The Good Samaritian

[Drich]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.