Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

bla bla bla

Whatever drugs you're on, dude, you should stop taking them.
AGAIN, put me on ignore. I have no plans to waste any time on your foolish rubbish.
You are an ignoramus. You have a 3rd Grade understanding of these matters.
Your garbage is not worth wasting even 1 second on.

Your conclusion about Pilate and Roman sources was so off the wall, it's just bizarre. I myself used a Roman source.
The distinction I made went over your head. You got nothing.
Nothing.

this is where your mind closes and you fail.

Rather than address what was topically said. you here move to dismiss. or formally Argumentum ad lapidem it is a logically fallacy used to trivialize and dismiss without actually addressing the topic.. like how you said: "The distinction I made went over your head. You got nothing. " means nothing because it is an appeal to stone with out proof of anything.. 

This is the weak minded way out this is you hitting the panic stop button because you are in over your head or simply do not want to continue. so now I get to do my victory lap and ignore any more insults or quipts because you are the one who gave up pretending I do not understand you... when in fact that is all I do is explain to you douches what you do not understand about what i said.. It ironic the first time the you think the burden of explanation is placed on you, you claim victory and All i do is simply show you you errors in comprehension!

For example you did not quote a roman source (primary source)  you quoted a commentary concerning pilate (tertiary source) because there is only one mention of pontius pilate in all of antiquity outside of what you people deemed to be 'religious texts.' this source was found in 1961. meaning there literally is only one mention of pontius pilate outside of the religious sources which you dismiss that has his name and rank which can be dated to this time. everything else is speculation and filler. Do you not see how bull shit history is on your side without the supplemental 'religious texts.'  Your Side could not even verify pontius pilate as a regional governor even though there were tons of official documents at one time concerning everything he was did and his day to day there. all that is left was a name rank and serial number so to speak on a stone found in the region.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl...84786.html

Now with this one mentioning found in 1961 mind you, you are all so proud you won this argument, failing to address the point i made. in that if pilate can be confirmed as a person in your world and you can create such commentaries as you quoted from from one single mentioning... you can not logically or ethically dismiss Jesus Christ who has over 25,000 different manuscripts written about him or some deed or aspect of his life.

That is the part you don't want to face

Which is what lead to your appeal to stone and premature victory lap.

[Bucky Ball]

this is where your mind closes and you fail.

Yes dear, whatever you say.
Now run along outside and play.

[Drich]

this is where your mind closes and you fail.

Yes dear, whatever you  say.
Now run along outside and play.

[Bucky Ball]

For a Jew, the phrase "son of God" did not mean what Christians turned it in to.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...son-of-god

"The Pious as Sons of God.
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha contain a few passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the Messiah (see Enoch, cv. 2; IV Esdras vii. 28-29; xiii. 32, 37, 52; xiv. 9); but the title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom ii. 13, 16, 18; v. 5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclus. [Sirach] iv. 10). It is through such personal relations that the individual becomes conscious of God's fatherhood, and gradually in Hellenistic and rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race (Abot iii. 15, v. 20; Ber. v. 1; see Abba). The God-childship of man has been especially accentuated in modern Jewish theology, in sharp contradistinction to the Christian God-sonship of Jesus. The application of the term "son of God" to the Messiah rests chiefly on Ps. ii. 7, and the other Messianic passages quoted above.
The phrase "the only begotten son" (John iii. 16) is merely another rendering for "the beloved son." The Septuagint translates ("thine only son") of Gen. xxii. 2 by "thy beloved son." But in this translation there is apparent a special use of the root , of frequent occurrence in rabbinical literature, as a synonym of ("choose," "elect"; see Bacher, "Die Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung," s.v.); the "only begotten" thus reverts to the attribute of the "servant" who is the "chosen" one.
It has been noted that the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John have given the term a meta-physical and dogmatic significance. Undoubtedly the Alexandrian Logos concept has had a formative and dominant influence on the presentation of the doctrine of Jesus' sonship in the Johannean writings. The Logos in Philo is designated as the "son of God"; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos ("De Agricultura Noe," § 12 [ed. Mangey, i. 308]; "De Profugis," § 20 [ed. Mangey, i. 562]). In all probability these terms, while implying the distinct personality of the Logos, carry only a figurative meaning. The Torah also is said to be God's "daughter" (Lev. R. xx.). At all events, the data of the Synoptic Gospels show that Jesus never styled himself the son of God in a sense other than that in which the righteous might call themselves "sons" or "children" of God."

---

There are many historical records of Pilate.
http://paulbarnett.info/2011/04/the-ques...us-pilate/

[Drich]

For a Jew, the phrase "son of God" did not mean what Christians turned it in to.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...son-of-god

"The Pious as Sons of God.
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha contain a few passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the Messiah (see Enoch, cv. 2; IV Esdras vii. 28-29; xiii. 32, 37, 52; xiv. 9); but the title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom ii. 13, 16, 18; v. 5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclus. [Sirach] iv. 10). It is through such personal relations that the individual becomes conscious of God's fatherhood, and gradually in Hellenistic and rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race (Abot iii. 15, v. 20; Ber. v. 1; see Abba). The God-childship of man has been especially accentuated in modern Jewish theology, in sharp contradistinction to the Christian God-sonship of Jesus. The application of the term "son of God" to the Messiah rests chiefly on Ps. ii. 7, and the other Messianic passages quoted above.
The phrase "the only begotten son" (John iii. 16) is merely another rendering for "the beloved son." The Septuagint translates ("thine only son") of Gen. xxii. 2 by "thy beloved son." But in this translation there is apparent a special use of the root , of frequent occurrence in rabbinical literature, as a synonym of ("choose," "elect"; see Bacher, "Die Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung," s.v.); the "only begotten" thus reverts to the attribute of the "servant" who is the "chosen" one.
It has been noted that the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John have given the term a meta-physical and dogmatic significance. Undoubtedly the Alexandrian Logos concept has had a formative and dominant influence on the presentation of the doctrine of Jesus' sonship in the Johannean writings. The Logos in Philo is designated as the "son of God"; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos ("De Agricultura Noe," § 12 [ed. Mangey, i. 308]; "De Profugis," § 20 [ed. Mangey, i. 562]). In all probability these terms, while implying the distinct personality of the Logos, carry only a figurative meaning. The Torah also is said to be God's "daughter" (Lev. R. xx.). At all events, the data of the Synoptic Gospels show that Jesus never styled himself the son of God in a sense other than that in which the righteous might call themselves "sons" or "children" of God."

---

There are many historical records of Pilate.
http://paulbarnett.info/2011/04/the-ques...us-pilate/

you guys must get sick of being wrong all the time..

Matthew 16:13-20 New Life Version (NLV)
Peter Says Jesus Is the Christ
13 Jesus came into the country of Caesarea Philippi. He asked His followers, “Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 They said, “Some say You are John the Baptist and some say Elijah and others say Jeremiah or one of the early preachers.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him, “Simon, son of Jonah, you are happy because you did not learn this from man. My Father in heaven has shown you this.
18 “And I tell you that you are Peter. On this rock I will build My church. The powers of hell will not be able to have power over My church. 19 I will give you the keys of the holy nation of heaven. Whatever you do not allow on earth will not have been allowed in heaven. Whatever you allow on earth will have been allowed in heaven.” 20 Then with strong words He told His followers to tell no one that He was the Christ.

Here's the thing sport... if the remaining jews (because a great number counted themselves christian after 70ad)  saw everything we did, they would not be jews.

[Bucky Ball]

Now all grampa has to do, is prove that conversation actually happened. He can't. It's fiction ... obviously for SO many reasons.

It's a perfect example of postdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
Obviously NO JEW would ever say what Peter is claimed to have said, AND in fact deny him later after the trial, if he actually bought this BS ... (as demonstrated in the article from a Jewish encyclopedia .. a view generally accepted by scholars ... and there is NO SCHOLARLY resource that says differently). The verses reflect a MUCH LATER view from a community which, by then, had established views of the events.

Gramps really should take Bible 101, and learn some basics before pretending he knows anything about the NT. He doesn't.
There was NO SUCH THING (at the time that was supposedly uttered) as a "church". NO. SUCH. THING. So Jesus couldn't possibly have said that.
Jesus (if he even existed) was a Apocalyptic Jew who thought the end-times were immanent. Why then "build a *church*" ? Make no sense at all.
In fact the Greek word that is translated "church" was "ecclesia" which means *community*. Jesus was a Jew, who NEVER EVER said his mission was to build some sort of new community.
Sorry. Once again, gramps loses, and it's nothing but child's-play to rebut the crap.

[Minimalist]

Your Side could not even verify pontius pilate as a regional governor even though there were tons of official documents at one time concerning everything he was did and his day to day there. all that is left was a name rank and serial number so to speak on a stone found in the region.

Your lack of intelligence never ceases to amaze, dripshit.  We had significant references to Pilate in the works of Josephus and Philo.  Philo was a contemporary of Pilate's and Josephus a near contemporary.  Both of these men recounted allegations of execrable behavior by Pilate while serving as Prefect of Judaea, a title which is the only thing confirmed by that inscription found in 1961 as opposed to "procurator" which the later jesus-freak forger mistakenly used when inserting bullshit into Tacitus' Annales.  No, we knew all about Pilate from the writings of those two men.  Your fucking god-boy?  Not a peep from either of them.  Amusing, huh?

[Drich]

Now all grampa has to do,  is prove that conversation actually happened. He can't. It's fiction ... obviously for SO many reasons.

It's a perfect example of postdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
Obviously NO JEW would ever say what Peter is claimed to have said, AND in fact deny him later after the trial, if he actually bought this BS ... (as demonstrated in the article from a Jewish encyclopedia .. a view generally accepted by scholars ... and there is NO SCHOLARLY resource that says differently). The verses reflect a MUCH LATER view from a community which, by then, had established views of the events.

Gramps really should take Bible 101, and learn some basics before pretending he knows anything about the NT. He doesn't.
There was NO SUCH THING (at the time that was supposedly uttered) as a "church". NO. SUCH. THING. So Jesus couldn't possibly have said that.
Jesus (if he even existed) was a Apocalyptic Jew who thought the end-times were immanent. Why then "build a *church*" ? Make no sense at all.
In fact the Greek word that is translated "church" was "ecclesia" which means *community*. Jesus was a Jew, who NEVER EVER said his mission was to build some sort of new community.
Sorry. Once again, gramps loses, and it's nothing but child's-play to rebut the crap.

what a dated rebuttal..
and I'm supposed to be the old one. everything you do or say has lost it's shock value back in the 90s.

Let's start with the 'church' the church is a modern term but the KOINE' greek word from which it was derived is not too new to be used. the word being ἐκκλησία ekklēsia which simly translates into the modern word 'church'.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1577&t=KJV

Remember stupid, greek and koine greek are not the same language koine' greek is to greek what portuguese is to spanish. You quoting the greek shows you and your source material are out of touch with the facts. 

plus do you see how your rebuttals are lacking in any source material or actual fact? it's like we must simply take your word on things. as if you screen name carried any water. You are nobody understand you words carry no weight outside of what you can support and even then only so far as your source material will allow. meaning to not think you can topple primary source material with a tertiary commentary.

 the Jews used the same word to describe their assemblies which is all this word means. an assembly of like minded believers coming together for the express purpose of worship or a religious meeting. Again the same word used for a jewish religious gathering so to say there was no 'modern church' is technically correct but people did gather for the purpose of worship and or religious meetings. The sermon on the mount, the olivet discourse where examples of Christ lead church services. Acts 20 there was a church service being held by paul in a small group on the second floor and "Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. and fell out." which is an example of Paul just a few years after Christ making this prediction is teaching in a 'church' or gathering on the very thing you said could not have even existed.

That said no 'church had to be built' the church describes a gathering of two or more coming together Christ is with them.. like right now according to Christ's own definition everytime we come together and talk about him or God your retarded butt has been collecting church hour points. not that they will do you any good, but you in this discussion are apart of church right now.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am with them.”

Do you understand yet? church is not a building. Church is a gathering of people... the only thing you  proved wrong with your statement is that your understanding of what a church is, was completely wrong.

again when do you guys ever get sick of being so wrong all of the time? Aren't you tired of a guy who can not spell showing everyone how lazy and uninformed you really are? how your pretending to be an authority but can even identify the base language the bible uses? how you seem to think greek and koine' is the same? how you use the wrong greek words inplace of the koine words that indeed support scripture???

Hey retard, maybe the guy you are plagiarizing from knows the greek will always show the bible to be in error and that is why the greek is used, rather than the koine greek. just because you are stealing from a brand name like carrier or crowder doesn't mean they honestly represent christianity or the bible.. they can't otherwise they would be wrong. 90% of the bs people bring to me from those guys is hacked up bible verses that have been translated wrongly by them or taken out of context. Given a modern literal meaning when Jesus or someone is speaking to an individual or specific group.

what else you got sport.

---

Your Side could not even verify pontius pilate as a regional governor even though there were tons of official documents at one time concerning everything he was did and his day to day there. all that is left was a name rank and serial number so to speak on a stone found in the region.

Your lack of intelligence never ceases to amaze, dripshit.  We had significant references to Pilate in the works of Josephus and Philo.  Philo was a contemporary of Pilate's and Josephus a near contemporary.  Both of these men recounted allegations of execrable behavior by Pilate while serving as Prefect of Judaea, a title which is the only thing confirmed by that inscription found in 1961 as opposed to "procurator" which the later jesus-freak forger mistakenly used when inserting bullshit into Tacitus' Annales.  No, we knew all about Pilate from the writings of those two men.  Your fucking god-boy?  Not a peep from either of them.  Amusing, huh?

this one confirms the date 1961 was the only evidence of pilate that was not linked to christ in any way
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl...84786.html

this one allows you to see the stone and transcribes what is on it.
https://aleteia.org/2018/06/15/archaeolo...es-gospel/

this one is older but confirms the other two
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl...84786.html

Again... when do you guys get tired of being wrong all of the time?

This is also proof you all do not collectly seek proof of God. here I made a commonly known statement to proove a greater point about Christ. and despite the proof you all will not except it. 

Yes pilate is mention all over antiquity but again not without Jesus.

You ass holes often say or pretend the roman record in that time was complete. and here is proof that a regional governor had been lost to time like everyone else in the empire except for a hand full of top officials that the government kept track of, and here a top official was completely omitted outside of what stupid people dismiss as 'religious text'. when in fact religious text gives us more on the day to day of the people in that region than any other source we have. But I digress..
The point is we have only one point of reference to pilate outside of 'religious texts' and you people can except pilate as regional governor during this period on one stone tablet's say so...

And on the other hand we have 25,000 texts and manuscripts about jesus and none of that counts. you idiots pretend none of what we have is valid out of 25,000 texts because they confirm what you think is not possible. yet one stone validates pilate.

again you do not seek proof, only points to argue.

[Bucky Ball]

Drich

Let's start with the 'church' the church is a modern term but the KOINE' greek word from which it was derived is not too new to be used. the word being ἐκκλησία ekklēsia which simly translates into the modern word 'church'.

Let's not.
As you were educated on, a few pages back, your Koine Greek bullshit is irrelevant. No academic center makes that (two bit) distinction. Everyone knows what Greek is being discussed, (except you, apparently .... as you obviously have no formal education).

plus do you see how your rebuttals are lacking in any source material or actual fact? it's like we must simply take your word on things. as if you screen name carried any water. You are nobody understand you words carry no weight outside of what you can support and even then only so far as your source material will allow. meaning to not think you can topple primary source material with a tertiary commentary.

Oh really ? Kind of like this crap : do we see any source material ?
I GAVE you source material for the Jews regarding the "sons of God" ... you're nothing but a liar. Lying for Jebus. How quaint.

the Jews used the same word to describe their assemblies which is all this word means. an assembly of like minded believers coming together for the express purpose of worship or a religious meeting. Again the same word used for a jewish religious gathering so to say there was no 'modern church' is technically correct but people did gather for the purpose of worship and or religious meetings. The sermon on the mount, the olivet discourse where examples of Christ lead church services. Acts 20 there was a church service being held by paul in a small group on the second floor and "Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. and fell out." which is an example of Paul just a few years after Christ making this prediction is teaching in a 'church' or gathering on the very thing you said could not have even existed.

That said no 'church had to be built' the church describes a gathering of two or more coming together Christ is with them.. like right now according to Christ's own definition everytime we come together and talk about him or God your retarded butt has been collecting church hour points. not that they will do you any good, but you in this discussion are apart of church right now.

Don't be ridiculous. Jesus said PETER was the rock upon which the church was to be built, and at the time NOTHING about two or three. Your exegesis is nothing but total horseshit. Is Peter supposed to be at every meeting ? He was not in charge of the Jerusalem Church. Obviously some Roman fool wrote that in to authenticate Rome's authority. And the fool named Drich bought the garbage.

Now run along outside and play. The adults here don't need Third Graders interrupting.
You must get tired of being made a fool of, every day.

There was no "church" until much later.
At the end of the 1st Century, the High Priest was complaining about the members of the "Way" sect ... Christians, and required the expulsion curses be read.

"According to the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Berakhot 28b–29a, Shmuel ha-Katan was responsible for the writing of the Birkat haMinim:

"Rabban Gamaliel said to the sages: Is there no one who knows how to compose a benediction against the minim? Samuel Ha-Qatan stood up and composed it."[4]

The blessing (curse) exists in various forms. Two medieval Cairo Genizah copies include references to both minim and Notzrim ("Nazarenes", i.e. "Christians").

"For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the noẓerim and the minim be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant" (Schechter)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkat_haMinim

BTW, I have some bad news for you. Someone falling out a window is not evidence there was a "church". Doh.

---

[Drich]

Drich

Let's start with the 'church' the church is a modern term but the KOINE' greek word from which it was derived is not too new to be used. the word being ἐκκλησία ekklēsia which simly translates into the modern word 'church'.

Let's not.
As you were educated on, a few pages back, your Koine Greek bullshit is irrelevant. No academic center makes that (two bit) distinction. Everyone knows what Greek is being discussed, (except you, apparently .... as you obviously have no formal education).

here is where you are wrong sport.
http://www.differencebetween.net/languag...ern-greek/
there is about a 50% over lap then about a 25% contextual differences in use and grammar and 25% unintelligible difference.

To say the two are the same is a 1/2 asses way of pretending mastery without effort. If you will not acknowledge koine as a different language then nothing else needs to be said about you or your source material. You are a sham, a pretender who copies and pastes the 1/2 ass work of others and pretends it is your own! your not even smart enough to vet your own source material.

plus do you see how your rebuttals are lacking in any source material or actual fact? it's like we must simply take your word on things. as if you screen name carried any water. You are nobody understand you words carry no weight outside of what you can support and even then only so far as your source material will allow. meaning to not think you can topple primary source material with a tertiary commentary.

Oh really ?

really, really dummy! You made up some greek word and posted a defination that does not fit the modern or koine.. you just posted like I was to take your word...

[size=medium]Don't be ridiculous. Jesus said PETER was the rock upon which the church was to be built, and at the time NOTHING about two or three.

LOOK AT THE KOINE WORD DUMB ASS!!! IT IS A MEETING NOT A BUILDING! A MEETING OF jEWS OR CHRISTIANS!!!! TWO OR THREE WAS CHRIST'S WORDS ON HOW SMALL THE MEETING COULD BE!!! THE CHURCH IS A MEETING OF PEOPLE IS THE POINT MORON DO YOU GET IT YET OR DO I NEED TO SAY MEETING 15 MORE TIMES????

Your exegesis is nothing but total horseshit. Is Peter supposed to be at every meeting ? He was not in charge of the Jerusalem Church. Obviously some Roman fool wrote that in to authenticate Rome's authority. And the fool named Drich bought the garbage.

At least in my exegesis i know and teach it was not peter that was the rock. it was his words. or the confession the Jesus is the son of God that is the basis of all christ centered churches.. peter only taught to jewish converts which all but petered out by the mid second century. After that it was the teaching of Paul from which the church was built till the take over by TRCC and then back to the teaching of Christ and Paul after the reformation.

If peter's teachings were the rock we would all need to be first converted to jews, circumcised and then convert to christianity. Since we are not all circumcised it is not the teaching of peter we follow or that the church is based upon. rather it was the other thing that was mentioned that Jesus Christ is the son of God which rings true and is the foundation of each and every single Jesus Christ centered church ever or ever will be!

Man... wrong again on every count! I could do this all day... what else you got???

come on sport keep it coming, bring me something new. don't try and win an argument you've already lost (koine=modern greek) or (no evidence for christ - the 25,000 manuscripts, but you believe in pilate because of one stone tablet.) Makes you look really stupid and gets boring smacking you around with the same data you can't argue.