Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 2

(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  There was a lot of quarelling going on in the early church including which gospels were cannon so theres that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani...ical_canon

I am talking about the Gospels...there was no quarreling about who wrote the Gospels...and those other books like the Gospel of Thomas/Peter were not added to the canon precisely because they were not written by the authors that bears their names, but the actual Gospels were.

(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again creeds are not evidence, he was handed down that creed they may have beleieved what they were saying but without evidence it doesn't make it true. Sincear belief doesn't make it true, you could sincearly believe that you can fly and that gravity doesn't effect you, but somehow I doubt you would go jumping off a building or if you did you would find yourself on the ground rather quickly.

So they very much lied, possibly with some sprinkles of truth.

But if they were lying, they wouldn't have believed it, right? Have you ever believed a lie that you told? Probably not. So either they believed it, or they were lying. Can't be both.

With Paul, he claimed to have met with Peter and James, and he claimed to have saw the risen Jesus himself. Now, was he lying, or telling the truth? If he is lying, then he never believed what he was saying. If he believed what he was saying, then he must have had actual reasons to believe what he was saying.

So the question is, what were those reasons?

(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  I'm not sure exactly what they would say, as I didn't ask at the time or at least I don't remember. But something along the lines of needing a personal savior to absolve them of sins and what they saw as the corrupt nature of the world.

Sounds like fundamental Christian doctrine, to me Laugh out load

(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  Which translations did you look at? The article was written using the King James Version a litteral translation

Any of the translations that can be found on BibleGateway.com. You can look up any scripture by the actual scripture or keyword, and you can choose any of the many different translations they have listed and immediately get a particular translation that you want. I did five random ones.

(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  I should point out as I did orginally, I didn't write this entire section, I quoted it from the source link. And without knowing which bible versions you were looking at other than the NIV which is a 50/50 translation/interpolation which means that the translater could have fixed some of the errors.

Hey, no problem. I owe you for that one, thanks. That stuff was all new to me, so I had to do some major research and brainstorming. Just when I thought I saw it all Laugh out load

It was mentally draining but for the cause, well worth it Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
26-07-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 3

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  That's not what the book says though, it says they told no one. It doesn't say that they told no one at first. The problem remains.

Yeah, so the author stated that they told no one, yet he is writing the book decades after the event when the cat has long been out of the bag? So it is obvious that people found out, otherwise the author wouldn't be writing about it, would he?

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Where did I say he got everything from Mark?

You didn't say it, but you practically implied it. That is what makes Matthew an independent source, as he borrowed material from Mark, but the source that he used for his other material is independent from the Marcan source (and the other Gospels as well).

Independent stuff.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  In your introduction you believe in a litteral interperation of the bible, and I assume that you believe the bible is infallible and inspired work of God. Persepective would be irrelevent, the genologies should match. However you are trying to explain them away on why they don't match (the contradiction). This would suggest a human perspective without inspiration would it not?

Yes I believe the Bible is infallible, and perspectives do matter. If the author purposely traced the genealogy back by whatever means he decided to do so, then the genealogy fit the desired purpose.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Embarsment factor isn't evidence

It is to me.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  , and in looking at the gospels the disciples pretty much called bullshit when the women told them of the events at the tomb until Jesus appeared before them or one of them went to the tomb, depending on which gospel you are reading.

Yeah, but the point is they should have known that Jesus would raise from the dead...he only hinted at it a dozen or so times...hell, in the book of Matthew, the Pharisees saw to it that guards were placed by the tomb in case the disciples came to steal the body, because they heard Jesus say he would raise from the dead and they didn't want the disciples to steal the body and claim that Jesus had risen from the dead, so they placed guards at the tomb.

So if the Pharisees understood what Jesus meant, then why the hell didn't the disciples, who were with Jesus every day? Hmmm.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Yes and your point? The genology was on Jesus not Joseph

Well, you wondered how it could be done..and that is how.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Carrier has grown alot and done much more research since that debate, he did lose but he wasn't well prepared to go against Craig.

Hey man, you are an honest and modest fellow Thumbsup If Carrier wants another spanking, Craig has plenty more cans of whoop ass.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  You mean 3 accounts don't mention it, and one does.

But in all four books, you can find accounts in one that isn't in the others. That's what happens when you have independent sources, you are going to have that kind of variety...which suggests that all four authors didn't huddle up inside a cave together and discuss which events would be included in the books, and which weren't.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Nothing about that specific statement, however the whole thing reads as a theological argument when you read the text in whole. You still have the hersay problem though, and lack of extra-biblacal sources.

Well, the man said he did his research, so hey Laugh out load I believe him.
Find all posts by this user
26-07-2015, 08:02 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 4

(20-07-2015 02:48 PM)Worom Wrote:  Given that the resurrection violates natural law

Abiogenesis violates natural law, too. But that doesn't stop some of you people from believing that crap, does it?

And besides, who said we should only believe things that can be proven by natural law? Not me. Are you?

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  , along with the whole 3 hours of darkness that no one bothers to mention in any non biblical text

Someone did, but we need not get in to that.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  , along with a bunch of basically Jewish zombies that one else mentions either. Then yes I find the ressuretion extreamly far fetched.

Far fetched? If God exists, he has the power to raise people from the dead, Worom. That is the hypothesis, that God raised Jesus (and whoever) from the dead. And based on that hypothesis, it doesn't seem too far fetched.

And besides, the idea that non-living material suddenly/gradually coming to life and beginning to talk, think, laugh, etc...THAT seems far fetched. I mean, you call a dead person coming to life far fetched, but how is that any more far fetched than nonliving material "coming to life"?

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Obviously or it wouldn't exist today. Still, my argument remains.

Yeah, so we attempt to explain the origins of such a movement, which can be traced, on paper, back to 20 years after the event in question. Early stuff. Very early indeed.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Christianity

Been there, done that.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Because modern day men have the scientific method

Irrelevant to historical inquiries.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  linguistic analysis, fragments of records, complete records as well, physical evidence, checks and balances against bias, free flow of information.

And none of that can be used to say yay or nay as to whether any of the names which are attributed to the Gospels actually wrote them or not.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Modesty is not evidence, and is irrellivent.

It is evidence to me. "Peter didn't write it, his friend did". That may not do it for you, but it does for me.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  The dates are based on lingustic analysis, you can determine when something was written based on the language contained withn the document, For example in the modern age a document containing lol for laugh out loud would have to be written past 1990. It is also useful for determining if different people wrote and if they wrote at different times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Ok, I will give you that. Now take that linguistic analysis and tell me why all of the Gospels (or any) can be said to have been written post 70 CE.

I will wait.
Find all posts by this user
26-07-2015, 08:03 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 5

(20-07-2015 02:52 PM)Worom Wrote:  That is why I specifically said, complete document. I didn't say anything about the age of the fragments in the argument I made just above. By the way that fragment you linked did prove my point about fragments being small. The one you linked to is the size of a small postcard.

True, but no one is denying that it is an excerpt of an entire book, and the date is around 125 CE.


(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Read the following

Luke: 9:10 And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

John 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Pete
John: 6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.

The mentioning of John being from bethesda takes place before the feeding of the 5000, but there is still an issue here, Jesus asking Philip about where to buy bread isn't expicit in that they are in Bethsaida. You seem to be making the connection of well Philip knows the area they must be in Bethsaida. But I still really don't see the point of this?

Whoa wait a second here. I'd hate to think that you purposely left out the latter part of verse 10, where it explicitly states "but the crowds learned about it and followed him."

The former part of verse 10 states that Jesus and the disciples withdrew themselves to a town call Bethsaida, and the later part states that the crowd followed them there.

Now in verse 12, it states that "Late in the afternoon, the Twelve came to him..." So obviously time had passed...so unless you are stating that they left the area within that time?

I doubt it, because the crowd was still there and I don't think that a crowd of that magnitude was following him around all day. They were obviously at that remote location for a few hours (verse 12).
Find all posts by this user
26-07-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 6

(20-07-2015 02:53 PM)Worom Wrote:  And you seem to fail in understanding what a contradiction is, adding flair to a story is fine but outright opposing eachother is a whole different problem.

con·tra·dic·tion
ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
synonyms: denial, refutation, rebuttal, countering
"a contradiction of his statement"

A contradiction would be if lets say a Gospels said or implied that ONLY one man/angel met or spoke with the women at the tomb. Keyword [only]. But that was neither said nor implied. If one says two men, and the other says one man, then both are correct. Last I checked, if there are two, then there is at least one.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Authentic just means he wrote it, it does't mean that He wasn't lying or greatly exaggerating the events.

He explicitly said "lastly, he appeared to me". That isn't hearsay or second hand testimony...that is direct first hand experience, and he is either lying through his teeth about it or telling the truth.
Find all posts by this user
27-07-2015, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2015 01:40 PM by Worom.)
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Part 1

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Biblical sources are not historical, this is part of our entire debate, you have yet to show that the Bible is a historical document.

A historical document? Wait a minute, so just because the 66 books that were compiled together (the Bible) has some particular things in it that you don't like or agree with, that makes it an unreliable source when it comes to recording history??

If by some you mean large sections of it yes, its highly unreliable

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Sorry Charlie, you have to do better than that. First off, enlighten me on what is the criterion at which you can establish whether or not a document or book can be considered historical. Of course, I can then play the role of super skeptic like most of you people on this forum, and just systematically deny and call into question every single piece of the so called "evidence" that you give me. I should be able to play that game too, right?

Sure you could try that, but unlike the Bible and the gospels there is a mountain of evidence supporting other historical events, and keep in mind a historian would admit that what is known could be wrong but based on what we have and what is described by multiple sources then we have a high confidence rating of what happened.

Here is some History 101 for you, it should be noted that these are only very small pieces of semester long classes at these universities.
http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320hist%26...01HIST.htm
http://www.uky.edu/~dolph/HIS316/handouts/sources.html

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, you can't logically deny the claims of the the Bible just because it says things that you don't agree with, because after all, no one alive today was living 2,000+ years ago, so no living person today can know for certainty what went down during those times..so all we can do is state what the evidence seems to show, and from my perspective, the evidence seems to suggest that what the Gospels say took place actually occurred..and you obviously disagree, but let's try not to make absolute statements such as "the bible doesn't record history" and things like that, because unless you were there, you don't know what the hell went down, now do you??

I can easily logically deny the claims of bible, its making claims that are physically impossible and have never been observed and are only described in the bible. I don't care if the person is still alive or if they lived 2,000 years ago if they make an extraordinary claim it needs extraordinary evidence of which there is none.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also what extra-biblical sources? I have yet to find a source that doesn't suggest forgery.

Josephus is the only real interpolation that took place in extra-biblical sources, and even with his account, words were added in, not taken out. If you omit the passages that were added, you are still left with a man named Jesus who started a particular religious movement from which Christianity was founded.

Actually the whole section on Jesus was a forgery

"Abstract
The passage about Jesus Christ in Jewish historian Josephus’s writings
has been debated for centuries, as concerns its authenticity totally, partially or not at all . This brief “testimonium” is proffered by Christian apologists as the “best evidence” for the historicity of Jesus, but it has been declared many times to be a forgery in toto. A recent study by a renowned linguist confirms this analysis of the entire passage as an interpolation by a Christian scribe, likely during the fourth century or later."

https://www.academia.edu/10463098/Joseph...ry_In_Toto

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  If you are referring to the annals of Tacticus the only mention of a Jesus is in a single paragraph in one his books, and even then the wording he used is inconsistent suggesting that section was forged in.

Forged in? Forged in by who? A Christian? It is clear to anyone that reads the passage that the author is not exactly Christian friendly. A Christian wouldn't have called the resurrection a "mischievous superstition" nor would a Christian have said that the Christians during that time were "hated for their enormities".

This is just an example of unbelievers searching for something that simply isn't there. Now I will grant you the interpolation of the Josephus account all day long, but this one I ain't buying.

Either way the section in by Tacticus doesn't say much, it just describes a person with the name and an origin of the early Christians.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Especially his use of the word Christiani as the split between Judisim and Christanity didn't occur until after the 1st century CE and didn't fully complete until at the earliest the 2nd century.

Christiani? What?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Since the authors were appearing to want to create some type of historical record they would want thier writings to be taken as non-fiction.

Then Christopher Columbus never existed and the entire story of him coming to America was just a fantasy story made up by the Italians to create a name for themselves and thereby getting their heritage on the map.

You're making a false equivalency argument here, if it was a fantasy story we would have no evidence beyond the works of the Italians or spaniards since they funded the trip, also Christopher Columbus was financed by the spaniards not the Italians for his exploration trip. Then the British and the Portuguese both launched thier own expeditions and they claimed land and founded colonies with several other countries following thier lead, the evidence for these events taking place is how shall we say overwhelming. And no supernatural event was needed for these trips to happen.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  However, the point must be made that intent is only a very small piece of the puzzle. And given the rough timeframe that the gospels were written and what was going on in the Jewish world a the time with discontent between the Jews and the Romans resulting in a revolt in 66 CE and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE there would have been serious motives to try and alter the Jewish faith because one of the core pieces of the religion(the temple) had been destroyed by the romans with no intent of it being rebuilt. The amount of trauma this caused to the Jews can't be understated and left them with trying to answer the four questions below.

Dude, Paul was already called upon to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles...this was before 66 CE. The distinction was already made between the Jews and the Gentiles, and again, Paul's epistles predate the Gospels. So basically, you have Christianity already spread from Jerusalem to Corinth by the decade of the 50's CE...just 20 years or so after the cross. That is early stuff, bro.

It may be early but it was still considered a Jewish sect not Christianity as you call it today, no split had happened and the temple still existed.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  How to achieve atonement without the Temple?
How to explain the disastrous outcome of the rebellion?
How to live in the post-Temple, Romanized world?
How to connect present and past traditions?

Christianity had already reached Rome BEFORE the destruction of the Temple. That is the point. You keep talking about stuff that happened later, when the Christianity was already out of control decades before the stuff you keep mentioning.

Christianity still did not exist as a separate religion at this point it was a sect of Judaism, the Jewish people felt like they were under oppression under the Romans, could you not see the whole idea of a messiah that would help them being appeal to them regardless of it being real or not?

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Seems to me that the efforts to try and answer those questions could result in a whole new religion.

Paul's epistles...

You're point?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  I mentioned this to disprove the point that biographies are always written about a real life person that you tried to make.

The question is what is the author's INTENT.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  It's not apples and oranges, the entire debate i've been presenting evidence to you that the Biblical accounts are not historical and that the dates you attribute to them are not the actual dates that they were written. Since the Bible is not a historical document by my argument then Jesus of Nazarath is just as Fictional as Jean Luc Picard or Santa Claus.

Yet, the vast majority of historians, whether believers or unbelievers, believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Show me a link at which one historian believes that Jean Luc Picard existed, or Santa Claus.

You have yet to cite a single source from a historian that says Jesus existed, I have cited several already that shows that he may not have existed, and how he would have been worked into history. So where is your proof that a vast majority of Historians say Jesus Existed?

You are also strawmanning my argument I brought up the entire jean luc picard thing solely on the argument you made that biographies have to be made on real people.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is pretty simple actually.

1. Do the events, people, or places described violate the known laws of nature?

This assumes that the laws of nature cannot be violated, which is circular reasoning, therefore...fallacious.

No it is not, we have no evidence of the laws of physics as we understand them being violated ever, if something did violate them we would have to rewrite our theories to explain the new data.

Besides by your reasoning how would you be able to know that Harry potter is fiction or not?

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  2. Is there any evidence of the events, people, or places described?

That depends on what evidence is sufficient enough for YOU.

I would use the historical or scientific standards depending on exactly the topic, in this case I would lean towards a historical standard.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Those two criterion may be a bit of an oversimiplification on my part, in any case though rule one must always be passed before you can move on to rule two

Since #1 was fallacious, moving to 2 was easy Laugh out load

And I just explained why #1 isn't fallacious so try again.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The Q source would have predated the gospels true, but if the Q source documents existed they have been completly lost. And we don't know if the Q Source was independent, who wrote it, or really much about it. So no real help to your argument here, I brought up the hypothesis to make a point about the gospels not being eyewitness accounts and that there are alternative explanations, the Q source being a rather weak once on the Theologist standpoint.

If they are lost, so what? The Q source isn't my hypothesis...it isn't required for any argument that I am making, so to hell with it Laugh out load

Again I brought it up as a point against your arugment of the Gospels being eyewitness accounts, if they truley are why would we even need a Q source hypothesis?

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Irrelivant, it still causes problems with your argument of the gospels being eyewitness accounts, an eyewitness wouldn't need a "Jesus greatest sayings" document if they were actual eyewitnesses to the events.

But I am not using the alleged Q source for my argument. You were the one that first mentioned it, not me. I actually agree with you, an eyewitness wouldn't need such a source. But then again, even if there is such a source...what do you have? A collection of the sayings of Jesus, but if he never existed, why would there be a collection of his sayings?? Ohh, just a concocted list of sayings based on this mythical figure that never even existed?? Dodgy

Should I use the Picard argument again? I can come up with a list real quick of his famous sayings/quotes Facepalm

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  I did't make that argument and that is not what the Farrer Hypothesis says either, the hypothesis makes the argument that Mark was written first, Matthew was written using Mark as a source document, and Luke was written last using Mark and Matthew as source documents. This doesn't mean the entire thing was copied word for word into the other two gospels, the similarity in narrative and wording and order all suggest a common source. Hence the Gnostic problem, that this hypothesis is trying to solve for. The length of a book is irrelivent to it being used as a source document.

Yeah but my focus is on the differences, not the similarities. Ok, they all share a common source, but since there are differences, one can only wonder why each one has narratives that the others don't have...so what do we make of it?? I have my own hypothesis, and one doesn't need to be a biblical scholar or historian to formulate a hypothesis on it, because that is all those guys do anyway.

I would argue that you do need to be historian to make a true argument, again why would eyewitness accounts need any source material at all? Simple they wouldn't yet the three gospels share similarities between eachother that could have only happened by using a source document. The argument I would make is the added material is each authors own theological interpertation of what they are reading and writing.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The source is cited for you to review, But to expand on it, ACTS was a rather obscure document even until the 5th century CE. And provides some history of Christianity and seems to have escaped a good bit of editing by the early christians as demonstrated here.

"The Lord whom we read of in the epistles appears to be a real figure from history, seemingly resurrected as the story begins, and seen by many at that time. Those who saw him c. 35 CE, as reported by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, were expecting action as implied by their eschatological beliefs. The Lord, as Messiah, would lead mankind through the last days, but his mission either failed or was indefinitely postponed, and Paul was the last to see him. The story had no end and the sightings petered out. The believers waited eagerly, but died disappointed, with Paul anxious to reassure those who feared they would die before the Lord manifested himself to all (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:13-17).

When I read Acts, it doesn't appear as if believers were expecting Christ to return within their lifetimes. That is not what I get out of reading Acts. The purpose of Acts was to tell readers how Christianity spread following the ascension of Christ.

Thats not I how I read it, this section in particular

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Acts 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Acts 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved..

Any idea how many blood moons there have been in the last 2000 years and not a so much as a peep from above? There have been 65 by the way 8 of them occuring during Jewish Passover

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The Gospel account, on the other hand, has the Lord resurrected--not at the beginning of the story--but at the end of a prefacing drama inserted before the sightings occurred, giving an account of an earthly life. The drama ends with death and then Resurrection, now presented as a glorious fulfilment of his mission. The story that had no ending now becomes the ending itself, but of another story. The subsequent eternal waiting was forgotten at first, but later reentered Christian doctrine as a required vigil rather than a disappointment, with the faithful awaiting a parousia at some unspecified future date."

That is one hellava interpretation of the Gospel's that I don't agree with.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  And you're proof that Luke is the author is?

I don't have "proof". I have reasons that I believe Luke to have written the book, and I believe those reasons are more plausible than not. That is like me asking you what is your proof that Ben Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence. You weren't there, so how do you know? Well, you build a case as to why you believe he signed it, and thats all we can do about anything that was written in antiquity.

You really need to learn history, I can go and look at the declaration of indepence and see his signature right there on the orginial document that has been painstakenly preserved. And we can verify its his signature because we have other writings done by Benjamin Franklin with his singnature on it.

Your reasons are meaningless without proof.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The same arguemet I used for a cliff hanger story can be used here, if your trying to make a document look like it was written earlier than it was this would be a good way to do it.

Or you could just state that Paul wrote the book of Acts, and the book of Luke. That is the point, Luke was not the leader of any Church, he wasn't a disciple, he never met Jesus, etc. So why would a tradition at which this lesser known individual ever have circulated? Unless the situation simply IS what it IS, and Luke wrote the book whether we like it or not.

How could Paul have written a document that is dated well after his death? Again Modesty and the position of a person is meaningless in proving something historical or not.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Paul the apostle died around 67 CE according to the apologetic websites so im being very generous on the date here.

Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  However the earliest date that Luke was written is 85 CE. My source for the date is listed on the first debate post I made.

I find that date unlikely based on the destruction of the Temple. You just don't leave that kind of information out of the book, especially when other things in the book at pointed out, things that have to do with nothing being mentioned...but no mention of the destruction of the Temple? Uh uh.

If you're trying to make a prophecy look true that is exactly what you would do, is leave a section of a book. The writing style of Luke at the earliest is 85 CE.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  And since Luke and Acts have the same author, there is no way paul could have written a document that dates to well after he died.

Huh?

I can maybe see your confusion here, let me rephrase this. Acts couldn't have been writen by Paul since he was dead by the time it was written. And Luke wasn't written by luke, we have no idea who wrote and my reasons are stated a bit later on that you would have already read by this point in the debate.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  There is a method to determine authorship of a document and four categories that the authorship can fall into.

How do we determine the authorship of a document.
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it?
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors?
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written?
4. Are there other records outside the work that make mention of the author and his works?

Once that is done along wth some other linguistc comparisions one of four authorship categories categories can be assigned to the work

1. the person who is named in the book,
2. someone else, who has been identified,
3. someone who has not been identified, but who has also written particular other texts, or
4. an unknown author.

So lets apply these criterion to the gospels using the arguments I've made thus far.

Mark:

1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues show two authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? Lingustic clues show that Mark had one author writing around 65 CE and another author writing around 80 - 90 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

Matthew:
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Possibly a single author, but an edit may be present from a second author which is disputed
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? Lingustic clues suggest authorship between 70CE and 100CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

Luke:

1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues suggest composite document of multiple authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? The document being written as a compiliation and the lingusitic style suggest around 85-100 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

John:
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues indicate three authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? The clues show that the dates would be around 100 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

With the exception of what Paul wrote, the gospels all fall into category 4.


The only problem with all of that is, if someone wanted to play the role of super skeptic, one could easily argue-down each of those categories. Just take any document, letter, or book that was written in antiquity of which we are sure that we know who wrote it, and give me the reasons why author x wrote it, and I can easily argue down every point that you make. It would be just that easy.

Christianity is about the life, teachings, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus is said to have had 12 disciples that accompanied him throughout his ministry. Now, if the goal was to spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the entire world, and one avenue that was used was four specific books written about Jesus' life...I just don't see how it would ever get to the point where friends of the disciples who never even met Jesus would get the credit for writing one of Jesus' biographies.

That, to me is the biggest reason why I think the authorship of the Bible is accurate.

You have already tried to bring up the antiquity argument, and I've shot it down repeatedly, And no one got credit for writing the gospels all the authorships are unknown based on the arguments above.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  None of the gospels bothered to mention who wrote them so the time difference is irrellevent

But then again, we are also talking about stuff that predates the Gospels. Again, the origins of Christianity doesn't begin with the Gospels.

Your point?

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  and the church fathers had bias and motive to attribute an authorship.

What bias' did the church fathers have in favor of attributing the book of Mark and the book of Luke...to Mark, and Luke? Not to mention the fact that bias' are independent of truth value.

Because attributing them to disples or friends of disciples would appear to increase thier validity, rather than going well someone we don't know who wrote them.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  and motive to attribute an authorship.
, You could be a month removed or 10,000 years removed from the source document, if no one bothered to mention who wrote the thing in the orginal document or by contempories then there is no way to know at all.

Yeah, but again, the problem with that is even if the Gospels were written by Jesus himself, and it said "I, Jesus, wrote these books"...even if that were the case, one could still systematically doubt this and say "Ahh, how do we know that Jesus ACTUALLY wrote it, it could have been one of his disciples that wrote it and attributed to him."

This would actually be a good thing if it said I Jesus of Nazarath wrote these books, if that was in there lingusitics would kick in to determine if that claim of authorship is valid, if lingusitics showed that there was only a single author then the historian would say that Jesus of Nazarath was the author, however this doesn't mean that what he wrote actually happened.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Kind of like how in your above quotes you gave forth the option that the book of Acts could have been written by an author who wanted to make it seem as if it had been written earlier, remember that?

Yes I remember that, your point?

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, a person can systematically doubt anything and even if we could prove with historical accuracy that the books were written by whom Christians believe they were written by, all the unbeliever would do is simply move the goal posts further. Then the question may become "So what, we know who wrote them, but that doesn't mean that what they wrote is actually true"....or something along those lines.

I have set my goalposts, I haven't moved them you still have not provided any evidence that the Bibles were written by who you say they were, or any evidence that the events took place, or they were written in the years you say they were.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But that won't work, because even though we dont "know" who wrote the Gospels (or anything in antiquity), just because we don't know who wrote them has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of what was written. In other words, every single word in the Gospels COULD be true DESPITE not knowing who wrote it. But anyways, all the skeptic would do is move the goal posts, because they aren't interested in believing, they are only interested in attacking (for the most part).

But you wanted this debate to prove authorship you have now switched to saying its irellevent?, Having multiple unknown authors makes the document a rather weak source, could it have some truth to it sure but, again why are there no extra-biblical sources on the events? The sun going dark for 3 hours would get the attention of a ton of people, including the roman historians that wrote down...every...single...astronimical....event that they could see. They never bothered to mention the sky going dark for 3 freeking hours.


(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I have Quest Study Bible, which is an NIV, and the introduction to each book in this particular Bible answers the question of Why read the book...Who Wrote the book...Why was it written...When was it written...To whom was it written...and What to look for.

And in the When was it written part (Acts), the dates are 63-70 CE.

You still have a possible date range here after paul's death in 67 CE.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The western wall is not the temple itself now, is it? They were clearly talking about the BUILDINGS of the Temple, as even your Matthew scriptures indicate. Jesus answered them by responding to the BUILDINGS that they brought to his attention...and he was right, because the buildings were destroyed, and not a stone was left upon another, just as he said.

Last time I checked the wailing wall was part of the temple complex, and its made of stone, an event so violent as to level the entire temple complex with not a stone upon another stone yet an entire wall section suvives hmm.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  First off, still; if the Temple/City of Jerusalem was destroyed as history confirms that they were, and Jesus said that they would be destroyed, you would think that the authors would have placed that "minor" little detail in the book. You don't just bypass such an event that affected the very lives of the Jewish community, especially with Jesus stating that this would occur, and especially if you are quick to point out other prophecies that Jesus predicted.

Second, you say that there is no timeline of the prophecy, yet, there is no timeline of the other prophecies in the books, yet when one was fulfilled, the authors are quick to point it out as explicitly as they could "this happened so that X prophecy would be fulfilled" and such.

Third, sure, anything can happen if we wait long enough. It just didn't appear to happen yet. I can't see how, if a Gospel writer is writing that stuff after the city/temple was completely destroyed, as he is writing down what Jesus said in reference to it, how could they not point out to the readers that the prophecy was fulfilled.

But if they had put it in the books, it would be even easier for us skeptics to dismiss the prophecy being fulfilled, especially given the dates that the books were written...

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  I provided my source for this conclusion, so the assertation is far from blank.

Must of missed it.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The prophecy wasn't fulfilled in the way Jesus prediceted it, the western wall of the temple complex still exists. And yes the destruction of the temple was a massivley traumatic event in the Jewish community, I mention this above.

And as just mentioned, they were talking about the buildings within the complex. The keyword is "buildings", and the buildings were completely destroyed.


(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  His biographies actually are within 200-400 years

Right, but even according to your view, all of the Gospels were written in the late first century with John being the last, written around 90-100 CE. That is still within the century of when the events took place.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  the article you posted mentions there are 5 main sources dating from 100 BCE to 300 CE. Also thank you for posting your source, too bad it hurts your argument rather than supports it. In reading the actual source you posted here is what we have to prove that Alexander the Great existed.

What? That is nonsense. Even if the earliest biography of Alexander the Great dates to 100 BCE, that is STILL 200 years after his death. He died around 323 BCE. You do the math. The events in his biography were written well past when they occurred. Yet, Paul is preaching the word and recognizing Jesus as a historical figure in the 50's CE, only a mere 20 years after the events at which they occurred.

It is no contest, bruh.

Except you ignored the other sources that were listed in the article you posted, we don't have only his biographies to go off of.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  5 Main sources all biographies, describing his life in different aspects including his military career and and life itself. 1 source is called out for geographical errors, military knowledge ignorance, and chronology. However the focus that author had was on the character of Alexander the great, one other source also points out it was focused more on his morality. The other three are much stronger historical sources. The date span is of course concerning, however we have more sources than just these documents. Such as the Greek epigraphy that your source mentions, along with mentions of him in oriental tradition. Throw in incidental sources on top of that and you have a strong case for Alexander the Great existing.

Regardless, still 200-400 years afterwards, pimp Laugh out load

Non-issue since we have sources outside of the biographies that date roughly around the time he was alive, the wikipedia article you posted pointed it out.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Compare that to the Gospels that all contradict each other when trying to describe the same events

That is your opinion.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  and that there are no extra-biblacal sources around the gospels either.

That is an unjustified level of criterion. All of the words in the Bible could be regardless of whether or not there are extra-biblical sources to corroborate it.

No its not, large swaths of history meet the criterion of having other sources other than its own document, and yet your book that is supposed to be the inspired work of an all powerfull, all knowing god can't do it.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Not to mention all the supernatural events that supposedly took place that no one else bothered to mention.

This was before the times of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. Most people couldn't read or write during those times. News by word of mouth, obviously...and the book of Acts records how fast Christianity was spreading despite none of the modern day conveniences we are fortunate enough to have with us today.

So you have a ton of people raised from the dead, the sky going dark for three hours, an earthquake and no one bothered to write it down. The scale of the events that are described are so huge that even with the piss poor litteracy rate back then. There should have been a lot of people writing about it.

Sorry not buying it

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again he can say anthing in his letters

Well, then so can anyone else in history who has ever written anything that you have no problem giving credibility to.

They wern't claiming people were raised from the dead and performing miracles.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  and why do you keep going back to the same section in Corinthians? I have stated repeatedly that its a creed and you agreed it was a creed, its not evidence.

Right, and the last I checked, creeds could be true. The information within this creed could be true, and the reason I keep going back to Corinthians is because it helps demonstrate the EARLY belief in the Resurrection, that predates the Gospels, which are in question.

And since we are talking about the dating of the Gospels, it is worth mentioning a book that is independent of the Gospels, that was written EARLIER than the Gospels, that confirms the overall central message of the Gospels.

That is the point.

Creeds are professions of faith, they by defintion can not be evidence.

Frusty

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Corinth may be far away from Jerusalam, but even back then you could take a boat from the coast of isreal and get to corinth pretty quickly.

Train, plane, automobile, boat, ship, walking, running, horseback, swimming, teleportation...whatever it takes to get the job done.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also something to keep in mind is that Judiasm and Christanity didn't completly split until sometime in the 2nd century CE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_e...nd_Judaism

The roots might have begun earlier than 50 CE, but until sometime in the 2nd century it was still considered a jewish sect. So us skeptics are justified in saying that Christianity didn't exist in the 1st century.

The book of Acts records Gentiles being converted...Philip converted the Ethopian (Acts 8:26-40), and Peter converted Cornelius (Acts 10), and it is clear in Acts 10:45 that the Holy Spirit was granted to the Gentiles as well.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Modesty is meaningless, evidence is what counts. Uhm Luke was written by the time Papais supposedly made his account, so he could have easily read Luke and then made his account harmonize with the preface of Luke.

Wow, you are really reaching, aren't you, bro? Laugh out load

Uh no, if a guy can read a book before he writes about it, then he can very very easily make it harmonius with the book.

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again accounts written by people that didn't actually witness the event is hearsay.

Name me one of those authors of Alexander the Great that witnessed the events.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Its not a double standard, the biography you pointed out yes was written well after the death of alexander the great and a historian would point that out as an issue if those biographies were the only source, also there is a biography much closer to his death around 200 years. As well as several sources of confirming evidence. Which you would have read above in one of my prior arguments..

Ohh, confirming evidence? 200 years is still further away from the event than ANY Gospel or Epistle, isn't it?

Again read the article you posted, the biographies arn't the only evidence. Facepalm

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  This was a math goof on my part, was looking at his date of death in error, but this doesn't hurt my argument as 45 years is still a good bit of time.

45 years of a tradition saying that Mark, companion of Peter, wrote a book on the life of Jesus?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  There are of course exceptions to average lifespans, however anyone above 48 would be rare back in the 1st century. Living past 60 would be almost unheard of. The idea of anyone living to 116 in the 1st century would be proposterous. Its extremely rare even today with all our medical technology for people to get past 100.

But remember, my argument is that at the very least, the information within the Gospels are accounts BY eyewitnesses, meaning that the information within the books would obviously precede the dates that the information was written down. Which just so happens to harmonize with what Luke says in his preface, the information was originally passed down from eyewitnesses, and [NOW] he (Luke) began to write up an account of the information.

So even if the authors were dead by the time they reached age 48, they had already gotten the message out.

Any information passed down from an eyewitness and written by another person is heresay, since the event is so important to your religion, why didn't the actual witness write a damn thing down?

(26-07-2015 07:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  My logic wasn't invalid, my date was a bit off. Your logic is invalid though in comparing current exceptions to the life expectancy of around 77 to the life expectancy of someone living 2000 years ago.

But this is irrelevant anyway, the fact of the matter is that they got the message out before they died, regardless of whatever age they were when they died.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
27-07-2015, 01:44 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Part 2

(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  There was a lot of quarelling going on in the early church including which gospels were cannon so theres that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani...ical_canon

I am talking about the Gospels...there was no quarreling about who wrote the Gospels...and those other books like the Gospel of Thomas/Peter were not added to the canon precisely because they were not written by the authors that bears their names, but the actual Gospels were.

(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again creeds are not evidence, he was handed down that creed they may have beleieved what they were saying but without evidence it doesn't make it true. Sincear belief doesn't make it true, you could sincearly believe that you can fly and that gravity doesn't effect you, but somehow I doubt you would go jumping off a building or if you did you would find yourself on the ground rather quickly.

So they very much lied, possibly with some sprinkles of truth.

But if they were lying, they wouldn't have believed it, right? Have you ever believed a lie that you told? Probably not. So either they believed it, or they were lying. Can't be both.

With Paul, he claimed to have met with Peter and James, and he claimed to have saw the risen Jesus himself. Now, was he lying, or telling the truth? If he is lying, then he never believed what he was saying. If he believed what he was saying, then he must have had actual reasons to believe what he was saying.

So the question is, what were those reasons?

Of course i've believed lies before, because at the time I didn't know it was a lie and I had no reason to doubt what the person was saying at the time, if your telling me that you have never believed a lie then there is no hope in getting through to someone that deluded.

So paul could have easily been lying, and he managed to dupe a lot of people into believing something because it made people feel good. His goal was to bolster the early believers in his particular sect.

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  I'm not sure exactly what they would say, as I didn't ask at the time or at least I don't remember. But something along the lines of needing a personal savior to absolve them of sins and what they saw as the corrupt nature of the world.

Sounds like fundamental Christian doctrine, to me Laugh out load

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  Which translations did you look at? The article was written using the King James Version a litteral translation

Any of the translations that can be found on BibleGateway.com. You can look up any scripture by the actual scripture or keyword, and you can choose any of the many different translations they have listed and immediately get a particular translation that you want. I did five random ones.

That would be like looking through a needle in a freeking haystack, how can I counter an argument when you won't tell me what five translations you chose?

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:45 PM)Worom Wrote:  I should point out as I did orginally, I didn't write this entire section, I quoted it from the source link. And without knowing which bible versions you were looking at other than the NIV which is a 50/50 translation/interpolation which means that the translater could have fixed some of the errors.

Hey, no problem. I owe you for that one, thanks. That stuff was all new to me, so I had to do some major research and brainstorming. Just when I thought I saw it all Laugh out load

It was mentally draining but for the cause, well worth it Thumbsup

Then I have at least made you think, which is good. Smile

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
27-07-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Part 3

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  That's not what the book says though, it says they told no one. It doesn't say that they told no one at first. The problem remains.

Yeah, so the author stated that they told no one, yet he is writing the book decades after the event when the cat has long been out of the bag? So it is obvious that people found out, otherwise the author wouldn't be writing about it, would he?

Still doesn't solve the problem, if the author wrote it decades later why would he still leave it as they told no one?

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Where did I say he got everything from Mark?

You didn't say it, but you practically implied it. That is what makes Matthew an independent source, as he borrowed material from Mark, but the source that he used for his other material is independent from the Marcan source (and the other Gospels as well).

Independent stuff.

Using another source and then saying matthew is an independent source is illogical, you could say the author put indepent stuff in there, but the whole thing isn't independent.

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  In your introduction you believe in a litteral interperation of the bible, and I assume that you believe the bible is infallible and inspired work of God. Persepective would be irrelevent, the genologies should match. However you are trying to explain them away on why they don't match (the contradiction). This would suggest a human perspective without inspiration would it not?

Yes I believe the Bible is infallible, and perspectives do matter. If the author purposely traced the genealogy back by whatever means he decided to do so, then the genealogy fit the desired purpose.

If its infallible how do we have a contradictary genology, and a genology for someone that god impregenated a woman directly?

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Embarsment factor isn't evidence

It is to me.

You are arguing against a skeptic, on a forum filled with skeptics, what you feel is evidence to you based on some arbitrary concept is irellivent to a skeptic demanding evidence.

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  , and in looking at the gospels the disciples pretty much called bullshit when the women told them of the events at the tomb until Jesus appeared before them or one of them went to the tomb, depending on which gospel you are reading.

Yeah, but the point is they should have known that Jesus would raise from the dead...he only hinted at it a dozen or so times...hell, in the book of Matthew, the Pharisees saw to it that guards were placed by the tomb in case the disciples came to steal the body, because they heard Jesus say he would raise from the dead and they didn't want the disciples to steal the body and claim that Jesus had risen from the dead, so they placed guards at the tomb.

So if the Pharisees understood what Jesus meant, then why the hell didn't the disciples, who were with Jesus every day? Hmmm.

Still doesn't solve any problems, they still called bullshit when the women told them according to the gospels.

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Yes and your point? The genology was on Jesus not Joseph

Well, you wondered how it could be done..and that is how.

You still didn't solve the problem.

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Carrier has grown alot and done much more research since that debate, he did lose but he wasn't well prepared to go against Craig.

Hey man, you are an honest and modest fellow Thumbsup If Carrier wants another spanking, Craig has plenty more cans of whoop ass.

Somehow I doubt he would get spanked by Craig again, maybe we will get to see that debate.

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  You mean 3 accounts don't mention it, and one does.

But in all four books, you can find accounts in one that isn't in the others. That's what happens when you have independent sources, you are going to have that kind of variety...which suggests that all four authors didn't huddle up inside a cave together and discuss which events would be included in the books, and which weren't.

But the authors arn't adding indepenent flair, they omit, conflict, or change entire details of the same events. They should at least not be contradicting eachother.

(26-07-2015 08:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Nothing about that specific statement, however the whole thing reads as a theological argument when you read the text in whole. You still have the hersay problem though, and lack of extra-biblacal sources.

Well, the man said he did his research, so hey Laugh out load I believe him.

Yes like how I have throughly researched PHd level astrophysics, just because I said it doesn't make it true. Rolleyes As i'm pretty sure you would ask for proof if my degree if I had one.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
27-07-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(26-07-2015 08:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Part 4

(20-07-2015 02:48 PM)Worom Wrote:  Given that the resurrection violates natural law

Abiogenesis violates natural law, too. But that doesn't stop some of you people from believing that crap, does it?

The theory of Abiogensis is not complete, and in no way does it violate any natural laws, you are making an argument from incredulity. We have the miller-urea experminent that showed we can get ammino acids out of non-organic materials, which is what the experiment was designed to do, it was not designed to get all the way up to self replicating molecules. And further refinements to the experiment have yielded better results.

(26-07-2015 08:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And besides, who said we should only believe things that can be proven by natural law? Not me. Are you?

And I just told you why abiogensis doesn't violate crap.

(26-07-2015 08:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  , along with the whole 3 hours of darkness that no one bothers to mention in any non biblical text

Someone did, but we need not get in to that.

Really? Who then? I have to see anyone make let alone prove that claim.

(26-07-2015 08:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  , along with a bunch of basically Jewish zombies that one else mentions either. Then yes I find the ressuretion extreamly far fetched.

Far fetched? If God exists, he has the power to raise people from the dead, Worom. That is the hypothesis, that God raised Jesus (and whoever) from the dead. And based on that hypothesis, it doesn't seem too far fetched.

And besides, the idea that non-living material suddenly/gradually coming to life and beginning to talk, think, laugh, etc...THAT seems far fetched. I mean, you call a dead person coming to life far fetched, but how is that any more far fetched than nonliving material "coming to life"?

Again do some reaserch into abiogensis and evolutionary theory, the timeframe requried to get from non-organic to organic compounds to life, to what we see today is immenense.

Something going from living, to dead(as in no doubts about being fully brain dead), back to life has never happened.

(26-07-2015 08:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Obviously or it wouldn't exist today. Still, my argument remains.

Yeah, so we attempt to explain the origins of such a movement, which can be traced, on paper, back to 20 years after the event in question. Early stuff. Very early indeed.

Your point? And yet again it was still a jewish sect, the split didn't happen until much later.

(26-07-2015 08:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Christianity

Been there, done that.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Because modern day men have the scientific method

Irrelevant to historical inquiries.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  linguistic analysis, fragments of records, complete records as well, physical evidence, checks and balances against bias, free flow of information.

And none of that can be used to say yay or nay as to whether any of the names which are attributed to the Gospels actually wrote them or not.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Modesty is not evidence, and is irrellivent.

It is evidence to me. "Peter didn't write it, his friend did". That may not do it for you, but it does for me.

(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  The dates are based on lingustic analysis, you can determine when something was written based on the language contained withn the document, For example in the modern age a document containing lol for laugh out loud would have to be written past 1990. It is also useful for determining if different people wrote and if they wrote at different times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Ok, I will give you that. Now take that linguistic analysis and tell me why all of the Gospels (or any) can be said to have been written post 70 CE.

I will wait.

If you want to wait several years for me to reaserch lingusitc methods and learn greek and do the linguistic analysis you will be disappointed, or you could go out and buy one of the several books on the topic.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
27-07-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(26-07-2015 08:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Part 5

(20-07-2015 02:52 PM)Worom Wrote:  That is why I specifically said, complete document. I didn't say anything about the age of the fragments in the argument I made just above. By the way that fragment you linked did prove my point about fragments being small. The one you linked to is the size of a small postcard.

True, but no one is denying that it is an excerpt of an entire book, and the date is around 125 CE.


(20-07-2015 02:46 PM)Worom Wrote:  Read the following

Luke: 9:10 And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

John 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Pete
John: 6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.

The mentioning of John being from bethesda takes place before the feeding of the 5000, but there is still an issue here, Jesus asking Philip about where to buy bread isn't expicit in that they are in Bethsaida. You seem to be making the connection of well Philip knows the area they must be in Bethsaida. But I still really don't see the point of this?

Whoa wait a second here. I'd hate to think that you purposely left out the latter part of verse 10, where it explicitly states "but the crowds learned about it and followed him."

There isn't a latter part in the king james version of the bible of verse 10

(26-07-2015 08:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The former part of verse 10 states that Jesus and the disciples withdrew themselves to a town call Bethsaida, and the later part states that the crowd followed them there.

Now in verse 12, it states that "Late in the afternoon, the Twelve came to him..." So obviously time had passed...so unless you are stating that they left the area within that time?

I doubt it, because the crowd was still there and I don't think that a crowd of that magnitude was following him around all day. They were obviously at that remote location for a few hours (verse 12).

The King James version said that the feeding of the 5000 happened around noon, What is your argument here?

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: