"God is self-existent"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2015, 04:07 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(11-02-2015 04:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Neither scholarship nor zeal can achieve the ends of the Lord.


If it's "his ends" -- what say you let him do the job???

Or, do you find yourself more qualified??

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
12-02-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(11-02-2015 04:07 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 04:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Neither scholarship nor zeal can achieve the ends of the Lord.


If it's "his ends" -- what say you let him do the job???

Or, do you find yourself more qualified??

Your brevity I do not find the soul of wit. Unfortunately you are typical of many atheists I meet outside the TTA forums. Most of the ones I meet who are literate and thoughtful, engaging and intellectual, are agnostic atheists or mislabeled agnostics.

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
12-02-2015, 04:04 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(12-02-2015 03:56 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 04:07 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If it's "his ends" -- what say you let him do the job???

Or, do you find yourself more qualified??

Your brevity I do not find the soul of wit. Unfortunately you are typical of many atheists I meet outside the TTA forums. Most of the ones I meet who are literate and thoughtful, engaging and intellectual, are agnostic atheists or mislabeled agnostics.

Me thinkith you stinkith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 02:47 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(11-02-2015 04:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  When you write like this, my friend, I'm tempted to come up with a new line of thought (for me since I'm usually far more rationalist in mind). God made miracles to keep atheists out. Give 'em a little something to be skeptical about.

And you know that from... where? Are you into God's plans? Besides, it doesn't really make sense. Let's assume that's the truth for the sake of the argument. Basically God made miracles so atheists, who are mostly skeptic, would stay away from it? For what purpose? Huh

(11-02-2015 04:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Archaeology--Hezekiah's tunnel.

Prophecy--the nation of Israel.

Evidence--I spent a really long time before I was converted, I had a lot of questions, most of them typical atheist questions about children, prophecy, suffering, benevolence, atonement, etc. I've been researching ever since, too. I didn't stop thinking when I started praying, and the Bible advocates thinking while praying, too.

I am not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(11-02-2015 04:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Everyone you cited and every NT author wrote during the lifetime of Christ,

Are you compelled to lie for Christ? There is no evidence that any of those authors were contemporary, and much evidence that they weren't.

Quote:who resurrected and was only dead three days. Smile

Do you even math? Crucified Friday mid-day, rose Sunday morning - not quite two days. "On the third day" means two days after the first day.

Quote:It's not rehashed bilge--the bilge comes from a few fringe scholars who deny that there was a contemporary of Jesus called Paul, another called Peter, and so on, who after a few decades of work and ministry, wrote.

Not fringe. No believer has anything but the need for this to be true - they sure don't have any evidence.

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
16-02-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(13-02-2015 08:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 04:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Everyone you cited and every NT author wrote during the lifetime of Christ,

Are you compelled to lie for Christ? There is no evidence that any of those authors were contemporary, and much evidence that they weren't.

Quote:who resurrected and was only dead three days. Smile

Do you even math? Crucified Friday mid-day, rose Sunday morning - not quite two days. "On the third day" means two days after the first day.

Quote:It's not rehashed bilge--the bilge comes from a few fringe scholars who deny that there was a contemporary of Jesus called Paul, another called Peter, and so on, who after a few decades of work and ministry, wrote.

Not fringe. No believer has anything but the need for this to be true - they sure don't have any evidence.

There is textual evidence including people, places, monarchs and rulers, etc. cited that can date the NT earlier than you state. There are also groups who say the crucifixion did not happen on a Friday. Don't bother asking me for sources, I believe you know them and are cherry picking.

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
16-02-2015, 08:50 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(16-02-2015 01:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 08:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you compelled to lie for Christ? There is no evidence that any of those authors were contemporary, and much evidence that they weren't.


Do you even math? Crucified Friday mid-day, rose Sunday morning - not quite two days. "On the third day" means two days after the first day.


Not fringe. No believer has anything but the need for this to be true - they sure don't have any evidence.

There is textual evidence including people, places, monarchs and rulers, etc. cited that can date the NT earlier than you state.

Citing facts about the world can only date a text 'no earlier than', not 'as early as'.
Your argument fails.

Quote:There are also groups who say the crucifixion did not happen on a Friday.

Citation required.

Quote:Don't bother asking me for sources, I believe you know them and are cherry picking.

Really? Are you saying I'm dishonest? That's pretty rich coming from you.

Citations or shut the fuck up.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-02-2015, 07:05 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(16-02-2015 01:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There is textual evidence including people, places, monarchs and rulers, etc. cited that can date the NT earlier than you state.

What textual evidence would prove that something happened "as early as X"? If someone writes about X, they can right about it shortly after X happened, or long after X happened. So, just because someone writes about an event in 30 CE doesn't mean that the text was written around 30 CE. It could have been written much later.

Now, if something happens in 30 CE, we can say that the writing couldn't have come before that time (barring claims of prophesy), but you can't prove that the writing didn't come much later.


So, how do you use people and places listed in texts to prove that the NT was written during the life of Christ? Am I missing something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
Yes, you are both missing something, something I've mentioned before that bears repeating. Archaeology is a modern pursuit. Descriptions of certain facets of architecture undo much of JEDP theory/late and liberal HB dates, and researchers in modern times have verified literally hundreds of places and persons in the scriptures in both testaments.

The skeptics who knock the conservative dating for the Bible, I'm afraid, often do so on a wholly illogical and shallow basis. Example, the canard that the biblical Moses is a figment of someone's imagination because "Moses" isn't an Egyptian name--this was a "hot potato" some years ago until people like me noticed the obvious Pharaoh name of record, Tuthmosis and Rameses. Moses is "son" and Rameses is "Son of Ra".

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
17-02-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(17-02-2015 11:35 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, you are both missing something, something I've mentioned before that bears repeating. Archaeology is a modern pursuit. Descriptions of certain facets of architecture undo much of JEDP theory/late and liberal HB dates, and researchers in modern times have verified literally hundreds of places and persons in the scriptures in both testaments.

The skeptics who knock the conservative dating for the Bible, I'm afraid, often do so on a wholly illogical and shallow basis. Example, the canard that the biblical Moses is a figment of someone's imagination because "Moses" isn't an Egyptian name--this was a "hot potato" some years ago until people like me noticed the obvious Pharaoh name of record, Tuthmosis and Rameses. Moses is "son" and Rameses is "Son of Ra".

I don't get how you can say you understand the top point clearly and not see how it's actually what large degrees of the reasoning for the bottom points is considered invalid... mainly because of the lack of evidence of archaeological evidence to think of the populous of Moses and his people being in Eygpt. And the manner of which degrees of writings and existing other artifacts that highlight more varied evidence to the stories. Plus the merging of how ideas seemed to spread through those archaeological ideas after the Babylonian captures and returns to the holy area.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: