Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(26-07-2015 08:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.

This is some serious mental gymnastics here, so if I told you there were 20 apples, but someone else said there were actually 10 apples, and then another person said there were no apples, and one other said there was 1 apple. Then how many apples are there? By your logic there was 20, 10, none, and 1 all at the same time.

(26-07-2015 08:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

Except he didn't actually appear, all he saw was a blinding light and heard a voice.

“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
30-07-2015, 07:37 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Edit: Whoops accidentally reposted part 2 of my argument

“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
02-08-2015, 09:56 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  If by some you mean large sections of it yes, its highly unreliable

So based on that logic, I think Julius Caesar was the man!!! And since he is my idol, I don't the idea of him being stabbed, therefore, I conclude he wasn't stabbed, contrary to what history tells us.

Is that the line of reasoning here?

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Those multiple sources could be lying, or at least stretching the truth. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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

Spare me.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  I can easily logically deny the claims of bible, its making claims that are physically impossible

Right, the claims are physically impossible. That is why the claims were never that the miracles as described in the Bible occurred naturally..rather, by the power of an omnipotent God.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  and have never been observed and are only described in the bible.

Never been observed? Lets see...we have the concept of life from nonlife, which has never been observed, but naturalists believe that it occurred....we have the concept of mind/body naturalism, which naturalists have never observed, yet they believe it occurred naturally.

I will just stop there.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Life from nonlife is an extraordinary claim. But where is the extraordinary evidence?

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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

I don't know, because my sources says otherwise...http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm The link breaks down the entire passage almost down to the very sentence and gives a commentary on it, with reasons for believing that it is either genuine or forged.

Besides, he mentioned Jesus at least twice, and the other second time he mentioned Jesus' brother, James. If Jesus had a brother, he had to have existed.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Which is enough to make Jesus a historical figure.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Maybe it was just all one big con game. I mean hell, that is what you claim Christianity is.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But if you look at Tacitus' account, he said that the Christians were blamed for the fire...and it doesn't appear that he is linking the Christians in with the Jews, either. There were the Christians, and there were the Jews, apparently.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Christianity still did not exist as a separate religion at this point it was a sect of Judaism

So what would have made it a separate religion?

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  , 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?

I read the above quote at least 7 times, and wasn't able to make out what it means. Please clarify.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

Look at the wiki article on the historicity of Jesus, and how it explicitly states that the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus exist. It is highly cited as well, and even quotes Robert Price, who DOESN'T believe that Jesus existed, but admits that his viewpoint in this regard is in the minority. Richard Carrier, Robert Price...minority.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But my point was everything is based on the authors intent...how did the authors INTEND for the book to be taken...as fiction, or non-fiction? That is the point.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Oh, I understand that...but abiogenesis is not yet a law. There is no law of nature that you can appeal to that will get you life from nonlife...yet that hasn't stopped naturalists from believing such a thing. So far from violating a law, there isn't a law to be violated in that regard.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Besides by your reasoning how would you be able to know that Harry potter is fiction or not?

Um, because it is a Hollywood film with special effects, castings, rehearsals, etc.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  I would use the historical or scientific standards depending on exactly the topic, in this case I would lean towards a historical standard.

Thumbsup

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

I am saying that I don't buy the Q source hypothesis...

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Should I use the Picard argument again?

You can, but I can also shoot it down...again.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

Because...if Mark was a friend of Peter, and Peter was one of Jesus' right hand men...it would make sense that Matthew would use Mark as a source. Peter was closer to Jesus so there may have been some things that Matthew didn't see...and besides, again, Matthew's Gospels is almost double the size of Mark's. So obviously, he didn't get everything from Mark.

And John didn't borrow anything from any of'em.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Simple they wouldn't yet the three gospels share similarities between eachother that could have only happened by using a source document.

Luke said that he investigated everything "from the beginning"...so if that is the case and he found Mark to be a reliable source, then it is what it is.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  The argument I would make is the added material is each authors own theological interpertation of what they are reading and writing.

As long as it is true, why not add it?

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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

Dude, that isn't even half a piece of what is going to happen before the second coming..you know, that stuff Jesus talked about in Matthew 24.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

How do you know that he wrote anything in the first place? Were you there?? How do you know that his writings/signitures hasn't been forged? Are you a handwriting expert? Do you really know?

Or do you simply accept by faith that what you've been taught in school is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth???

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  How could Paul have written a document that is dated well after his death?

If you assume that it was written after his death, which is fine. The problem is, you've offered no evidence as to why the books of Luke/Acts were written post 70 CE.

At least I can build a case for my viewpoint, and I've yet to see you build a case as to why your viewpoint is more plausible than mines.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  If you're trying to make a prophecy look true that is exactly what you would do, is leave a section of a book.

But yet the part where Jesus said clearly "No stone will be left upon another" when talking about the Temple buildings...that part is included, plain as day. But the part where the Temple was destroyed, that part isn't? Hmm.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  The writing style of Luke at the earliest is 85 CE.

Based on what? Did he use ebonics or some type of late first century slang that wasn't developed until 85 CE or something?

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Begging the question. Carry on..

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

We don't know who wrote anything in antiquity. We sure can do a lot of assuming, though.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  You have already tried to bring up the antiquity argument, and I've shot it down repeatedly

Think so? Laugh out load

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  , And no one got credit for writing the gospels all the authorships are unknown based on the arguments above.

Oh ok, so Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't get "credit" for writing the Gospels. Got it..

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Your point?

We have someone confirming Christianity and talking about Jesus as a historical figure even before Jesus' biographies were written about him. Come to think of it, that is how it normally works...biographies are normally written after a person achieves success and fame. That is my point Laugh out load

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But why not just say Peter wrote the book...wouldn't that give it even more credibility???

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Ok, so let me ask you; If we could prove definitively with "linguistics" that disciples or friends of the disciples wrote the Gospels, would you be a Christian? Yes or no.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Yes I remember that, your point?

Moving the goal posts Big Grin

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

I've built my case.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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

It is unknown to us, but it wasn't unknown to them. When they said that MMLJ (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) wrote the Gospels, they were either lying or telling the truth. I go with the telling the truth option.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  , could it have some truth to it sure but, again why are there no extra-biblical sources on the events?

Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Can you imagine how many ancient writings were lost over thousands of years of civilization? When you were in grade school, how many book reports or term papers did you complete that is still with us today?

Please tell...how many?

But despite that, the Bible is still the most copied book that we've ever found. Copies upon copies upon copies, more than any other book. That shows the preservation that the book as been through over the past 2,000 years.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  The sun going dark for 3 hours would get the attention of a ton of people, including the roman historians that wrote down

It states that "darkness covered all the land"...but what land? Jerusalem? Rome? Japan? Turkey? The earth? What land is it talking about...it could have just been a local thing. Second, I recall in my hometown of Detroit in the early 00's, there was a city-wide power outage. The power was out in the entire city....and I don't recall anyone writing a book about it, either.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  ...every...single...astronimical....event that they could see. They never bothered to mention the sky going dark for 3 freeking hours.

If it the darkness was a local thing, I can understand why.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  You still have a possible date range here after paul's death in 67 CE.

Anytime before 70 CE would fit the bill.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But they were talking about the BUILDINGS. The buildings sat inside the walls. Unless you are willing to call the fence that is standing around your house part of your actual house, then there shouldn't be a problem here.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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...

I guess everything goes right back to the dates, does it?

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except you ignored the other sources that were listed in the article you posted

Well, what is the general consensus? 200-400 years by virtually all accounts.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  , we don't have only his biographies to go off of.

We don't with Jesus, either.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

We have that with Jesus, too. When Paul received the creed that was passed down to him (1Corin 15:3-7), that has been estimated to be within three to five years after the cross. Now, that may have not been during the time that Jesus was alive, but that close enough to the events to where Paul was a contemporary to Jesus, and he would have known whether or not Jesus was a fact, or a myth.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  No its not, large swaths of history meet the criterion of having other sources other than its own document

The books that make up the Bible are all independent. Before the 66 books were compiled for one massive collection, they were all single, independent books.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Well, then the death of King Tut should have been written about. We dont know how he died, or why he died. You would think that since he was Pharaoh of all Egypt, we would have found some kind of hieroglyph or ancient document detailing the death of the King of Egypt.

Guess what, we have nothing. You are making it seem as if our knowledge of ancient history is complete, when it isn't.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  They wern't claiming people were raised from the dead and performing miracles.

Point? They had no reasons too, but Christians sure did.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Creeds are professions of faith, they by defintion can not be evidence.

Frusty

That is nonsense, Worom. If what is stated in the creed is TRUE, then it isn't a profession of faith, it is a profession of TESTIMONY.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Say what?

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again read the article you posted, the biographies arn't the only evidence. Facepalm

I know, which is why I am appealing to Paul's epistles, and the extra-biblical sources that recognizes Jesus as a historical figure.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

Laugh out load They did...Matthew/John.
Find all posts by this user
02-08-2015, 09:57 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

The question was, have you ever believed a lie that YOU told. You wouldn't believe your own lies. That is the point...if the disciples/Paul BELIEVED what they were saying, then no one can say that they were lying, because people don't believe their own lies.

Now, if they believed what they were saying, then they obviously felt they had REASONS to believe what they were saying, and they were not basing anything on what they were told from other people. Rather, they were basing their belief on what they EXPERIENCED.

Now the question is, what lead them to believe that Jesus rose from the dead?? That is the million dollar question.

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Paul lying doesn't explain the empty tomb nor the origin of the disciples belief.

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  His goal was to bolster the early believers in his particular sect.

Is that a fact, or assumption?

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

When in doubt, go random Big Grin

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  Then I have at least made you think, which is good. Smile

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
02-08-2015, 09:57 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(27-07-2015 02:22 PM)Worom Wrote:  Still doesn't solve the problem, if the author wrote it decades later why would he still leave it as they told no one?

The book of Mark is the only Gospel which state that they told no one. Coincidentally, that is where the story ends. In the omitted verses following verse 8, it obviously narrates how the women eventually told the disciples.

I mean, think about it; If the author "wrote it decades later", knowing that the cat is already out of the bag, and now EVERYONE knows...why would he leave it as "they told no one", as you asked above? Wana know why? This is just a hunch, but IT IS PROBABLY BECAUSE VERSE 8 ISN'T WHERE THE STORY ENDED...THERE WAS MORE TO THE STORY, OBVIOUSLY.

Now, be as it may, there are many opinions of why the book of Mark end the way that it does, but cmon, no one with common sense can look themselves in the mirror and still draw the conclusion that verse 8 is where the author intended to end the book.

No way, no how.

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Having almost double the amount of chapters than the book that it is being compared to..if that isn't independent, I don't know what is.

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  If its infallible how do we have a contradictary genology, and a genology for someone that god impregenated a woman directly?

This is not a new issue that has been raised...many, MANY answers have been given to address this..and as long as it is possible for even ONE of those answers to be true, that makes it non-contradictory.

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Well, a skeptic could still be skeptic regardless of how much evidence is being presented to him/her. The Holy Spirit could slap the skeptic on the ass and the skeptic could still not be convinced.

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  Still doesn't solve any problems, they still called bullshit when the women told them according to the gospels.

And also according to the Gospels, they were wrong, and the women were right.

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  You still didn't solve the problem.

What problem? God saw to it that a virgin gave birth. I am sorry that your naturalistic mind can't quite comprehend that there are some answers that lie beyond the natural realm.

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  Somehow I doubt he would get spanked by Craig again, maybe we will get to see that debate.

I felt sorry for the poor schmuck Laugh out load

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

They aren't. So if I am writing a biography of Allen Iverson, and in my biography I include a huge birthday party he had when he turned 30...and you also write an biography of Allen Iverson, but you DON'T include the same birthday party in your biography...that is a contradiction, huh?? Laugh out load

Is that the logic here?

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But the problem is, even if Luke told us who his sources were, you would of still called it hearsay...and you would have demanded that we have written testimony from his sources as well.

See? Moving the goal posts. It isn't about believing, it is about attacking. Attack, attack, attack.
Find all posts by this user
02-08-2015, 09:58 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  The theory of Abiogensis is not complete, and in no way does it violate any natural laws, you are making an argument from incredulity.

No, I am saying that since you cannot go in a lab and demonstrate how life can come from nonlife, then you have no scientific reasons for believing that it can happen, and that it DID happen. Therefore, you are relying on faith.

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Right, he got a few amino acids, but he didn't get a LIVING CELL. Its been over 50 years since that experiment, and we are still no close to getting an actual living cell. Not to mention the fact that you still have to explain where did the DNA come from in the first place. Where did the information within the DNA come from?? A mindless and blind process??

And even if we did go in a lab and create a living cell (which is a very big "if"), that still doesn't explain the origin of consciousness...how can matter get to the point of formulating thoughts.

This is an uphill battle, and it sounds like the subject of our next debate Laugh out load

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  And I just told you why abiogensis doesn't violate crap.

Ok, please tell me what is the law which states that life can originate from nonliving material. Amino acids are NOT living cells. And you are actually right, abiogenesis doesn't violate anything, because there isn't a law yet for it to be violated.

Now, you can believe it all you want to, but there is no scientific evidence supporting the theory...so again, you are relying on faith, my friend.

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Really? Who then? I have to see anyone make let alone prove that claim.

Look up Julius Africanus mention of the historian Thallus, who mentioned a darkness that covered the land during the crucifixion. A lot of historians have weighed in on this, and if what Julius Africanus said is true, Thallus may be the earliest mention of the crucifixion that we have...even earlier than Paul.

Look it up, will ya Big Grin

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Yeah, that is the god that naturalists worship..the god of "time"...they reason "well, it takes 100,000 million years for it to happen"...in other words, given enough time, ANYTHING can happen. Yeah, sure.

Basically, a con game.

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Something going from living, to dead(as in no doubts about being fully brain dead), back to life has never happened.

Have you ever observed life coming from nonlife? You mentioned the Miller-Urey experiment, which did not produce such a result. So what do you have? You have NOTHING.

So I ask again, did you (or ANYONE) ever observe inanimate matter coming to life from nonliving material? The answer is a big, fat, NO.

So for you to make it seem as if someone dying and coming back to life is so extraordinary, but at the same time having no problem with the concept of inanimate matter coming to life...that just strikes me as disingenuous.

At least believers admit that on our view, divine intervention is necessary. On your view, divine intervention isn't necessary, yet you can't go in a lab and demonstrate it. So you can't even demonstrate the "easy" naturalistic stuff, but you have the nerve to just bypass what you CAN'T prove and attack other belief systems??

Foolishness.

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Your point? And yet again it was still a jewish sect, the split didn't happen until much later.

Irrelevant. Regardless of what sect it was, it was a set of beliefs that originated shortly after the events that are in question.

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  If you want to wait several years for me to reaserch lingusitc methods and learn greek and do the linguistic analysis

Jesus would have returned by then..
Find all posts by this user
02-08-2015, 09:59 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(27-07-2015 02:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is some serious mental gymnastics here, so if I told you there were 20 apples, but someone else said there were actually 10 apples, and then another person said there were no apples, and one other said there was 1 apple. Then how many apples are there? By your logic there was 20, 10, none, and 1 all at the same time.

I see your point, but it isn't that cut and dry. To make my point, I will give some real life examples...I work for A-DoT, at the A-DoT warehouse which stores all of the traffic signs, signals, poles, lights, etc...statewide. A-DoT personnel from all across the state come to the warehouse to pick up supplies for the various cities (Lake Havasu, Snowflake, Tucson, Flagstaff, etc).

Now, just last week, a couple of the guys from Flagstaff came to the warehouse to pick up some stuff, and we talked for a minute and of course the subject of the weather came up. I told them I was thinking about moving to Flagstaff to escape the hot scorching summers here in Phoenix. Since they live in Flagstaff, they were telling me about life up north. Now, both of them spoke about it, but one guy was more outspoken than the other guy. He spoke louder, he was more animated, etc.

Now, if I went home that day and I spoke to the wife about moving the Flagstaff, and she ask "How do you know what it is like up there", and I say "I spoke to a guy at work and he told me it is nice".

Ahhh, you see what happened there? Now, I could have either said "I spoke to a couple guys at work and they said it is lovely up there", or I could have said "I spoke to a guy at work and he told me it is lovely up there."

Either way, what I said is accurate. Maybe I would subconsciously just go the singular route, since one guy was more outspoken than the other one..his message came across more. Or, if I knew that I had to be 100% as detailed as I possibly can due to a cross examination at a later date (hehehe), I would have went the plural route. But either way, it is accurate.

But getting back to the Gospels, it all goes back to how the story was passed down. Maybe it started out as two, but it ended up as just one, because as the story was told it was focused on the "main" person that was talking to the women. I don't know.

But either way, I don't find anything wrong with the Gospels giving different accounts of the same events, as long as it can all be reconciled with critical thinking and a little bit of common sense.

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except he didn't actually appear, all he saw was a blinding light and heard a voice.

Maybe the blinding light WAS Jesus. Hmmm Consider
Find all posts by this user
03-08-2015, 08:48 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2015 01:45 PM by Worom.)
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  If by some you mean large sections of it yes, its highly unreliable

So based on that logic, I think Julius Caesar was the man!!! And since he is my idol, I don't the idea of him being stabbed, therefore, I conclude he wasn't stabbed, contrary to what history tells us.

Is that the line of reasoning here?

No it is not, there is significant evidence that Julius Caesar was stabbed, several non-conflicting independent accounts. As well as finding the location he was stabbed as it was described by those sources. The gospels lack this evidence.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Those multiple sources could be lying, or at least stretching the truth. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

They could, however none of the ones that are historical have supernatural events in them. Facepalm And on top of that we look for other evidence confirming the events happened such as multiple accounts form multiple sources that don't conflict with each other. As well as physical evidence, from archaeological digs.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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

Spare me.

Over an open fire, or would you prefer a slow roast?

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  I can easily logically deny the claims of bible, its making claims that are physically impossible

Right, the claims are physically impossible. That is why the claims were never that the miracles as described in the Bible occurred naturally..rather, by the power of an omnipotent God.

And yet we see no modern evidence that any of these miracles have occurred, funny it seems as soon as we could record video and photos of events all the "miracles" stopped. And things that used to be thought of as miracles ended up being explainable.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  and have never been observed and are only described in the bible.

Never been observed? Lets see...we have the concept of life from nonlife, which has never been observed, but naturalists believe that it occurred....we have the concept of mind/body naturalism, which naturalists have never observed, yet they believe it occurred naturally.

I will just stop there.

Lets see Abiogenesis the theory isn't complete but we have far more evidence that we are on the right track at least, the miller-urea experiment never meant to show that we would get life but that we would at least get amino acids from non-living material which we did, and further refinements in the experiments over the years have lead to us getting even more amino acids out of the experiment. Also we have been able to create very simple forms of RNA, which would have proceeded DNA

The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.
(Follmann, Hartmut; Brownson, Carol (November 2009). "Darwin's warm little pond revisited: from molecules to the origin of life". Naturwissenschaften (Berlin: Springer-Verlag) 96 (11): 1265–1292. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0602-1. ISSN 0028-1042. PMID 19760276)

Spiegelman took advantage of natural selection to synthesize the Spiegelman Monster, which had a genome with just 218 nucleotide bases. Eigen built on Spiegelman's work and produced a similar system with just 48 or 54 nucleotides. (Oehlenschläger, Frank; Eigen, Manfred
(December 1997). "30 Years Later – a New Approach to Sol Spiegelman's and Leslie Orgel's in vitro EVOLUTIONARY STUDIES Dedicated to Leslie Orgel on the occasion of his 70th birthday". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 27 (5-6): 437–457. doi:10.1023/A:1006501326129. ISSN 0169-6149. PMID 9394469.)

And why do you think mind/body naturalism has never been observed? We know there is a link between the mind and consciousness, if that link didn't exist then drugs, and damage to the brain would have no effect on consciousness. While we don't know yet exactly what processes in the brain lead to consciousness we can say that they are linked based on observable effects. If they were not linked then all therapeutic and "recreational" drugs would have absolutely no effect on you or could be completely dismissed with a thought. And since you have probably had alcohol before, or taken pain killers you are well aware of these effects yourself.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Life from nonlife is an extraordinary claim. But where is the extraordinary evidence?

The theory as I've said is incomplete, however there is significant evidence that we are on the right track. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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

I don't know, because my sources says otherwise...http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm The link breaks down the entire passage almost down to the very sentence and gives a commentary on it, with reasons for believing that it is either genuine or forged.

Besides, he mentioned Jesus at least twice, and the other second time he mentioned Jesus' brother, James. If Jesus had a brother, he had to have existed.

And like I said that whole section is a forgery in total, the source you link to is an old apologetic website, the source I linked to is from an educational paper repository, hence the .edu in the web address.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Which is enough to make Jesus a historical figure.

I wouldn't go that far, the way the passage is written seems that he is describing what he was told, by the early Christians. I'm sure you will contest this point but looking at the wording at least suggests it. Either way even if he did exist, he is not the person described in the gospels.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Maybe it was just all one big con game. I mean hell, that is what you claim Christianity is.

You do realize if the discovery of the new world was all a big con game we wouldn't be sitting in the "new world" right? And yes I'm making that claim about Christianity, heck I would make that claim against any religion.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But if you look at Tacitus' account, he said that the Christians were blamed for the fire...and it doesn't appear that he is linking the Christians in with the Jews, either. There were the Christians, and there were the Jews, apparently.

Yes, but Tactius was writing the annals after the split started taking place.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Christianity still did not exist as a separate religion at this point it was a sect of Judaism

So what would have made it a separate religion?

The next section assumes if Jesus existed, but the story of Jesus could have been just thought up as well.

"The split of early Christianity and Judaism took place during the first centuries of the Common Era. It is commonly attributed to a number of events, including the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus (c. 33), the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50), the destruction of the Second Temple and institution of the Jewish tax in 70, the postulated Council of Jamnia c. 90, and the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135. While it is commonly believed that Paul the Apostle established a primarily Gentile church within his lifetime, it took centuries for a complete break with Judaism to manifest, and the relationship between Paul and Judaism is still disputed.

The traditional view has been that Judaism existed before Christianity and that Christianity separated from Judaism some time after the destruction of the Second Temple. Recently, some scholars have argued that there were many competing Jewish sects in the Holy Land during the Second Temple period, and that those that became Rabbinic Judaism and Proto-orthodox Christianity were but two of these. Some of these scholars have proposed a model which envisions a twin birth of Proto-orthodox Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism rather than a separation of the former from the latter. For example, Robert Goldenberg asserts that it is increasingly accepted among scholars that "at the end of the 1st century AD there were not yet two separate religions called 'Judaism' and 'Christianity'"."

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but oh well.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  , 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?

I read the above quote at least 7 times, and wasn't able to make out what it means. Please clarify.

Alright so the Jewish people feel like they are being oppressed.
Someone comes along, could have been someone named Jesus could have been someone else and starts preaching about being the messiah that will deliver the Jews out of oppression and fulfill old testament prophecy.
This person ends up getting executed, and makes it so the prophecy in the old testament cant be fulfilled
Someone goes to the tomb and steals the body and starts saying he is resurrected, to restore the prophecy.
Boom New sect that eventually turns into a full blown religion.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

Look at the wiki article on the historicity of Jesus, and how it explicitly states that the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus exist. It is highly cited as well, and even quotes Robert Price, who DOESN'T believe that Jesus existed, but admits that his viewpoint in this regard is in the minority. Richard Carrier, Robert Price...minority.

They may be in the minority at this point, however they bring up some rather compelling arguments against the majority opinion. However it is worth saying that both camps could be right. Jesus existing as a historical person, but then being turned into a god like figure later on.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But my point was everything is based on the authors intent...how did the authors INTEND for the book to be taken...as fiction, or non-fiction? That is the point.

Irrelevant, you can intend something to be taken as non-fiction all you want, but it doesn't make it non-fiction or vice versa.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Oh, I understand that...but abiogenesis is not yet a law. There is no law of nature that you can appeal to that will get you life from nonlife...yet that hasn't stopped naturalists from believing such a thing. So far from violating a law, there isn't a law to be violated in that regard.

Except you don't understand what abiogensis is fully, it is getting life from non living materials, however there is an explained hypothetical process that doesn't violate the laws of physics on how we got from non-life to life. It hasn't been fully proven yet, but we have been making steps in that regard. We know that chemicals can form new chemicals, and under the right conditions could have formed life.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Besides by your reasoning how would you be able to know that Harry potter is fiction or not?

Um, because it is a Hollywood film with special effects, castings, rehearsals, etc.

Except I was referring to the books and I would have hoped that you knew they were books well before they were movies, and the books came before the movies. How would you tell those are fiction or not by using the same logic you say the bible isn't fiction?

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  I would use the historical or scientific standards depending on exactly the topic, in this case I would lean towards a historical standard.

Thumbsup

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

I am saying that I don't buy the Q source hypothesis...

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Should I use the Picard argument again?

You can, but I can also shoot it down...again.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

Because...if Mark was a friend of Peter, and Peter was one of Jesus' right hand men...it would make sense that Matthew would use Mark as a source. Peter was closer to Jesus so there may have been some things that Matthew didn't see...and besides, again, Matthew's Gospels is almost double the size of Mark's. So obviously, he didn't get everything from Mark.

And John didn't borrow anything from any of'em.

You still haven't resolved the argument though, why would someone making an eyewitness account need someone else work at all?

As for John he went flying off the wall compared to the other three gospels, and was written well after any eyewitnesses would have been dead.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Simple they wouldn't yet the three gospels share similarities between eachother that could have only happened by using a source document.

Luke said that he investigated everything "from the beginning"...so if that is the case and he found Mark to be a reliable source, then it is what it is.

He can say whatever he wants, it doesn't make it factual and we have nothing to corroborate what is said outside of the bible.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  The argument I would make is the added material is each authors own theological interpertation of what they are reading and writing.

As long as it is true, why not add it?

You're assuming that the interpretation is true, without evidence for it. In other words your taking it totally on faith.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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

Dude, that isn't even half a piece of what is going to happen before the second coming..you know, that stuff Jesus talked about in Matthew 24.

But in order for the prophecy to be true it has to fulfill every piece of it, and since there have been a ton of blood moons and a whole lot of no show then I'd say the prophecy is bunk.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  You really need to learn history, I can go and look at the declaration of independence and see his signature right there on the original document that has been painstakingly preserved. And we can verify its his signature because we have other writings done by Benjamin Franklin with his signature on it.

How do you know that he wrote anything in the first place? Were you there?? How do you know that his writings/signitures hasn't been forged? Are you a handwriting expert? Do you really know?

Ahh the Ken Ham were you there argument, I was wondering when someone was going to try and use that on me. I'm glad it was you because I can easily turn that argument right around on you.

Were you there when the gospels were written?
Were you there when Jesus was crucified?
Were you there when the Bible was compiled?
Were you there when Jesus supposedly performed his Miracles?
Were you there when the Church was forming?
Were you there when the temple was destroyed?
How do you know that the bible wasn't forged?

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Or do you simply accept by faith that what you've been taught in school is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth???

Faith is not needed when I have evidence, we know it wasn't forged because of consistency in the writing, and the signatures that we can use as comparisons.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  How could Paul have written a document that is dated well after his death?

If you assume that it was written after his death, which is fine. The problem is, you've offered no evidence as to why the books of Luke/Acts were written post 70 CE.

At least I can build a case for my viewpoint, and I've yet to see you build a case as to why your viewpoint is more plausible than mines.

I could have sworn I built that case in the very first post I made? Hmm

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  If you're trying to make a prophecy look true that is exactly what you would do, is leave a section of a book.

But yet the part where Jesus said clearly "No stone will be left upon another" when talking about the Temple buildings...that part is included, plain as day. But the part where the Temple was destroyed, that part isn't? Hmm.

And I've given you the reason on why this would be at least twice now.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  The writing style of Luke at the earliest is 85 CE.

Based on what? Did he use ebonics or some type of late first century slang that wasn't developed until 85 CE or something?

I wouldn't have described it so crudely, but essentially yes. Although it doesn't need to be slang it just has to be any type of wording that didn't exist up until that point.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Begging the question. Carry on..

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

We don't know who wrote anything in antiquity. We sure can do a lot of assuming, though.

Oh yes we do, I covered that several posts ago.
(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  You have already tried to bring up the antiquity argument, and I've shot it down repeatedly

Think so? Laugh out load


Yes, read the damn arguments

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  , And no one got credit for writing the gospels all the authorships are unknown based on the arguments above.

Oh ok, so Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't get "credit" for writing the Gospels. Got it..

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Your point?

We have someone confirming Christianity and talking about Jesus as a historical figure even before Jesus' biographies were written about him. Come to think of it, that is how it normally works...biographies are normally written after a person achieves success and fame. That is my point Laugh out load

One passing mention in one document, a historical figure does not make.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But why not just say Peter wrote the book...wouldn't that give it even more credibility???

No, it would make your argument even more laughable than it already is.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Ok, so let me ask you; If we could prove definitively with "linguistics" that disciples or friends of the disciples wrote the Gospels, would you be a Christian? Yes or no.

No, the authorship of the books is only a very very tiny piece of why I'm no longer a Christian. All it would have done is made our entire debate futile, and at least we would know, or at least have a strong claim on who wrote the gospels.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Yes I remember that, your point?

Moving the goal posts Big Grin

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

I've built my case.

And I've refuted it.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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

It is unknown to us, but it wasn't unknown to them. When they said that MMLJ (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) wrote the Gospels, they were either lying or telling the truth. I go with the telling the truth option.

And I go with they were lying option, based on what I've presented before.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  , could it have some truth to it sure but, again why are there no extra-biblical sources on the events?

Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Can you imagine how many ancient writings were lost over thousands of years of civilization? When you were in grade school, how many book reports or term papers did you complete that is still with us today?

Please tell...how many?

If I dug hard enough I'm sure I could find a few college papers that survived electronically. As for grade school, I was writing to satisfy the requirements the teach laid forth, not to keep a historical record to stand the test of time. Do you think I really cared what happened to my crap as a teenager? Where as a historian would want thier works to survive the test of time.


(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But despite that, the Bible is still the most copied book that we've ever found. Copies upon copies upon copies, more than any other book. That shows the preservation that the book as been through over the past 2,000 years.

The more something is copied the more prone it is to have transcribing errors, or alterations.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  The sun going dark for 3 hours would get the attention of a ton of people, including the roman historians that wrote down

It states that "darkness covered all the land"...but what land? Jerusalem? Rome? Japan? Turkey? The earth? What land is it talking about...it could have just been a local thing. Second, I recall in my hometown of Detroit in the early 00's, there was a city-wide power outage. The power was out in the entire city....and I don't recall anyone writing a book about it, either.
False equivalency here
Because a power outage is hardly unusual, however I bet the power company has a record of it, with the cause and what was done to fix it. The sky going black for hours is highly unusual, well if you take the bible literally all the land would mean just that, all the land everywhere.

That and you mentioning it here, just put it into the records as well Tongue

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  ...every...single...astronimical....event that they could see. They never bothered to mention the sky going dark for 3 freeking hours.

If it the darkness was a local thing, I can understand why.

Except the bible says all the land.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  You still have a possible date range here after paul's death in 67 CE.

Anytime before 70 CE would fit the bill.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But they were talking about the BUILDINGS. The buildings sat inside the walls. Unless you are willing to call the fence that is standing around your house part of your actual house, then there shouldn't be a problem here.

I would consider my balcony to be part of my apartment, and if my apartment was destroyed and the balcony was still there, I would say oh look at least I still have the balcony of my apartment left.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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...

I guess everything goes right back to the dates, does it?

A lot of it yes.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except you ignored the other sources that were listed in the article you posted

Well, what is the general consensus? 200-400 years by virtually all accounts.

For just the biographies yes

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  , we don't have only his biographies to go off of.

We don't with Jesus, either.

Really now?

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

We have that with Jesus, too. When Paul received the creed that was passed down to him (1Corin 15:3-7), that has been estimated to be within three to five years after the cross. Now, that may have not been during the time that Jesus was alive, but that close enough to the events to where Paul was a contemporary to Jesus, and he would have known whether or not Jesus was a fact, or a myth.

or for the love of.... a Creed by definition is a profession of faith, not fact.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  No its not, large swaths of history meet the criterion of having other sources other than its own document

The books that make up the Bible are all independent. Before the 66 books were compiled for one massive collection, they were all single, independent books.

Yes and they brought all 66 books together and they all contradict each other hard core.
Here is a nice visual representation for you of those contradictions. http://bibviz.com/#colorize:Crimson

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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 literacy rate back then. There should have been a lot of people writing about it.

Well, then the death of King Tut should have been written about. We dont know how he died, or why he died. You would think that since he was Pharaoh of all Egypt, we would have found some kind of hieroglyph or ancient document detailing the death of the King of Egypt.

Guess what, we have nothing. You are making it seem as if our knowledge of ancient history is complete, when it isn't.

I never said our knowledge was complete, but someone not writing about how king tut died, is small potatoes compared to the claims the bible is making. Besides we found king tut's tomb which was well preserved and had a good chunk of information for archaeologists to drool over.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  They wern't claiming people were raised from the dead and performing miracles.

Point? They had no reasons too, but Christians sure did.

My point, is they weren't making extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence.
(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Creeds are professions of faith, they by defintion can not be evidence.

Frusty

That is nonsense, Worom. If what is stated in the creed is TRUE, then it isn't a profession of faith, it is a profession of TESTIMONY.

Again that is not the definition of a creed, by definition a creed is a profession of faith, either change the word your using. Or change the definition of the word.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Say what?

How is this hard to understand? If I read a book and then write something about the book, I can make it sound like it matches up with the book without any issue.

(02-08-2015 09:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again read the article you posted, the biographies arn't the only evidence. Facepalm

I know, which is why I am appealing to Paul's epistles, and the extra-biblical sources that recognizes Jesus as a historical figure.

(27-07-2015 12:51 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

Laugh out load They did...Matthew/John.

As I've stated before in previous arguments they did not.

“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
03-08-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

The question was, have you ever believed a lie that YOU told. You wouldn't believe your own lies. That is the point...if the disciples/Paul BELIEVED what they were saying, then no one can say that they were lying, because people don't believe their own lies.

No I haven't believed a lie that I told, but there are people that do, we call them pathological liars. That and by your logic anyone that has written a story book, or other work of fiction actually believes that thier story is true.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, if they believed what they were saying, then they obviously felt they had REASONS to believe what they were saying, and they were not basing anything on what they were told from other people. Rather, they were basing their belief on what they EXPERIENCED.

Now the question is, what lead them to believe that Jesus rose from the dead?? That is the million dollar question.

You're making an assumption, and as I pointed out by your reasoning anyone writing any work of fiction would have reasons to believe that thier stories are true, experience is totally irrelevant, to someone making up a story. So they could have just made the whole thing up. And the way the stories are written make them sound just like that, stories.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Paul lying doesn't explain the empty tomb nor the origin of the disciples belief.

You assume that the body wasn't just snatched away, and that the tomb actually existed. We have never found the tomb.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  His goal was to bolster the early believers in his particular sect.

Is that a fact, or assumption?

Fact, If I remember my college courses correctly

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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?

When in doubt, go random Big Grin

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  Then I have at least made you think, which is good. Smile

Thumbsup

“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
03-08-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:22 PM)Worom Wrote:  Still doesn't solve the problem, if the author wrote it decades later why would he still leave it as they told no one?

The book of Mark is the only Gospel which state that they told no one. Coincidentally, that is where the story ends. In the omitted verses following verse 8, it obviously narrates how the women eventually told the disciples.

I mean, think about it; If the author "wrote it decades later", knowing that the cat is already out of the bag, and now EVERYONE knows...why would he leave it as "they told no one", as you asked above? Wana know why? This is just a hunch, but IT IS PROBABLY BECAUSE VERSE 8 ISN'T WHERE THE STORY ENDED...THERE WAS MORE TO THE STORY, OBVIOUSLY.

Not according to the earliest documents we have, anything after verse 8 is not there, and everything added after was by a different author.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, be as it may, there are many opinions of why the book of Mark end the way that it does, but cmon, no one with common sense can look themselves in the mirror and still draw the conclusion that verse 8 is where the author intended to end the book.

No way, no how.

Yes we can, because in the earliest manuscripts that is exactly where it ended.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Having almost double the amount of chapters than the book that it is being compared to..if that isn't independent, I don't know what is.

You could say the additional chapters would be independent, but the whole book isn't.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  If its infallible how do we have a contradictary genology, and a genology for someone that god impregenated a woman directly?

This is not a new issue that has been raised...many, MANY answers have been given to address this..and as long as it is possible for even ONE of those answers to be true, that makes it non-contradictory.

And I argued against the answers you gave me, and how would you determine which one is true and which is false, and once you have a false geneogoly then what? How does your inspired work of god handle that kind of massive error?

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

Well, a skeptic could still be skeptic regardless of how much evidence is being presented to him/her. The Holy Spirit could slap the skeptic on the ass and the skeptic could still not be convinced.

If the holy spirit slapped me on the ass, I would be like what the shit, did I imagine that or did it actually happen. And if it appeared to me I would sure as heck bring in as many people as possible to make sure I wasn't hallucinating, and get it on video as well, with multiple people doing so as well. Not to mention the massive level of questions I would be asking.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  Still doesn't solve any problems, they still called bullshit when the women told them according to the gospels.

And also according to the Gospels, they were wrong, and the women were right.

Yes, but your argument was written to make it seem that they believed the women right off the bat.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  You still didn't solve the problem.

What problem? God saw to it that a virgin gave birth. I am sorry that your naturalistic mind can't quite comprehend that there are some answers that lie beyond the natural realm.

And yet your Bible felt it necessary to provide two genealogies for a virgin birth where there shouldn't be any genealogies at all. And there have been no cases of virgin birth in modern times either. At some point a human male had to get sperm to the woman's egg. Naturally or artificially but it still had to be done.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  Somehow I doubt he would get spanked by Craig again, maybe we will get to see that debate.

I felt sorry for the poor schmuck Laugh out load

(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

They aren't. So if I am writing a biography of Allen Iverson, and in my biography I include a huge birthday party he had when he turned 30...and you also write an biography of Allen Iverson, but you DON'T include the same birthday party in your biography...that is a contradiction, huh?? Laugh out load

Is that the logic here?

That would be an omission, besides you are comparing a birthday party to a Resurrection event, I would call that false equivalency. Now if you said that on his 30th birthday party that he suddenly regressed in age to the age of 20. And I made no such mention of it, one might conclude based on what we know of human aging that you are full of crap.

(02-08-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 01:44 PM)Worom Wrote:  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.

But the problem is, even if Luke told us who his sources were, you would of still called it hearsay...and you would have demanded that we have written testimony from his sources as well.

See? Moving the goal posts. It isn't about believing, it is about attacking. Attack, attack, attack.

If we had written testimony from his sources that would be fantastic actually, as it at the very least would make my argument much more difficult.

“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: