Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2015, 07:34 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 06:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Bible = accounts that actually happened.

I am going to visit tyre one day. I wouldn't be able to if the bible was true

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
31-03-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: Question about flood
[Image: NoahsArkV.San-Diego-Zoo.jpeg]

Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 08:28 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Yup, and you have absolutely no evidence to back up that claim.

I have evidence that is good enough for me.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  In fact, church history contradicts it; you do know that the epigraphs for those books were added much later

No, I don't know. It is laughable. Now all of a sudden it is an epigraph?? Moving goal posts, are we?? Exactly what I was talking about earlier Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , by people in no position to know, based on church tradition and not fact, right?

I assume you are going to provide evidence of some of the earliest manuscripts of Luke that doesn't have verses 1-3? Big Grin

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Or in other words, "a friend of a friend told me," but for people you don't even know. Why are you disagreeing with me, and then saying the exact things I just got through saying? Confused

See, typically, atheists forget that Paul's letters predate the Gospels. So when you say "friend of a friend told me"..with Paul it is more like "A friend of Jesus told me".

With Luke, it is "my homeboy Paul met with Jesus' friend Peter, and Paul and Peter spent 15 days talking and discussing everything." (Gal 2:6-19).

Now of course, your job as the super-duper skeptic is to just downplay it, brush it under the rug. That is allll part of the game, folks.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Sure, but the point that was being made to you is that the claim of being based on eyewitness testimony is not the same thing as eyewitness testimony. You know why that chinese whispers game functions? Because when people tell other people stories, the details change.

Yeah, but what didn't change? The fact is, the central message is clear...Jesus died and was raised on the third day, and was seen by his followers prior to his death. That is the central message of everything..and that is why, next Sunday, millions of Christians will observe that day...that event is just about the ONLY thing in Christianity that has never changed. Christians have disagreements about lots of things, but we all agree that Jesus rose from the dead, and that has been the central message from approx 33AD, all the way up to this coming Sunday, April 5th (my b-day is April 6th Big Grin)...the Resurrection is just about the only thing that all four Gospels agree on...Paul agree's with...the early church agrees with...all throughout the next 2,000 years.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  But in the case of the gospels we know that the claim that they were written by the disciples was added in much later

Right, by the early church fathers (ECF). We have only a total of four Gospels...and of the four, only two were claimed to have been written by disciples....now, what I find ironic is that the ECF would claim that Peter's friend wrote the book of Mark. But why not just claim Peter wrote it? Why his friend? Peter's name would carry more weight to the book, and if you are trying to keep the Christian movement going strong as you begin to just pull names out of your ass to attach to the books, why say a friend of the disciple...why not claim the disciple wrote it?

Probably because they were less concerned about popular names, and more concerned about simply telling the truth. Second, we do have evidence that WHOEVER wrote the books were people that lived in the time and geographical location that the events took place in.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , by people not in any position to know that

Well, they may not have been in "position" to know according to YOUR standards, but apparently they had reasons to believe that the authors whom they attributed to the books were the guys that actually wrote it.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , after the epigraphs were appended based on church tradition, to books that were originally anonymous. It's one thing to state that nobody knows, it's quite another to take as truth epigraphs that we know cannot be true.

I still want evidence of which of the four Gospels of the New Testament added epigraphs. Please provide.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... But we literally, literally, super duper know that nobody is in any position to know who wrote the gospels, including the people who originally claimed it was the disciples. This is a case where we really do know that a collection of assorted church leaders placed the names on the text, so the excuse you're making to try and mock us is what we can confirm to have happened. You just made the factually accurate answer against your claim for me.

As I said, the ECF...apparently they had reasons to believe it, and the fact that they claimed that two of the four Gospels were written by people that never even knew Jesus, to me, it doesn't get any more honest than that. So I will just go with what the ECF say.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Leaving aside that "the claim of an empty tomb was a lie" adequately fits within the claim that lies were involved

Ok, so are you saying that the disciples, including Paul, did not earnestly and sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , do I really need to explain an empty tomb? How is it that you think that a room containing no evidence of Jesus, is somehow evidence of Jesus?

Um, because it will kinda explain why they would believe that Jesus appeared to them physically from the dead...a belief that would not be held if the body was still in the tomb.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Unless the writer concocted the entire story out of wholecloth, or exaggerated it.

The writer? Who? Paul? So he concocted the entire 1Corin 15-3-7 thing? Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  You can talk to people living today who remember being abducted by aliens, but you don't necessarily believe those claims, right?

I like to examine things on a case by case basis. Let me listen to the story, and then I will decide what to believe, and what not to believe.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So on the one hand, you can accept an extraordinary claim being the product of a flaw in memory, but on the other, the idea that another extraordinary claim might be a flaw of memory totally blows your mind. At least try to have a consistent position, would you?

Wow, I like how you just answered the question for me, and then used that answer to set up whatever point you are trying to make in the above quote Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Some guy who looked like Jesus

Yeah, some guy that looked like Jesus happened to appear that their house, and stay with them for about a month or so Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , or they misdiagnosed that he was dead...

Nah...as the narratives tell us, he was definitely dead. The Romans made sure of it...and even if he wasn't, his interactions with the disciples doesn't seem like interactions one would have with people after he had nails hammered through his hands, was beaten to a bloody pulp, had a crown of thorns crammed onto his head, etc.

Keep'em coming Thumbsup

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  both of which are explanations much more reasonable than the one where magic happens.

Think so?

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Yes, because the bible asks us to believe that magic happened, whereas most books from antiquity do not, and the ones that do, have those specific claims ignored.

Inanimate matter coming to life and beginning to talk and think...that is magic, and most of you believe that, so what is a little Resurrection action to add to the magic of things? Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  If any of those other works contained magic claims you might have a point. But they don't, and ordinary claims require less evidence than extraordinary ones.

Nonsense. First off, this has nothing to do with extraordinary claims, because unless you have a bad memory or reading comprehension problems, I was talking about the "ordinary" claim of Luke 1:1-3, which states that the origin of the narratives were from eyewitnesses. That's it. And as I said, if you can't even get yourself to believe the simple stuff, then of course you won't believe the Resurrection.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  You're really enamored with the tu coque fallacy

Is that what they call it these days?

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , I see, but regardless of how dismissive you are, we have plenty of evidence for evolution, and none for resurrections.

At least people in history have CLAIMED to see the Resurrected Jesus. No one has ever claimed to see a reptile-bird kind of voodoo transformation Laugh out load


(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Nope, sorry. Some things aren't all just opinion, and you've certainly presented no evidence.

I have evidence that is convincing enough for me.

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Anonymous authors claiming magic shit through second hand accounts. What more do you want?

If you get your information from first hand accounts (Paul-Peter), does that count?

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So you accept claims until they're proven false? Okay, cool: I went back in time and saw that no god created the universe. It all happened naturally.

Conversation over, I guess?

Whoa, wait a minute...what did you actually see??

(31-03-2015 05:31 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Yes, but just saying "if I'm right, then you're wrong!" is not an argument for why you're right, it's a tautology.

He said something like "Paul didn't see Jesus, he saw a vision"...and I said if the vision was actually Jesus, then that is an appearance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 08:34 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 07:37 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: NoahsArkV.San-Diego-Zoo.jpeg]

Drinking Beverage

Nonsense. Notice it gives us how many acres of land the zoo sits on, but it doesn't give the measurements of the ark Laugh out load And it gives us the count of how many employees work at the zoo, and only list 8 people inside the ark, but conveniently FAILS to mention God Laugh out load

If I have God, why do I need 500+ employees?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 07:34 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I am going to visit tyre one day. I wouldn't be able to if the bible was true

I am going to visit the zoo to see some of the great apes. I wouldn't be able to visit them if evolution is true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 08:50 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 08:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am going to visit the zoo to see some of the great apes. I wouldn't be able to visit them if evolution is true.
I'm probably going to regret this, but regardless, why wouldn't you?

(30-03-2015 08:47 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  IT'S THE HOLY GHOST oooOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 06:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Bible = accounts that actually happened.

Above post = some made up shit that was pulled out of the ass of an atheist.

Laughat
oh shit!! I can't believe you actually just typed that. Nobody is this stupid.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 10:07 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 08:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 07:34 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I am going to visit tyre one day. I wouldn't be able to if the bible was true

I am going to visit the zoo to see some of the great apes. I wouldn't be able to visit them if evolution is true.

Yes you would, but thanks for demonstrating yet again that you have no understanding of what evolution actually describes. The pride you take in your ignorance does more to discredit you than anything we could ever say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
31-03-2015, 10:14 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 08:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 07:34 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I am going to visit tyre one day. I wouldn't be able to if the bible was true

I am going to visit the zoo to see some of the great apes. I wouldn't be able to visit them if evolution is true.

Evolution is a tree, not a ladder. We have a common ancestor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BeardFist McFistBeard's post
31-03-2015, 10:15 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 10:07 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 08:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am going to visit the zoo to see some of the great apes. I wouldn't be able to visit them if evolution is true.

Yes you would, but thanks for demonstrating yet again that you have no understanding of what evolution actually describes. The pride you take in your ignorance does more to discredit you than anything we could ever say.

Ignorance is one thing. It can be fixed through education. Willful ignorance is something entirely different. To take pride in your ignorance is something I'll never understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: