(December 19, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 19, 2012 at 5:35 pm)Undeceived Wrote: How does the third party "test" the claim? The scientific method?

If facts are independent of our personal whims, then we need an outsider with the same standards that have proven universal things to test what we hand over to them to verify what we are testing ourselves.

So how is the testing done? Is there an objective standard or are you depending on group consensus?

Quote:At the [First] Council, the Dhamma [the Buddha's teachings] was divided into various parts and each part was assigned to an Elder and his pupils to commit to memory. The Dhamma was then passed on from teacher to pupil orally. The Dhamma was recited daily by groups of people who often cross check with each other to ensure that no omissions or additions were made. Historians agree that the oral tradition is more reliable than a report written by one person from his memory several years after the event.

—

"Same shit, different savior...."

Quote:[According to the Dalai Lama] there are limits to the power of science to critique Buddhist dharma. For the Dalai Lama, modern science can critique Buddhist claims about the material realm, the realm of matter and energy, but not the non-material realm – the realm of the inner, subjective experiences of images, feelings, and awareness. If one were to claim scientific reasons for rejecting the possibility of the Buddhist idea of rebirth (or reincarnation), by pointing to the fact that most people do not claim memories of a past-life, or to psychological evidence of the mind's dependence upon the physical organ called the brain, then, the Dalai Lama argues, one has entered into an realm that scientific method and instruments cannot competently study. If Buddhist scriptures describe material realities that are not literally true, then that fact should be acknowledged. Thus, when it comes to non-material realities (like ideas, thoughts, and consciousness), scientific claims about such realities, though accurate in some ways, do not and cannot fully describe what those realities are.

The Dalai Lama argues that the particular forms of reason and experience that modern science values places a limit on the domain of scientific authority:
“Science deals with that aspect of reality and human experience that lends itself to a particular method of inquiry susceptible to empirical observation, quantification and measurement, repeatability, and intersubjective verification — more than one person has to be able to say, ‘Yes, I saw the same thing. I got the same results.' So legitimate scientific study is limited to the physical world, including the human body, astronomical bodies, measurable energy, and how structures work.”

—

(December 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 19, 2012 at 7:43 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: It wasnt Christians who saw Messianic prophecy in Isaiah - it was Jews.

Then why are there still Jews?

Salvation comes from the Jews.
Christians (33% of the worlds population) are just Jews who understand scripture better.

(December 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Any Rabbi will tell you all the reasons why Isaiah is not Messianic prophecy.

Easy to say when those Rabbis are so few in number compared to their Christian counterparts who view the exact same scripture somewhat differently.

(December 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: But the bottom line is, Isaiah is not a Messianic prophecy. The subject of Isaiah 53 is Israel, just like the passages leading up to 53 are.

Special pleading. Ho hum.
You say it isnt. I say it is. Thats a nil-all-draw.
Atheists also say its not Messianic prophecy. So what?

Here's your problem;

Jewish belief (the Old Testament) is Messianic.
What are you going to do about the billions of Christians who also regard the Old Testament as the basis for Messianic prophecy?

---

If Jesus doesnt fit the description of Suffering Servant then NOBODY DOES!

(December 19, 2012 at 7:12 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: When does the NT claim he was so marred that he was unrecognizable as a human?

Criminals were beaten half to death before they were crucified.

(December 19, 2012 at 7:12 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Isaiah 53:3 contains, “A man of suffering, familiar with disease.”
Isaiah 53:10 states, “But the Lord chose to crush him by disease”

When does the NT say Jesus was diseased (the Bible only refers to Leprosy as disease)?

The Hebrew word "ḥō·lî;" here translates more closely to "grief".
http://biblos.com/isaiah/53-3.htm

(December 19, 2012 at 7:12 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Isaiah 53:10 also states, “That, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life”

What passages in the NT mention any of the following: Jesus made a guilt offering, he had offspring, he had a long life?

The guilt offering is a sacrifice for sins, usually a ram. But here it says "he made himself an offering for guilt" predicting Jesus' own sacrifice. Jesus had offspring in terms of spiritual progeny (we're talking a spiritual Messiah here). He will also live and rule forever, as Isaiah 9:7 reads, "Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever." Mark 16:19 is the fulfillment. As you have undoubtedly noticed, no normal human can fulfill these criteria.

Quote:Christians (33% of the worlds population) are just Jews who understand scripture better.

Wow.

What an arrogant asshole you are.

(December 19, 2012 at 9:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Christians (33% of the worlds population) are just Jews who understand scripture better.

Wow.

What an arrogant asshole you are.

LOL

Right in the middle of a thread where Christians are being told (by atheists) that they dont understand their own scripture.

Simon Moon writes... Isaiah 53:3 contains, “A man of suffering, familiar with disease.”

Yeah, right.
Like Jesus never met any lepers or cripples or blind folk or people with blood cancers or fevers or........

(December 19, 2012 at 8:52 am)Brian37 Wrote: I hate the title of the thread, to me this vernacular, "Compositional anaylsis". If we all know holy books are mere comic books do not fuel the believer by using such implied academic phrases.

Why do we need a fancy way of saying we are merely doing a book review, especially one that is no better or real than Batman or Superman?

Why do you need to come into a thread that clearly doesn't interest you and troll?? Go and read the OP's original intoruction to these forums:


He takes the study of Biblical literature seriously, although he's non-Christian.

With that said, he specifically claimed in his introduction thread "I look forward to mature, stimulating, enlightening and civil conversations with the members here"; and thus far all he's done is preach at everyone and then refuse to partake in mature, stimulating, enlightening and civil conversations!

Quote:Language is a code, and while we can and should have a more elevated way of communication than "See Spot Run", I find it better to talk in laymens terms when it comes to holy books and simply call them what they are. You don't need to get past even the first page of the bible to know it is a myth.

And all you're doing as well is preaching. It's not like you're willing to discuss that or even consider other important aspects to Biblical literature besides as a religious textbook.

Now go away and find a thread that interests you instead of trolling threads that don't!

---

(December 19, 2012 at 5:15 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 19, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Can you tell me what you define as 'evidence'?

Why such an inane and stupid question?

I take this to mean it is stupid to assume that you care about evidence then.

What an utterly ridiculous response of yours. Do you presume to label everything a Christian does or says "stupid" solely because of their beliefs? PS: Yes I know my question is a "stupid question".

Quote:You want "evidence". Funny how a Hindu and a Jew and an Atheist and Muslim type on computers like we are now and do not invent a computer deity to explain the existence of computers.

Interesting that you define computers as evidence that God can't exist. Thanks for the information, I'll have to remember how low your standard of evidence is.

---

(December 19, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Otherwise we can simply make shit up because it sounds good, like Holocaust deniers and Ouija board lovers.

It's funny that you stigmatise Holocaust deniers, since they use essentially the same argument you. You claim there "isn't enough evidence". Holocaust deniers claim that there "isn't enough evidence" for the number of Jews executed. Your arguments are one and the same!

(December 19, 2012 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Most xtians do not even seem to understand that this shit was only divided up into "chapters and verses" in the middle ages.

The original would have been one continuous block of text.

Listen to Captain Obvious! Want to tell me that the OT canon is 22 books as well?

---

Lion please go and rethink your theology.

(December 19, 2012 at 8:53 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Salvation comes from the Jews.

FAIL. Salvation comes from God.

(December 19, 2012 at 8:53 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Christians (33% of the worlds population) are just Jews who understand scripture better.

WRONG. Christians are not Jews, and are not defined by their ethnic heritage.

---

(December 19, 2012 at 9:07 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Criminals were beaten half to death before they were crucified.

Well not always, but the Bible makes it clear that Jesus was.

(December 20, 2012 at 4:45 am)Aractus Wrote: Lion please go and rethink your theology.

(December 19, 2012 at 8:53 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Salvation comes from the Jews.

FAIL. Salvation comes from God

It's not my theology. Take it up with this Guy.

John 4:22 Wrote:You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews..

(December 20, 2012 at 4:45 am)Aractus Wrote:

(December 19, 2012 at 8:53 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Christians (33% of the worlds population) are just Jews who understand scripture better.

WRONG. Christians are not Jews, and are not defined by their ethnic heritage.

Sorry to keep dragging you back to scripture. But...

''There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.''
Galatians 3:28

Yeah!

Paul was Jewish.
Peter was Jewish.
Jesus was Jewish. (I think He understood scripture pretty well.)
Moses was Jewish.

BTW, are you circumcised?

---

How many Jews will there be in the Kingdom of God?
How many Anglicans?

Oh dear, you can't be serious Lion? The messiah has come from the Jews and not the Samaritans or Greeks.

---

I suppose next you'll tell me Abraham, Lot and Job were Jews too?