[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2013, 06:18 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2013 06:24 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Bucky Ball is opting out of the debate all together claiming that;

- every miracle in the NT is a fabrication not just the Resurrection.

- The motive of the NT writers/sources is suddenly well known. (Which seems odd since you cant have it both ways. You cant claim expertise and plead ignorance on the same issue. You cant claim these are second-hand, anonymous hearsay authors and simultaneously claim to know they were... ''written for proclamation in liturgical services". The Gospels themselves dont even claim to exist for that purpose.)

- There were just so many Messiah figures in Jewish history that we can discount Jesus as being just another one of many.


See? Heres another example of Bucky Ball claiming expert insight into the mind of a NT writer.
You cant claim expertise of St Paul's frame of mind regarding the nature of the Resurrection when you have just asserted that all NT miracles are frauds.
Paul himself was witness to and the subject OF miracles. So if he was a fraud or a nutcase, then you can't make ANYTHING of his presentation of what 'actually' happened.

(20-01-2013 05:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The first Christian to write about a "resurrected Jesus" was Paul. There are very good reason the think he did not intend to say that he "physically rose". http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection
This is NOT a "atheist" response. It's from the Professor of NT at Tulsa, a good Christian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lion IRC's post
20-01-2013, 06:35 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2013 06:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-01-2013 06:18 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Bucky Ball is opting out of the debate all together claiming that;

- every miracle in the NT is a fabrication not just the Resurrection.

- The motive of the NT writers/sources is suddenly well known. (Which seems odd since you cant have it both ways. You cant claim expertise and plead ignorance on the same issue. You cant claim these are second-hand, anonymous hearsay authors and simultaneously claim to know they were... ''written for proclamation in liturgical services". The Gospels themselves dont even claim to exist for that purpose.)

- There were just so many Messiah figures in Jewish history that we can discount Jesus as being just another one of many.


See? Heres another example of Bucky Ball claiming expert insight into the mind of a NT writer.
You cant claim expertise of St Paul's frame of mind regarding the nature of the Resurrection when you have just asserted that all NT miracles are frauds.
Paul himself was witness to and the subject OF miracles. So if he was a fraud or a nutcase, then you can't make ANYTHING of his presentation of what 'actually' happened.

(20-01-2013 05:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The first Christian to write about a "resurrected Jesus" was Paul. There are very good reason the think he did not intend to say that he "physically rose". http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection
This is NOT a "atheist" response. It's from the Professor of NT at Tulsa, a good Christian.
Sorry. Scholars KNOW why the gospels were written, and how they were first used. Obviously you have never studied the NT. We can know WHY something was written, and not be able to verify the content. We KNOW why lies are written. That doesn't make them not lies. Your reasoning is pathetic.
Paul "may have" "CLAIMED" to see miracles, (if he did...you need to point out where), AND that proves NOTHING. You have not answered Dr. B.B, Scott's points, made in my extensive link, (and actually his book "The Trouble With Resurrection"). Unlike your phony scholars, he actually IS a real Biblical Scholar. He is one of the most well respected NT scholars in the country. Good luck. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint+Paul

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2013, 08:09 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2013 08:16 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-01-2013 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 06:18 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Bucky Ball is opting out of the debate all together claiming that;

- every miracle in the NT is a fabrication not just the Resurrection.

- The motive of the NT writers/sources is suddenly well known. (Which seems odd since you cant have it both ways. You cant claim expertise and plead ignorance on the same issue. You cant claim these are second-hand, anonymous hearsay authors and simultaneously claim to know they were... ''written for proclamation in liturgical services". The Gospels themselves dont even claim to exist for that purpose.)

- There were just so many Messiah figures in Jewish history that we can discount Jesus as being just another one of many.


See? Heres another example of Bucky Ball claiming expert insight into the mind of a NT writer.
You cant claim expertise of St Paul's frame of mind regarding the nature of the Resurrection when you have just asserted that all NT miracles are frauds.
Paul himself was witness to and the subject OF miracles. So if he was a fraud or a nutcase, then you can't make ANYTHING of his presentation of what 'actually' happened.
Sorry. Scholars KNOW why the gospels were written, and how they were first used.

The Gospels were written to preserve history. You claimed they were ''written for proclamation in liturgical services".

Liturgical services?

About WHAT? Conducted and attended by WHOM?

Your reasoning is circular.

You are claiming that people were meeting and all standing around with nothing to do, without any liturgy and so the NT writers decided to make up a liturgy for them.

"hey everybody, how about we all start doing some communion-type stuff, you know...eating bread and drinking wine...oh yeah, and lets make up a story about random dude who had a....wait for it...Last Supper...wooooo!. Yeah and lets all do that praying thing and...oooh isnt this fun....getting fellowship and stuff...and never mind if we get arrested and tortured for this invented liturgy stuff coz we'll just say its all make believe and nothing to worry about....''

I say the order is;
1. Event. Post mortem appearence.
2. Critical analysis of event.
3. Conclusion based on best possible explanation.
4. Action - report, preach, preserve the history.
5. Then the Christology/liturgy is formulated.


You say the order is;
1. Christology/liturgy is formulated. Motive unknown for doing this.
2. Ignore critical analysis of event claimed.
3. Action - report, preach, preserve the fabricated claims.
4. Expect people who know you arent eyewitnesses to spontaneously embrace stuff ''written for proclamation in liturgical services" that havent even started to take place yet.

(20-01-2013 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Obviously you have never studied the NT.

Why? Because I dont agree on the motive for the writing of the Gospels. I have studied the NT sufficiently to know that they do not contain the ''liturgical service'' statement about motive which you assert as a possible THEORY.

(20-01-2013 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...We can know WHY something was written, and not be able to verify the content.

The actual content of the Gospels makes the intent of the authors/sources very clear. If you are going to contest an ALTERNATIVE theory about why they say what they say, you STILL have to have regard for what is actually written. Its no use saying...oh yeah well I know they wrote THAT but what they intended by their writing was THIS. How's about some actual scripture to support your theory instead of a URL link to something you may not have even understood when you read it?

(20-01-2013 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...We KNOW why lies are written. That doesn't make them not lies. Your reasoning is pathetic.

No, you dont KNOW! You think you know. You hold the opinion. You have a theory. But you are not allowed to say you know domerthing about the NT authors for a fact while denying me the same opportunity to claim that my opinion about those same writers is a fact.
You havent even offered proof they are lies. Youre just gainsaying.

Gospel dudes say they saw the risen Jesus.
Bucky Balls says no you didnt.
Gospel dudes say how on earth would you know whether we did or didnt? Were you even there?
Bucky Balls says, no I wasnt there but I'm an expert in these things and I can tell you're making it up...probably ''for proclamation in liturgical services"



(20-01-2013 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Paul "may have" "CLAIMED" to see miracles, (if he did...you need to point out where), AND that proves NOTHING.

Oh you gotta be kidding me. You dont think Paul ever reported seeing a miracle? Have YOU read the NT lately?
Gospel reports of the miraculous DO prove something. This goes right to the heart of motive. Paul is a perfect example of someone who testified to things he thought were proof of God. He said nothing would convince him otherwise. That PROVES he had a reason - motive.
People were trying to get him and all other early Christians to stop claiming stuff and deny the risen Lord. Christians werent killed and persecuted simply for the act of believeing, they were killed BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO STOP BELIEVING!

(20-01-2013 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...You have not answered Dr. B.B, Scott's points, made in my extensive link,

I didnt even look at it.
I can type my own posts and respond to people who take the time to type theirs. But I'm not running off to read your links to other ppl's stuff because if you cant summarize and present it in your own words, it's possible you dont understand it sufficiently yourself. And if thats the case, you might be putting up a link which is more advantageous to me than to your case.

...you did afterall say he was a Christian. And Christians think God exists. And God can do miracles right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2013, 08:48 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2013 02:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
The gospels were not written to "preserve history", which you would know if you had ever studied the NT. There WAS no concept at the time of "history" and certainly NOT in Hebrew culture. There was no word for it. The Romans were just coming to agreement on what that meant. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. They were written for use in liturgical services, attended by BELIEVING Christians, obviously. There is nothing "circular about that. You need to look up the definition of "circular". No one "read" gospels. The literacy rate was 5% or less. Sorry. There is really no argument about this in scholarly circles.

WTF do you mean, "conducted and attended by whom ?". Christianns of course. Who did you think was going to go to Christian worship events ? No one said the gospels "contain a worship statement". I said scholars KNOW they were USED in worshi[p events. Can you read ?

I don't care what you say the "order" was. You are no scholar, and you have provided no evidence or supporting documentation. I only said they USED the gospels in the liturgy. I didn't say they WROTE them for that use, only. They DID NOT write them for "reading", and scholars know that.

The content of the gospels makes the intent VERY clear. They want the hearer to believe. They have an agenda. There is very good reason to doubt that, especially since they contradict themselves so much.

I don't have to offer any proof they are NOT true. They claim outrageous things. Miracles, and risings from the dead. Things that have never ever happened in the entire history of the Earth. YOU have to prove any of the crap ever happened. There is none. One has no reason to believe a "faith" document" written with a agenda, by a believer, for believers, with NO outside evidence. There is not a shred. Since Matthew also said there was an earthquake and a torn curtain, and others rose, and NONE of that was ever documented by Jewish historians who documented everything else at the time, and NONE of that was mentioned, there is EVERY reason to doubt the gospels. I don't have to prove they are lies. We assume they are lies, unless there is proof. Let's see some.

Paul was a megalomaniac who was pissed because the apostles would not take him seriously, so he cooked up a miraculous "conversion". I read it all. It is proof of nothing. Even Acts is contradictory about the conversion. Some places say he got his gospel from the apostles, he says he got it from no one, but by revelation. Which is it ? They cannot both be true. You have not bothered to read or answer any of the points in the links.

Don't give me the "died for belief" crap. The 9/11 bombers died for their beliefs also.

You expect us to go look at your fake Dr. McGrew, but won't look at links. I see. You are pathetic. You say you can type you own posts. Well I wrote the resurrection thread, and contributed to the Paul thread, so I did write that. You expected us to go watch McGrew. You offered NONE of those arguments, and typed none of them. So you're a liar. Don't offer any more opinions, unless they are supported by a scholar or a reference, or they will be ignored. Obviously, you have no expertise in this field.

ANd BTW, we're not debating the existence of a god. This is an antheist site. We assume there is none. If you don't like that, too bad. The default position for any rational person, is that we assume there exists only that for which there is evidence. There is none for any gods. So that is the default position here. If you have any evidence, lets see it.

If you actually are so dumb, as to think that this debate is "if there is a god, then there could have been a resurrection", go play in your sandbox.

The first gospel did not think it was important enough to mention it. Mark's original version, as every scholar knows, had no resurrection. You mean to tell me they thought it was SO unimportant, that the first gospel would not mention it. James, (Jesus' brother) NEVER says a word about it. If YOUR brother rose from the dead, you would not mention it ?? Hahaha.
The Christians could not agree what it meant. Paul did not mean "physical", as we have demonstrated by scholarly examination. The people who saw him did not recognize him. You call THAT a miracle ? I call it a fucking mess cooked up by liars who wanted to advance their cause, and LATER, added it, because it was "all the rage" at the time to have a messiah who had risen from the dead, just like all the others that were said to have risen. Do you believe they rose too ? By what criteria, exactly do you pick and choose your risings ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-01-2013, 11:06 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-01-2013 03:46 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  a) Opportunity
b) Motive

Nobody has challenged that omnipotent God has the ability to do this.

The point here is you have to concede that; if God, ---> then yes, miracles ARE possible.
OK so I give you God and if God then miracles possible (although the question of what constitutes a miracle and indeed what constitutes God is also subject to debate). So now the question is, did a miracle actually happen?

I fail to see how motives of invisible beings can be used as *evidence*, so the only evidence you are presenting is scriptural, correct ? So now, why would you trust the scriptures ? What do you know of their source ? All of your post following says things like 'the disciples had no motive to lie' - *sure*, if the description of their actions found in the new testament is accurate. Why do you accept it as such ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 12:18 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-01-2013 08:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The gospels were not written to "preserve history", which you would know if you had ever studied the NT. There WAS no concept at the time of "history" and certainly NOT in Hebrew culture. There was no word for it. The Romans were just coming to agreement on what that meant. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

I am astonished to read this claim that Hellenistic Jews had no concept of history.

Is it your serious claim that The Library Of Alexandria (300 BC) contained no history books/scrolls? That the Tell-el-Amarna tablets arent history writ large?
Are you REALLY going to try and argue that an Assyrian library of 10,000 clay tablets at Nineveh (600 BC) belonging to Assur-bani-pal (Sardanapalos) were the product of people who DIDNT GET THE CONCEPT OF HISTORICAL RECORD KEEPING? !

Quote:...in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar — Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod tetrarch of
Galilee, and Philip his brother, tetrarch of Ituraea and of theregion of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.


Does this REALLY strike you as a person who doesnt think history matters?


This is madness. Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 12:29 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2013 12:32 AM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-01-2013 08:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...I only said they USED the gospels in the liturgy. I didn't say they WROTE them for that use, only....

Too late pal. You cant back down now. Heres what you wrote...

(20-01-2013 05:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The gospels were not eyewitness accounts, and they were written for proclamation in liturgical services to be read/sung to believers, to remind them what they already believed....

You said they were written for purpose "X" not "Y" (historical)


(20-01-2013 05:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are in no way reliable.

Reliable compared to what? Show me the actual historical record - the one you think IS reliable and lets compare.
Otherwise your special pleading is lame and your claim about their unreliability has ZERO warrant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 12:51 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(20-01-2013 08:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  WTF do you mean, "conducted and attended by whom ?". Christians of course. Who did you think was going to go to Christian worship events?

Why would Christians be going to attend meetings and worship together BEFORE they had the stories developed and presented for this supposed liturgical purpose of being used in meetings of Christians?

Your argument falls over because the Gospel record presents the very same events for which those gathering Christians ALREADY had by eye witness oral testimony. If you had rocked up with a written testimony, folks gathered there would have said....yeah we know, we already heard and a few of us were there when it happened.

They werent gathering to talk about the weather. They werent standing around with nothing to talk about or sing about, all lamenting their sad lack of something written for ''proclamation'' in some liturgical services.

(20-01-2013 08:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...You expect us to go look at your fake Dr. McGrew...

Nope, I was only playing duelling URLS. Thats what I thought you wanted to play. Huh
And I'll do exactly the same thing everytime YOU post some wall of text at me instead of having a person-to-person dialogue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 01:03 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2013 02:52 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(21-01-2013 12:18 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 08:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The gospels were not written to "preserve history", which you would know if you had ever studied the NT. There WAS no concept at the time of "history" and certainly NOT in Hebrew culture. There was no word for it. The Romans were just coming to agreement on what that meant. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

I am astonished to read this claim that Hellenistic Jews had no concept of history.

Is it your serious claim that The Library Of Alexandria (300 BC) contained no history books/scrolls? That the Tell-el-Amarna tablets arent history writ large?
Are you REALLY going to try and argue that an Assyrian library of 10,000 clay tablets at Nineveh (600 BC) belonging to Assur-bani-pal (Sardanapalos) were the product of people who DIDNT GET THE CONCEPT OF HISTORICAL RECORD KEEPING? !

Quote:...in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar — Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod tetrarch of
Galilee, and Philip his brother, tetrarch of Ituraea and of theregion of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.


Does this REALLY strike you as a person who doesnt think history matters?


This is madness. Shocking


Not madness. You clearly have no clue about history.
Tacitus, the Roman historian, had arguments with his contemporaries about what history really was, and how to accurately document it. Clearly you have never studuied history.
If you think the Hellenistic Jews had a word for history, give it to us.
How did you decide your Jebus was the real Jebus ? You said you couldn't find evidence of Simon of Perea. Clearly you didn't even try.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/ch...rst-jesus/
He lived in ancient Israel, he was called the "Good Shepherd", he was killed by the Romans and he rose in three days. But he's not Jesus! Cutting-edge archaeology reveals that the apocalyptic template for a dying and rising Messiah may have originated with a man called Simon of Perea. Did the idea of resurrection begin with Jesus? Did it originate with Simon? Was Jesus a follower, not an innovator? Shockingly, an ancient stone tablet that has emerged from the Jordanian antiquities market seems to suggest that there was a dying and rising Messiah before Jesus.
Why not believe in this Jebus ?
I have to prove NOTHING. You have not a shred of evidence for the resurrection, and in fact I have now provided evidence that it was a common occurrance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Peraea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Revelation
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/prog...er/3927520
http://pinterest.com/pin/135741376240601929/
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/ch...ore-jesus/


Read more here: http://forums.kansascity.com/?q=node/8133#storylink=cpy

I'm not special pleading anything. Obviously you don't even know what that means. YOU have to provide EVIDENCE the resurrection is true, and you can't.

"We often say that dying and rising gods and miracle workers are a dime a dozen in the Greco-Roman world".
Dr. Carole R. Fontaine, Andover Newton Theological School

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 01:04 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2013 01:10 AM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(21-01-2013 01:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not madness. You clearly have no clue about history.
Tacitus, the Roman historian, had arguments with his contemporaries about what history really was, and how to accurately document it. Clearly you have never studuied history...

One historian argues with another about why his historical methods are more valid than another of his contemporaries in the field.

WOW!

I never heard of that before.

Canonical exegesis is the method of viewing the text as part of a whole canon directed, not at one single audience locked in time, but at a wider future audience over time.
The New Testament writers felt they KNEW they were writing the Good News for all nations as part of a bigger picture and from Gods perspective. Thats why deliberately they staked/anchored the events in real human history, just as Old Testament events had historical markers.
The Gospel writers were not merely providing hymns to be sung by the choir among a closed group of existing believers. Unlike Judaism, Christianity was immersed in the theology of evangelism to the gentiles - all nations- because God wants everyone to hear the Good News.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: