(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: Show me where i changed my opinions.

Did you not say you used to be a non-believer ?

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: That depends completely on why few are chosen. You assume all who are chosen show up. The possiablity remains that few who are called show up therefore few are chosen. You must demonstrate this not to be the case if you wish to legitmatly argue your intial point.

No. Attempted deflection.
I'm not talking about the ones that show up. They question is WHY are ONLY a FEW chosen. Not about the subset of those who show up. The question is why are ONLY some chosen in the first place. Fail. You deity creates people, and then does NOT choose them, and admits it.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: If said said douche bags completely did not recognise the bible then their arguement would be to demonstate God or any aspects of Him, but rather they always default to using the bible to make a point but refusing the bible when the same bible is used to defeat their points.

Incoherent drivel. Pointing out the Bible's fallacies, inconsistencies etc does not require demonstration of the deity in question, or acceptance of the authority of the text in question. Do I have to demonstrate Zeus to discuss Greek myths ? Fail.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: proof? any sort of reference? or am i just to take your word on faith?

David A. Holgate, "Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son: a Greco-Roman Perspective on Luke 15.11-32
http://nearemmaus.com/category/historica...iterature/ Scroll down
He got it from the Progymnasmata, (Greek literature, and wrote it in). It was a well know circulating literary theme.
Maybe you should actually learn something about your cult, and it's literature, before you think you're up to preaching it.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: how so?

How so ? Really ? REALLY ? Look up the phrase "intellectual dishonesty". You don't know the difference between honesty and intellectual dishonesty ? I see your problem.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: how so?

You seem unable to be able follow a discussion. Are you mentally ill ?

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: then why did rome find him innocent, and left it to the jews to decide whether He lived or died?

Why indeed. The gospels were written by Roman sympathizers. They wanted the Jews implicated. The gospels are IN NO WAY "historical".
There was no word in their language for "history".
If the whole thing actually happened why, when Peter was brought before the authorities in Acts, did he mention NOTHING about the zombie invasion, (all the others who also rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem), split, rocks, earthquake, and all the dead who walked around Jerusalem, The torn temple curtain ? Why ? Because it's ALL BULLSHIT. Why did the Romans and the Jews not go and try to RE_ARREST him, if he was seen by ANYONE ? Philo of Alexandria wrote about all sorts of other far less important things happening in Jerusalem at at that time, he is actually thought to have been IN Jerusalem during those years, and he and NOT ONE ancient Jewish historian NEVER ONCE mentions the temple curtain, or ANYTHING about these events. If the temple curtain had spontaneously torn, it would have been a monumental event in Jewish history.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: at which point was not a legal action so why record it?

Nice try. If something SO unusual had happened, it would have been mentioned somewhere by historians on site who recorded FAR less important details, flattering, AND non-flattering. Josephus wrote his book to try to prove Vespasian was the messiah. HE would have used it. He never mentions it. Philo says nothing. Pilate secretary says nothing. ALL wrote about FAR more mundane details.

Quote:how so?

Exactly. That's your problem. You know nothing about ancient Hebrew culture. You are incompetent in this discussion. Did you read the links, or references ? No. Your are here to preach, not learn.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually Christ Himself spoke of salvation in several different parables. Wheat/ weeds, Wheat/ Chaff, Sheep/ goats, anytime there is a seperation between believers/followers of Christ and those who are cast out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth etc, is where Christ Himself speaks of salvation or rather He is establishing the need for it..

Oh for god's sake. You have no clue.
1. Those word were "place in his mouth" as a "literary device".
2. Clearly the subtleties of cultural differences are WAY WAY WAY over your head. You have no clue.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: That is what happens when you let websites like the one you referenced do all of your thinking for you... (you are proven wrong by the obvious, and made to look foolish.)

No dear. I AM a PhD candidate in Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Languages. I WROTE the damn thing. You didn't even attempt to begin to refute ONE point in the referenced paper. You are so lame, and inept.
Why do people with SO little knowledge and skill in the subject they think they are competent to discuss, come to places like think, and make fools of themselves ?

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: Sorry sport, the concept of proof was blazed by Christ Himself in Luke 11

Sorry junior. Prove he said that. Prove he even existed.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: In order for this 'proof' to be valid Einstein and the others must have first established a link between God and what you believe they disproved.

Wrong again junior.
If the universe can be proven to be non-intuitive, that's all that's required to toss ALL logical proofs out the window. They in no way have to reference a particular point. That's not how Logic works, and not how corollaries work. Try to take a Logic course some time. They don't have to say anything about the gods. You seem to know nothing about the definition of "proofs, how they work, and what corollaries can be drawn from them.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: ..and what better evidence of God than God?

Great. Produce your "evidence" now. Obviously yet another subject you have not a clue is all about. PLEASE do nothing for a living in engineering, or medicine or science. You are a danger to yourself and others.
Look up the word "evidence".

BTW, you need to use a spell checker. Your spelling is atrocious. Or are you just as generally uneducated as your writing makes you look ?
The question is, what do you think you're doing here ?








meow

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 22, 2013 at 12:56 pm)tokutter Wrote: You can find it right here

Last post on the thread


.

I am asking for my orginal post, do you have it or not?

(September 9, 2013 at 1:24 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: How's this for benevolence?

A Rebellious Son
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

All that for being a drunkard? I'm glad somebody came up with rehab as an alternative to God's solution (stoning).

In response to Texas Sailor
you posted this directly under it

(September 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm)Drich Wrote: You do understand that the bible is a book that represents two separate religions correct?

You also understand that the passages you are looking at have nothing to do with Christianity correct?

I then posted this

(September 9, 2013 at 3:58 pm)tokutter Wrote:

(September 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm)Drich Wrote: You do understand that the bible is a book that represents two separate religions correct?

You also understand that the passages you are looking at have nothing to do with Christianity correct?

And yet somehow....someway.....they made it into the christian bible put together by...christians.

You christian need a new version NIV redacted.......black out all the stuff you dont use anymore.

It will end up looking like a pile of declassifed NSA files......


.

In response you posted this

(September 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 9, 2013 at 3:58 pm)tokutter Wrote: And yet somehow....someway.....they made it into the christian bible put together by...christians.

You christian need a new version NIV redacted.......black out all the stuff you dont use anymore.

It will end up looking like a pile of declassifed NSA files......


.

Its all there so 'we' would be able to identify sin, and subsequently repent of it.

I then asked you

Above you said it has NOTHING to do with christianity

Below its ALL there to help you in your christianity

?????????


.

---

(October 23, 2013 at 12:46 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: Show me where i changed my opinions.

Did you not say you used to be a non-believer ?

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: That depends completely on why few are chosen. You assume all who are chosen show up. The possiablity remains that few who are called show up therefore few are chosen. You must demonstrate this not to be the case if you wish to legitmatly argue your intial point.

No. Attempted deflection.
I'm not talking about the ones that show up. They question is WHY are ONLY a FEW chosen. Not about the subset of those who show up. The question is why are ONLY some chosen in the first place. Fail. You deity creates people, and then does NOT choose them, and admits it.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: If said said douche bags completely did not recognise the bible then their arguement would be to demonstate God or any aspects of Him, but rather they always default to using the bible to make a point but refusing the bible when the same bible is used to defeat their points.

Incoherent drivel. Pointing out the Bible's fallacies, inconsistencies etc does not require demonstration of the deity in question, or acceptance of the authority of the text in question. Do I have to demonstrate Zeus to discuss Greek myths ? Fail.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: proof? any sort of reference? or am i just to take your word on faith?

David A. Holgate, "Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son: a Greco-Roman Perspective on Luke 15.11-32
http://nearemmaus.com/category/historica...iterature/ Scroll down
He got it from the Progymnasmata, (Greek literature, and wrote it in). It was a well know circulating literary theme.
Maybe you should actually learn something about your cult, and it's literature, before you think you're up to preaching it.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: how so?

How so ? Really ? REALLY ? Look up the phrase "intellectual dishonesty". You don't know the difference between honesty and intellectual dishonesty ? I see your problem.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: how so?

You seem unable to be able follow a discussion. Are you mentally ill ?

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: then why did rome find him innocent, and left it to the jews to decide whether He lived or died?

Why indeed. The gospels were written by Roman sympathizers. They wanted the Jews implicated. The gospels are IN NO WAY "historical".
There was no word in their language for "history".
If the whole thing actually happened why, when Peter was brought before the authorities in Acts, did he mention NOTHING about the zombie invasion, (all the others who also rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem), split, rocks, earthquake, and all the dead who walked around Jerusalem, The torn temple curtain ? Why ? Because it's ALL BULLSHIT. Why did the Romans and the Jews not go and try to RE_ARREST him, if he was seen by ANYONE ? Philo of Alexandria wrote about all sorts of other far less important things happening in Jerusalem at at that time, he is actually thought to have been IN Jerusalem during those years, and he and NOT ONE ancient Jewish historian NEVER ONCE mentions the temple curtain, or ANYTHING about these events. If the temple curtain had spontaneously torn, it would have been a monumental event in Jewish history.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: at which point was not a legal action so why record it?

Nice try. If something SO unusual had happened, it would have been mentioned somewhere by historians on site who recorded FAR less important details, flattering, AND non-flattering. Josephus wrote his book to try to prove Vespasian was the messiah. HE would have used it. He never mentions it. Philo says nothing. Pilate secretary says nothing. ALL wrote about FAR more mundane details.

Quote:how so?

Exactly. That's your problem. You know nothing about ancient Hebrew culture. You are incompetent in this discussion. Did you read the links, or references ? No. Your are here to preach, not learn.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually Christ Himself spoke of salvation in several different parables. Wheat/ weeds, Wheat/ Chaff, Sheep/ goats, anytime there is a seperation between believers/followers of Christ and those who are cast out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth etc, is where Christ Himself speaks of salvation or rather He is establishing the need for it..

Oh for god's sake. You have no clue.
1. Those word were "place in his mouth" as a "literary device".
2. Clearly the subtleties of cultural differences are WAY WAY WAY over your head. You have no clue.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: That is what happens when you let websites like the one you referenced do all of your thinking for you... (you are proven wrong by the obvious, and made to look foolish.)

No dear. I AM a PhD candidate in Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Languages. I WROTE the damn thing. You didn't even attempt to begin to refute ONE point in the referenced paper. You are so lame, and inept.
Why do people with SO little knowledge and skill in the subject they think they are competent to discuss, come to places like think, and make fools of themselves ?

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: Sorry sport, the concept of proof was blazed by Christ Himself in Luke 11

Sorry junior. Prove he said that. Prove he even existed.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: In order for this 'proof' to be valid Einstein and the others must have first established a link between God and what you believe they disproved.

Wrong again junior.
If the universe can be proven to be non-intuitive, that's all that's required to toss ALL logical proofs out the window. They in no way have to reference a particular point. That's not how Logic works, and not how corollaries work. Try to take a Logic course some time. They don't have to say anything about the gods. You seem to know nothing about the definition of "proofs, how they work, and what corollaries can be drawn from them.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: ..and what better evidence of God than God?

Great. Produce your "evidence" now. Obviously yet another subject you have not a clue is all about. PLEASE do nothing for a living in engineering, or medicine or science. You are a danger to yourself and others.
Look up the word "evidence".

BTW, you need to use a spell checker. Your spelling is atrocious. Or are you just as generally uneducated as your writing makes you look ?
The question is, what do you think you're doing here ?








meow

OUCHA MA GOUCHA!!!!

Drich ....I think its time for you to exit.....stage right>>>>.........
and start another thread

Bucky.......your gonna love Drich.


.

(October 23, 2013 at 12:31 am)Waratah Wrote: Sorry drich nothing I seem to say will get you back to the other thread. You say you will if I do this or that. When I do this or that it is still not good enough for you.

Not true. I show you and told you specifically what you need do. This statement is a lie.

Quote:How can I be misrepresenting the word lie. This is not my definition. It is merriam-webster.com definition. I followed your link because you can never trust what you say. I went to the word lie labelled with a number 3 where I found your definition listed. With that definition was another definition (which you left out) which clearly shows to me and everyone else (anyone else here can prove me wrong here if I am) except you that intent does not need to be shown.

You have created a fasle or misleading impression when you over look the first two words of this defination "To Create" Which indicates an intent or an intention to bring something into being. I also gave you oppertunity to give an example of the creation of something that did not involve intent to create. you failed to do this, rather you employed a red herring in hopes to avoid this discussion.

Quote:I suspect that you do see that you do not have to have intent, because in one of your posts you say "In EVERY Single instance a lie is primarily defined as an intent to mislead."(my bolding). I think you are just pissed off because you thought that you were giving me all this rope to hang myself with and it has backfired on you.

show me.
you have established yourself as a liar in practice and have admitted as being a liar, you even demonstrated that an entire posts can be written to demonstrate this ablity... So did my efforts back fire? As I watch you circle the toilet bowl of lost intergrity I'd say no.

Quote:Whether you lie with intent or not still does not change the fact that you have asserted things in our discussion which have been found to be false on many occasions. Even when they have been pointed out to you, you have continued with the same assertions.

Again you as a well established liar must provide examples. you have demonstrated many many times your word can not be trusted.

Quote:My honest belief is that you are a liar with intent, whether you know it or not. Yes I know I cannot prove it but I think that you have made a pretty good case against yourself. You have done the work for me. You are a liar and everyone knows it.

The difference between us? You have been proven by defination and action, and you even have gone as far as to admitting to being a liar, and all we have is your 'word' based on your "feelings" that because there is an inconsistancy in what I have said that I am as you have been proven and admitted to be.

Quote:You have no integrity.

Says the liar.

Quote:I could not honestly give a shit anymore what you have to say. You just cannot accept that you have poor comprehension skills. You make up shit that is not there. You have run away from our discussion many times and I have tried to confront you about luke 11 and your bullshit a/s/k theory. Just keep running.

I may keep the other thread open just in case you change your mind.

I have not run from anything. I have simply asked that you tell the truth about your goto answer. Meaning if you wish to proceed with out on going discussion you must be willing to put down you lazy catch all answer. For example we will start out in a discussion, and you will argue what you can, and when you run out of topical content you default to name calling, or you you try and dismiss everything without having to actually address anything by calling me a liar. If we are to proceed then you need be man enough to put away the play ground tactics. Either you can answer me point by point or you cant. IF you can't you need to deal with your inablity by accepting what I've said or walk away from this conversation. Not try and bully me or wear me down with accusations.

The slack you were afforded gave me enough ammo to bury you in factually based accusations of my own if you want to play this game. However if you wish to proceed, we can proceed if you promise to curb the playground bully B/S.

(October 16, 2013 at 9:32 am)max-greece Wrote: Mystified!!

The Good Samaritan Story was used to answer the question: "Who is my neighbour?" This was in the context of "Love your neighbour as yourself."

According to this interpretation you are instructed to love those that will do you a good turn.

That is a hugely disappointing interpretation.

Surely there has to be something in it along the lines of "Be a good neighbour?"

Jesus disappoints, again.

The question Jesus was answering was 'Who is my neighbor'? The answer is literally the Good Samaritan, but being neighbors is a two-way street. The man who fell among the robbers was the Samaritan's neighbor because he needed help. I think the most reasonable interpretation of the admonishment to do likewise is not that your neighbor is the person who helps you, but that you are to act as a neighbor to the person who needs you.

(October 23, 2013 at 12:46 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Did you not say you used to be a non-believer ?

Whether I believed or not the options were always the same. To either believe or not. Therefore I could not or did not change my options.

Quote:No. Attempted deflection.
I'm not talking about the ones that show up. They question is WHY are ONLY a FEW chosen. Not about the subset of those who show up. The question is why are ONLY some chosen in the first place. Fail. You deity creates people, and then does NOT choose them, and admits it.

You've missed the point. God Chooses those who show up. There is not one instance in all of scripture that God flat out refuses one who A/S/K's (shows up.)

Quote:Incoherent drivel.

If you do not have the capsity to understand what is said then ask a question. Only a fool dismisses what he does not understand outright.

Quote: Pointing out the Bible's fallacies, inconsistencies etc does not require demonstration of the deity in question, or acceptance of the authority of the text in question. Do I have to demonstrate Zeus to discuss Greek myths ? Fail.

To Point out a supposed inconsistancy/contradiction using the bible is a none issue. Where the issue lies is to point out said inconsistancy while at the same time hypocritically claiming the bible is not a valid source to dispell said inconsistancy/contradiction. That is the issue. Fore if the bible is a legit source to identify a contradiction with in it's pages it must be reason then if a solution can also be found with in it's pages the answer is as valid as the question.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: proof? any sort of reference? or am i just to take your word on faith?

Quote:David A. Holgate, "Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son: a Greco-Roman Perspective on Luke 15.11-32
http://nearemmaus.com/category/historica...iterature/ Scroll down
He got it from the Progymnasmata, (Greek literature, and wrote it in). It was a well know circulating literary theme.
Maybe you should actually learn something about your cult, and it's literature, before you think you're up to preaching it.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commenta...tecedents/
;P Back at you buck. I can quote someone's personal thoughts in a published format as well. Let me know if you want to compare something more real.

Quote:

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: how so?

How so ? Really ? REALLY ? Look up the phrase "intellectual dishonesty". You don't know the difference between honesty and intellectual dishonesty ? I see your problem.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: how so?

You seem unable to be able follow a discussion. Are you mentally ill ?

Again i simply did not understand your meaning, so I asked you to clarify. Again only a fool dismisses what he does not understand outright. In essence something in your logic has failed, or you have assumed too much thus allowing you compile a left field arguement of some sort, and rather than me speculate I asked that you clarify. If youre not able to expound on your own points then i will have to dismiss them as incohearent jibberish.

Quote:Why indeed. The gospels were written by Roman sympathizers. They wanted the Jews implicated. The gospels are IN NO WAY "historical".

Am I supposed to take your word by faith or do you have an actual reference to back that up or are you are saying? no more book peddlers. i am looking for a legitmate reference book or something along those lines.

Quote:There was no word in their language for "history".

Oh, really?!?! To me it looks like there are three Koine Greek words that can translate to 'history.'

διήγησις
... Definition: a narration, relation, history, Lk. 1:1* ...

Lexicon

γενεαλογία
... Definition: genealogy, catalogue of ancestors, history of descent, 1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9* ...

Lexicon

βασιλεία
... with various limitation, of its administration and coming history, as in the parables; its distinctive nature, Rom. 14:17; its ...
http://www.teknia.com/search/node/histor...%3Alexicon


This is what happens when you let other people do your thinking for you buckie.. Lazy crap like this make you look like a big mouth poser who doesn't know what he is talking about. You claim research and knoweledge, but a simple google search has escaped you.. Why? because you have Blind closed minded faith in what you believe, and no real education. That that has you swallow anything; books or web sites like the one you referenced hook line and sinker. If you are apart of some organized system of 'education' Ask for you money back. Send them a link to this page and say "some special ed high school 'graduate' has kick in my teeth with the use of google."

Quote:If the whole thing actually happened why, when Peter was brought before the authorities in Acts, did he mention NOTHING about the zombie invasion, (all the others who also rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem), split, rocks, earthquake, and all the dead who walked around Jerusalem, The torn temple curtain ? Why ? Because it's ALL BULLSHIT.

Who says he didn't?

Quote:Why did the Romans and the Jews not go and try to RE_ARREST him, if he was seen by ANYONE ?

Again who says they didn't?
On top of that where would they have began their search? Did they put out an APB? hang wanted poster in the post office? Have his face posted on the evening news?
In your historical expertise how did a govermental agency conduct a man hunt 2000 years ago? Now again who's to say they did not do everything they could do?

Quote:Philo of Alexandria wrote about all sorts of other far less important things happening in Jerusalem at at that time, he is actually thought to have been IN Jerusalem during those years, and he and NOT ONE ancient Jewish historian NEVER ONCE mentions the temple curtain, or ANYTHING about these events. If the temple curtain had spontaneously torn, it would have been a monumental event in Jewish history.

Philo was not a historean He was a philospher who's works concentrated on the pharisacical aspects of the Law, and how they related to 1 century moseic/Jewish life.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html
Your use of philo of alexandria as a reference to support your statement/arguement is at best a display of general ignorance of the works of this Jewish Philospher. Or the other option is your out right lying. Because either way the works of Philo did not cover the areas of historical intrest you said they did.

Quote:Nice try. If something SO unusual had happened, it would have been mentioned somewhere by historians on site who recorded FAR less important details, flattering, AND non-flattering.

Why do you assume it was not written down? Are you so foolish that you are under the impression that the vast majority of what was written in the first century was perserved? Why else default to your arguement "Why wasn't it written down?" -Or do you simply not understand that you must show that you can account for all of the written record in that area at that time to use the arguement "why wasn't it written down?"

If I remember correctly (From my last arguement on this subject) we project that we have less than 30% of everything written at that time.. Remember there was a big fire in and arounf 70ad in that region and the vast majority of what the Jews had written is now gone. (They had to keep their writtings in scriptorums, and if I remember there were only 3 major ones and all three were destroyed.)

Quote:Josephus wrote his book to try to prove Vespasian was the messiah. HE would have used it. He never mentions it. Philo says nothing. Pilate secretary says nothing. ALL wrote about FAR more mundane details.

Again this whole primise falls flat on its face unless you have access to everything written. Otherwise all you have is wishful/faithful thinking.

Quote:Exactly. That's your problem. You know nothing about ancient Hebrew culture. You are incompetent in this discussion. Did you read the links, or references ? No. Your are here to preach, not learn.

Oh, bucky, buckey, buckey ... I like new guys for this very reason. you are all so full of red herring and wishful thinking. If you past performance is any indicator of future performance then you best stop, while you have some dignity left.

(October 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually Christ Himself spoke of salvation in several different parables. Wheat/ weeds, Wheat/ Chaff, Sheep/ goats, anytime there is a seperation between believers/followers of Christ and those who are cast out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth etc, is where Christ Himself speaks of salvation or rather He is establishing the need for it..

Quote:Oh for god's sake. You have no clue.
1. Those word were "place in his mouth" as a "literary device".
2. Clearly the subtleties of cultural differences are WAY WAY WAY over your head. You have no clue.

how so? How does this 'literary device not speak to salvation?'
If you feel you have an insight to the subtleties of this culture then please i AM here to learn. (So long as you are trying to teach truth.)

Quote:No dear. I AM a PhD candidate in Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Languages. I WROTE the damn thing.

Oh snap, looks like your going to be denied.

Quote:You didn't even attempt to begin to refute ONE point in the referenced paper. You are so lame, and inept.
Why do people with SO little knowledge and skill in the subject they think they are competent to discuss, come to places like think, and make fools of themselves ?

Why do off the street douche bags think they can bluff an education? Your assessment of Philo, Your references to a published book of personal opinion, your reference to a 'paper', when asked to produce reference material, you general ignorance to the 'type of language' that 'they used' Your ignorance to the 3 words that all reference or can be translated to "History." All come together to mean you do not understand what reference book/material is, or that in your mind you have no need for them, that you do not check the basless 'facts' you spout, that you rely heavily on key word searches looking for random unverified materials that support popular community collage level thinking on this subject matter.

which all comes together to create a picture that youre an off the street douche bag or a really piss poor doctorial canadiate for a field of study with no practical application in this world out side the church. and since you hate God, that means you have put in this great effort to just argue.
(Do you guys even think before you speak?)

So yeah, congrates dr. of poor reasoning ability, and of little common sense. your doing a fine job so far. You got me shaking in my boots, and it appears you have the support of the one person on this website who believes your story. or rather Needs to believe your story, because He like you tends to look toward the sensational to drive his points.

Quote:Great. Produce your "evidence" now. Obviously yet another subject you have not a clue is all about. PLEASE do nothing for a living in engineering, or medicine or science. You are a danger to yourself and others.
Look up the word "evidence".

The evidence is not mine. It belongs to God. If you petition God as He has instructed He will grant you said evidence.

again What better evidence of God than God? and Who is able to produce God other than God?

If you want your evidence you will humble yourself before God just like everyone else.

Quote:BTW, you need to use a spell checker. Your spelling is atrocious. Or are you just as generally uneducated as your writing makes you look ?
The question is, what do you think you're doing here ?

No the general Idea is to have someone as 'uneducated as I appear to be' crush the arguement of a doctrial canadiate, with simple logic, simple spelling, and the use of a simple to use search engine.

It's a good thing you did not apply your 'doctorial skills' to anything useful, because if your work here is any indicator 'authentic'universitydiplomas.org standards are starting to slip.







meow
[/quote]

---

(October 23, 2013 at 2:05 pm)tokutter Wrote: OUCHA MA GOUCHA!!!!

Drich ....I think its time for you to exit.....stage right>>>>.........
and start another thread

Bucky.......your gonna love Drich.

I am done with this thread now. Two birds one stone.

(October 23, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 23, 2013 at 12:31 am)Waratah Wrote: Sorry drich nothing I seem to say will get you back to the other thread. You say you will if I do this or that. When I do this or that it is still not good enough for you.

Not true. I show you and told you specifically what you need do. This statement is a lie.

According to you, you need to prove intent ya drich.

Quote:

Quote:How can I be misrepresenting the word lie. This is not my definition. It is merriam-webster.com definition. I followed your link because you can never trust what you say. I went to the word lie labelled with a number 3 where I found your definition listed. With that definition was another definition (which you left out) which clearly shows to me and everyone else (anyone else here can prove me wrong here if I am) except you that intent does not need to be shown.

You have created a fasle or misleading impression when you over look the first two words of this defination "To Create" Which indicates an intent or an intention to bring something into being. I also gave you oppertunity to give an example of the creation of something that did not involve intent to create. you failed to do this, rather you employed a red herring in hopes to avoid this discussion.

I will make it clearer for you. To create does not mean it must have intent ya drich.

Person B goes to create a fried egg that has a runny yoke.

Person B creates a fried egg that is burnt and the yoke is not runny.

Person B created a fried egg that is burnt and the yoke was not runny without that intent. Get it yet, ya drich.

Quote:

Quote:I suspect that you do see that you do not have to have intent, because in one of your posts you say "In EVERY Single instance a lie is primarily defined as an intent to mislead."(my bolding). I think you are just pissed off because you thought that you were giving me all this rope to hang myself with and it has backfired on you.

show me.
you have established yourself as a liar in practice and have admitted as being a liar, you even demonstrated that an entire posts can be written to demonstrate this ablity... So did my efforts back fire? As I watch you circle the toilet bowl of lost intergrity I'd say no.

I noticed how you did not address my point about you using the word primarily.

Quote:

Quote:Whether you lie with intent or not still does not change the fact that you have asserted things in our discussion which have been found to be false on many occasions. Even when they have been pointed out to you, you have continued with the same assertions.

Again you as a well established liar must provide examples. you have demonstrated many many times your word can not be trusted.

Assertion. Since you only believe that a lie must have intent, please provide proof of my many lies with intent ya drich.

Quote:

Quote:My honest belief is that you are a liar with intent, whether you know it or not. Yes I know I cannot prove it but I think that you have made a pretty good case against yourself. You have done the work for me. You are a liar and everyone knows it.

The difference between us? You have been proven by defination and action, and you even have gone as far as to admitting to being a liar, and all we have is your 'word' based on your "feelings" that because there is an inconsistancy in what I have said that I am as you have been proven and admitted to be.

You admitted to being a liar, "Oh, I do lie, I am no saint." (my bold and italic). The difference between us is when one of my mistakes are pointed out to me I will acknowledge my mistake, pretty much straight away. Anyone who has followed our discussion will have seen this. Where you have been shown many times your errors and have refused to acknowledge them.

Quote:

Quote:You have no integrity.

Says the liar.

You got me there ya drich

Quote:

Quote:I could not honestly give a shit anymore what you have to say. You just cannot accept that you have poor comprehension skills. You make up shit that is not there. You have run away from our discussion many times and I have tried to confront you about luke 11 and your bullshit a/s/k theory. Just keep running.

I may keep the other thread open just in case you change your mind.

I have not run from anything.

This is the fifth thread that our discussion has spread. Go back to Evolution Trumps Creationism thread if you have not run from anything. Is the above statement an attempt to create a false or misleading impression with intent or no intent?

Quote: I have simply asked that you tell the truth about your goto answer. Meaning if you wish to proceed with out on going discussion you must be willing to put down you lazy catch all answer.

You are weird. It is my questions that you keep avoiding. Does this mean you will not just say I am a lying without proof?

Quote:For example we will start out in a discussion, and you will argue what you can, and when you run out of topical content you default to name calling, or you you try and dismiss everything without having to actually address anything by calling me a liar.

Please show me where I have name called after running out of topical comment. Stop lying.

It is you who does not address things. Could you please address my points in THIS POST? Your last reply did not actually address my post, just accuse me of my english skills.

Quote:If we are to proceed then you need be man enough to put away the play ground tactics. Either you can answer me point by point or you cant.

It is my questions that you are avoiding.

Quote:IF you can't you need to deal with your inablity by accepting what I've said or walk away from this conversation. Not try and bully me or wear me down with accusations.

Maybe you should acknowledge your falsehoods then you would not feel worn down.

Quote:The slack you were afforded gave me enough ammo to bury you in factually based accusations of my own if you want to play this game.

Oh yeah drich I have been shot to pieces, ya drich. Your whole big ammo thing is, a lie must have intent, which I have shown to be false.

Quote:However if you wish to proceed, we can proceed if you promise to curb the playground bully B/S.

Well that is easy since I have not been doing that. Go forth to the other thread.

(October 24, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Whether I believed or not the options were always the same. To either believe or not. Therefore I could not or did not change my options.

OPINIONS, junior. No one said ANYTHING about "options" you idiot. I see your reading skills are as bad as your spelling skills, junior. You asked me to show where your OPINIONS changed, not your OPTIONS changed. I did. Fail.

The POINT was, (whether your deity chooses the ones that show up or not),
it is STILL A CAPRICIOUS deity, as it creates everyone, and chooses some. You misses the point. I see you never took a debate class. Be sure and don't try preaching or apologetics for a job.

I PROVED the Prodigal son had literary antecedents from a secular source. They fact that you provided one biased ignorant source who happened to be unaware, proves NOTHING.
I see you never took a course on Parable Literature, or Comparative Mythology.

Quote:Oh, really?!?! To me it looks like there are three Koine Greek words that can translate to 'history.'
διήγησις
... Definition: a narration, relation, history, Lk. 1:1* ...
Lexicon
γενεαλογία
... Definition: genealogy, catalogue of ancestors, history of descent, 1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9* ...Lexicon
βασιλεία
... with various limitation, of its administration and coming history, as in the parables; its distinctive nature, Rom. 14:17; its ...
http://www.teknia.com/search/node/histor...%3Alexicon

Great. Now all ya gotta do is find ONE in Archaic Hebrew, and Aramaic. The fact is at the time, the Greeks and Romans were arguing, (BTW "arguing" has no "e"), about how to write,
and what it meant to write history. The fact that you are ignorant of those discussions, in either Greek or Roman writings, (Tacitus), proves your utter lack of education.
Maybe you best stop rolling on the floor and actually do your homework.

Quote:In your historical expertise how did a govermental agency conduct a man hunt 2000 years ago? Now again who's to say they did not do everything they could do?

You are SO desperate. And I see you didn't get a spell checker.
It's "governmental". The Roman legions were OCCUPYING Jerusalem. They could have found anyone they wanted to find. There would be records both Jewish and Roman for
events so monumental as these. The church Fathers would have USED or mentioned them if ANY were extant, or known. There was NOTHING.

Quote:Philo was not a historean He was a philospher who's works concentrated on the pharisacical aspects of the Law, and how they related to 1 century moseic/Jewish life.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html
Your use of philo of alexandria as a reference to support your statement/arguement is at best a display of general ignorance of the works of this Jewish Philospher. Or the other option is your out right lying. Because either way the works of Philo did not cover the areas of historical intrest you said they did.

Philo wrote a lot of things. I see you never read any of it, or even know anything of what he actually wrote. You FAILED to address the others.

Quote:Why do you assume it was not written down? Are you so foolish that you are under the impression that the vast majority of what was written in the first century was perserved? Why else default to your arguement "Why wasn't it written down?" -Or do you simply not understand that you must show that you can account for all of the written record in that area at that time to use the arguement "why wasn't it written down?"

I don't have to do any such thing. One has to address ONLY what is on- subject. You REALLY have no education at all do you ? The Church Fathers would have given their right nut if there had been ANYTHING.
They said nothing.

One who has NO knowledge of anything of the period in question, can't spell worth a damn, refuted NOTHING, did not even address or even UNDERSTAND the points being made, thinks "invisible gods" are actually "evidence" addressed no substantive point, can't read (but was SO stupid as to think one biased ignorant article proves his point) ought to ask his Babble College for his tuition back.

You obviously flunked apologetics. With that spelling, you obviously didn't even graduate from high school.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

Bucky seems to be in control here.

However, as I've pointed out in a few threads, the historicity argument is a complete red herring with regards to the existence of God. Even if every relevant ancient source agreed about Jesus on every detail (something not even close to being true), my positions as a metaphysical naturalist and atheist would be just as tenable to me as they are now.

(October 24, 2013 at 7:59 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Bucky seems to be in control here.

However, as I've pointed out in a few threads, the historicity argument is a complete red herring with regards to the existence of God. Even if every relevant ancient source agreed about Jesus on every detail (something not even close to being true), my positions as a metaphysical naturalist and atheist would be just as tenable to me as they are now.

Agree completely. I actually think there is no way to actually sort out the many Jebuses. There were many rising and dying messiahs and miracle workers running around...(Simon of Perea .. born of a virgin, announced by Gabriel, rose after three days ???). In Hebrew culture a "divine" being was not necessarily a "god", and certainly never equivalent to Yahweh, (proof upon request). Yahweh was the 70th son of the Babylonian deity. The fact that this "Drich" person actually thinks the Babble is proof of something, demonstrates he never heard about "circular" arguments, or that "proof by assertion" is worthless.

He cannot define what the word "god" means in coherent terms.

(October 24, 2013 at 7:35 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: The POINT was, (whether your deity chooses the ones that show up or not),
it is STILL A CAPRICIOUS deity, as it creates everyone, and chooses some.

i assume that you do know the definition of the word capricious. If so how does your assessment fit that definition? To select some and not others has nothing to do with the definition. Capriciousness would indicate erratic or unaccountable changes, God's selection process is well documented. This shows a general failure of basic English or understanding of the NT.

Quote:You misses the point. I see you never took a debate class. Be sure and don't try preaching or apologetics for a job.

and, I see you missed Sunday school and appearently basic vocabulary isn't apart of that doctorate degree you claim to be going after either.

Quote:I PROVED the Prodigal son had literary antecedents from a secular source.

The only thing you proved is that you can find someone that has self published something that supports what you believe with blind faith. I demonstrated that I too could find a published opinion to support my blind faith. The difference? In my system of belief 'blind faith' is not the unforgivable sin that it is in doctoral studies, oh but you don't have to worry about that either now do you?

Quote:They fact that you provided one biased ignorant source who happened to be unaware, proves NOTHING.
I see you never took a course on Parable Literature, or Comparative Mythology.

and if you had you might have been able to quote a legitimate source out of the gate rather than quoting some dbag peddling some god haters almanac.

Quote:Oh, really?!?! To me it looks like there are three Koine Greek words that can translate to 'history.'
διήγησις
... Definition: a narration, relation, history, Lk. 1:1* ...
Lexicon
γενεαλογία
... Definition: genealogy, catalogue of ancestors, history of descent, 1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9* ...Lexicon
βασιλεία
... with various limitation, of its administration and coming history, as in the parables; its distinctive nature, Rom. 14:17; its ...
http://www.teknia.com/search/node/histor...%3Alexicon

Quote: Great. Now all ya gotta do is find ONE in Archaic Hebrew, and Aramaic. The fact is at the time, the Greeks and Romans were arguing, (BTW "arguing" has no "e"), about how to write,

why would the Romans record anything in Aramaic? It at best was a regional dialect. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-aramaic.htm
The common language of Rome was koine Greek, so again why would we need to default to Aramaic in this argument if your assertion pertains to what roman sympathizers wrote? Or do you need a refresher on what you originally wrote?

[dr. buckeyhauser=quote]
Why indeed. The gospels were written by Roman sympathizers. They wanted the Jews implicated. The gospels are IN NO WAY "historical".
There was no word in their language for "history".
[/quote]
This right here tells me you lied about being a doctoral candidate for near/Mid East ancient studies. You did not even know what language the passages you were referenced were written in. What I think.. Your some collage age poser who watched the passion of the Christ got the movie confused with something someone else wrote on some other anti God web site and was lured Into a false sense of security about who you were talking to because I was writing without a spell check. You just assumed that you could bluff your way into an easy win. How's that going for ya so far buckster?

Let me help you with an honest assessment just incase you are into lying to yourself as you are into lying to others. You have failed to support one single fact with anything other quotes from material laced with little more than conjecture and speculation. Have you noticed how I have backed every single assertion up with a verifiable source? Have you noticed how you have ignored those parts of my last post? Which is why your complete response here maybe addresses 30% of my total post.
It because you and the content of your argument has been completely deballed, and all you have left is to try and fake your way into the hearts of your peers and win your argument by popular vote and wishful thinking on your part. There is absolutely no substance here.. Something real doctors lead with. (Precedent and verifiable fact not empty conjecture and appeals to speculation.) which btw is all you have done.

Quote:and what it meant to write history. The fact that you are ignorant of those discussions, in either Greek or Roman writings, (Tacitus), proves your utter lack of education.
Maybe you best stop rolling on the floor and actually do your homework.

you made the assertion that the passages of the nt being discussed was not a historical account of Christ because in the orginal language this was all written in. there was not even a word for history. You were wrong. I proved you wrong by providing 3 words in the koine Greek (the orginal language) that you seem to be completely unaware of. And the passages they were used in. Because of that everything else you have written (this crap about the war over language) to try and divert us from this fact is a desperate attempt to introduce a red herring into the conversation to try and save a little face. But it will not help and can all dismissed.

Sorry dr. Buckster this is a big fail for you.

Quote:You are SO desperate.

me thinks your projecting. Remember you are the one who spews unfounded and unsupported conjecture, or quotes someone peddling some self published book as a reference. Oh and also remember I wasn't the one caught lying about being or about to be a dr. Of Who gives a crap, if your not a theologian. Oh, yeah don't forget the fact you failed to address any of the questions I asked you, or the fact that you cut 2/3s of my last post, not to mention you did not address on single reference I posted... yeah I'm the desperate one.

Quote:And I see you didn't get a spell checker.

when I do what will you have to write about then? My punctuation? The fact that I admitted to graduating high school as a special ed student? Just remember no matter how stupid you try and frame me out to be, contextually you have failed to any of my points, with little more than personal attacks and you have not answered any of my questions, no have you been able to address any of the source material I have you to deball all of your best efforts.

Quote:It's "governmental". The Roman legions were OCCUPYING Jerusalem. They could have found anyone they wanted to find. There would be records both Jewish and Roman for
events so monumental as these. The church Fathers would have USED or mentioned them if ANY were extant, or known. There was NOTHING.

and if Paul was not in Jerusalem where your legions were? Do you even know how many men were in a legion? How do you suppose they ALL knew who to look for? Did they get a pick from his Facebook account? Did someone break out a sketch pad and hand draw several thousand wanted posters?

Haven't given this much thought have you buckster?
That seems to be a reoccurring theme with you. You speak to the easy or apparent benefits of a given situation, seemingly not able to consider the consequences. This is the trait of a young man or someone with an axe to grind.

Quote:Philo wrote a lot of things. I see you never read any of it, or even know anything of what he actually wrote.

did you even click on the link I provided? This lead to all of the known works of philo, and a summarized discussion on the contents of his work. Of which nothing written of philos work supported anything you had to say. Again you are completely ignorant of what you were quoting or you were outright lying.

---

(October 24, 2013 at 8:12 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(October 24, 2013 at 7:59 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Bucky seems to be in control here.

However, as I've pointed out in a few threads, the historicity argument is a complete red herring with regards to the existence of God. Even if every relevant ancient source agreed about Jesus on every detail (something not even close to being true), my positions as a metaphysical naturalist and atheist would be just as tenable to me as they are now.

Agree completely. I actually think there is no way to actually sort out the many Jebuses. There were many rising and dying messiahs and miracle workers running around...(Simon of Perea .. born of a virgin, announced by Gabriel, rose after three days ???). In Hebrew culture a "divine" being was not necessarily a "god", and certainly never equivalent to Yahweh, (proof upon request). Yahweh was the 70th son of the Babylonian deity. The fact that this "Drich" person actually thinks the Babble is proof of something, demonstrates he never heard about "circular" arguments, or that "proof by assertion" is worthless.

He cannot define what the word "god" means in coherent terms.

Show me where I said the bible is the proof of God.

Your problem is that you can not think on your feet or react to anything other than what you are familiar with. So again if you want to hold to this old atheist stand by that Christians think that the bible is the proof of God then again show me were I said this.