(July 9, 2011 at 8:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: Similarly ( to me) the NT has value even if there were no christ. Why is it that I, as an atheist can see this, and yet believers somehow feel the worth of the NT is entirely dependant upon the historical accuracy of jesus' existence?

(July 9, 2011 at 8:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: It's just too much to even consider isn't it. The idea that people are either too lazy, or too busy to invent a religion entirely out of nothing, and instead rely on the religious concepts and narratives of those that immediately precede or surround them. Perish the thought. Our ancestors are also apparently too ignorant to write fiction. To top it off, we know for fact, that no one ever fabricated anything for personal gain, least of all the religious.

In all seriousness, if anyone had a reason to research the concepts found in the NT, the traditions that led to what we call christianity, it would be christians. There is an immense body of knowledge on the subject there for the taking if one were so inclined. Some of these narratives have value regardless of the divinity of christ. Insisting that every story be a prop, or somehow proof of a single concept robs them of the greater value they have as metaphor. Aesop's fables have value even if there were no Aesop (which may be the case). Similarly ( to me) the NT has value even if there were no christ. Why is it that I, as an atheist can see this, and yet believers somehow feel the worth of the NT is entirely dependant upon the historical accuracy of jesus' existence?

GC, wanna field that one for me? If there were no christ, would the NT have any value? What is the value (if any) of the NT in the absence of christ?

(July 9, 2011 at 6:28 pm)Godschild Wrote: No and none. The value is Christ for without Him there's no hope.

Quote:This matter also came up in my debate with Bill Jackson. He tried to circumvent the problem by claiming that the prophecy was only spoken by the prophets and that nothing was said to imply that it had ever been written (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 20).This is at best a far-fetched quibble that fails to take note of the fact that Matthew routinely introduced written "prophecies" by saying that they had been spoken by so-and-so. He said, for example, that the "voice heard in Ramah" had been "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" (2:17-18). Earlier he had said that the famous virgin-birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 had been "spoken by the Lord through the prophet" (1:22). He introduced Isaiah 9:1-2 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet"(4:14). He introduced Isaiah 42:1-4 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet" (12:17). There are numerous other examples in Matthew to show that his style was to introduce alleged prophecies by saying that they had been spoken by such and such a prophet. If the prophecy-fulfillment argument offers such wonderful proof of divine inspiration, then, we have every right to demand that bibliolaters show us just where it was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene as Matthew claimed in the passage cited from his gospel account. How can there be proof of divine inspiration in a prophecy statement that may never have been made?

(July 9, 2011 at 8:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There is no "oral history" (unless the high priest was getting a blow job in the temple ) until you just tried to invent one in order to salvage your horseshit.


Since you obviously did not read Till's essay ( and why should you...you only read things that tell you what you want to hear ) I'll quote the relevant part so you can ignore it again and then insist that your made up shit is right.

Quote:This matter also came up in my debate with Bill Jackson. He tried to circumvent the problem by claiming that the prophecy was only spoken by the prophets and that nothing was said to imply that it had ever been written (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 20).This is at best a far-fetched quibble that fails to take note of the fact that Matthew routinely introduced written "prophecies" by saying that they had been spoken by so-and-so. He said, for example, that the "voice heard in Ramah" had been "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" (2:17-18). Earlier he had said that the famous virgin-birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 had been "spoken by the Lord through the prophet" (1:22). He introduced Isaiah 9:1-2 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet"(4:14). He introduced Isaiah 42:1-4 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet" (12:17). There are numerous other examples in Matthew to show that his style was to introduce alleged prophecies by saying that they had been spoken by such and such a prophet. If the prophecy-fulfillment argument offers such wonderful proof of divine inspiration, then, we have every right to demand that bibliolaters show us just where it was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene as Matthew claimed in the passage cited from his gospel account. How can there be proof of divine inspiration in a prophecy statement that may never have been made?

(July 9, 2011 at 6:31 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(July 9, 2011 at 6:28 pm)Godschild Wrote: No and none. The value is Christ for without Him there's no hope.

Your beliefs are depressing me. Maybe you should look outside the box. Maybe you will find that hope, like all other human emotions, come from within us, as corny as that sounds.

(July 9, 2011 at 7:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So GC, without god murder would be neutral, no reason to be kind to your fellow man. The elderly or infirm do not deserve compassion. etc etc etc. Yet you continue to function as a human being despite there being no christ, and no value in scripture.

Your every breath betrays you.

(July 9, 2011 at 7:03 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Is there life outside the box for GC?

Shaking the magic 8 ball to find out ...

(July 9, 2011 at 8:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:This matter also came up in my debate with Bill Jackson. He tried to circumvent the problem by claiming that the prophecy was only spoken by the prophets and that nothing was said to imply that it had ever been written (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 20).This is at best a far-fetched quibble that fails to take note of the fact that Matthew routinely introduced written "prophecies" by saying that they had been spoken by so-and-so. He said, for example, that the "voice heard in Ramah" had been "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" (2:17-18). Earlier he had said that the famous virgin-birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 had been "spoken by the Lord through the prophet" (1:22). He introduced Isaiah 9:1-2 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet"(4:14). He introduced Isaiah 42:1-4 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet" (12:17). There are numerous other examples in Matthew to show that his style was to introduce alleged prophecies by saying that they had been spoken by such and such a prophet. If the prophecy-fulfillment argument offers such wonderful proof of divine inspiration, then, we have every right to demand that bibliolaters show us just where it was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene as Matthew claimed in the passage cited from his gospel account. How can there be proof of divine inspiration in a prophecy statement that may never have been made?