, the
Resurrection was part of God's mighty act of
redemption to save mankind and establish his
kingdom.

Or perhaps you want your fellows here to understand that UNITED METHODIST PUBLISHING promulgated as a great new work that Jesus didn't bodily rise from the dead, that is, created what for Methodism would be an absolute apostasy and heresy?

Feel free to un-neg-rep me for I apologize for claiming you made up a translation of Matthew 28 when all you had done was quote a fringe scholar.

I'm aware of both the state of scholarship in the field and that the historical position from churched and un-churched scholars alike is that Jesus taught a bodily resurrection. You are doing your fellow atheists a disservice to say otherwise, after all, even today they are claiming Mark 16's ending was written to promulgate just such a theory...

"...SEE, HIS TOMB IS EMPTY BECAUSE HE HAD A NON-BODILY RESURRECTION."

Um, yeah, Bucky, that makes sense in English AND Greek. Not!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:11 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 01:11 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(24-11-2014 10:54 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  One of my metrics for what makes a true Christian is that they believe the Bible was written by people, not space aliens. Agree or disagree? Have I judged rightly or wrongly?

Why would that possibly matter? If you are stating that you feel all Christians believe the Bible was written by humans and not space aliens, I'll agree that you're probably right. That being said, I have no idea on why that belief would be a prerequisite for Christianity. This whole thing seems like either a non sequitur, or possibly deliberate misdirection.

The whole notion of God is nonfalsifiable. Any one given interpretation for what the Bible says that could be used as a benchmark for "true" Christianity has never been proven to be true. They're all opinions.


Lets try another angle: You're assuming that a certain interpretation of the Bible is necessary to separate the "true" Christians from the posers. Can you prove that the Bible is true and that it's meant to be taken seriously? If so, please explain. If not, then how is this anything other than your opinion?

At least now, finally, we are on the issue. In my opinion, a true Christian is born again, does miracles and doesn't murder people. But that opinion is informed by the Bible. Just because a Nazi claims to be biblical doesn't mean he IS biblical. Put another way, I claim to have an opinion--that is correct!

Being a true Christian, I can even--sometimes--tell when one isn't a true Christian. Or put another way, it's really obnoxious, not just uninformed, for non-Christians to tell Christians what makes a Christian! But they do it ALL THE TIME to salve their consciences.

For example, I've seen several times where Bucky tells people "They don't understand Hebraic studies/language/culture/history/whatever". Is Bucky Jewish? Who knows? But he is denouncing my understanding of the New Testament when I've been devoted to it for decades, many even longer than he's lived, and he admits he's not an NT scholar per se. He's also said I don't know Greek (wrong) and don't know Hebrew (wrong) and don't understand the Hebrew culture, interpretation, etc. of NT times (wrong).

So how about you call an NTS on Bucky? BE CONSISTENT.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: