Judeo-Christian Bible--Proof, Divinely Inspired

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Alter2Ego, Dec 23, 2014.

Page 7 of 7
  1. Sarkus

    Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,401
    And just as you accuse others of "running away" from arguments when they merely tire of your drivel, you now deem it fit to "run away" from the entire site when people identify your arguments for what they are, recognise your conclusions for what they are, and recognise you for what you are: one criticism by a moderator and you flee.
    Fly away, little troll.
    You will be sorely missed.
     
    Sarkus, Jan 1, 2015
    #121

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata

    Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,909
    I'm inclined to agree.

    That creates problems for those who want to read the gospels as historical accounts, since so much of what Jesus is portrayed as doing turns out to be illustrations of him fulfilling what the messianic expectation of the time believed had been foretold. Matthew in particular seems to have been written so as to show his Jewish readers that Jesus displayed all of the expected messianic signs.

    Another interesting difficulty of the same sort concerns Jesus' virgin birth.

    Isaiah 7:14 has God supposedly telling a king of Judea that an 'almah' would soon give birth to a child named 'Immanuel', and that before the child was old enough to know right and wrong, two rival kingdoms of Ephraim and Syria would be overthrown.

    As was their style, intertestamental Jewish messianism interpreted this Immanuel as a 'type' of their expected messiah. And, since Jesus was supposedly that messiah, the first Christians did the same, interpreting him as a 'type' of Christ. (It didn't hurt that 'Immanuel' literally means 'God is with us'.)

    That's where a difficulty arose. Many of these early Christians, including some of the New Testament writers, seemingly couldn't read Hebrew. (Most Jews at the time of Christ couldn't, Hebrew was a liturgical language by then and Jews typically spoke Aramaic or Greek.) So these first Christians certainly studied their scriptures, but they studied them in Greek translation, namely the 'Septuagint'.

    The problem is that the translators who produced the Septuagint had translated the Hebrew 'almah' (a young woman who hasn't yet given birth) as the Greek 'parthenos' (virgin). So sure enough, we have Matthew's gospel showing us that Jesus' virgin birth fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah... even though that prophecy was rather fanciful to begin with and arguably involved a translation error.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2015
    Yazata, Jan 1, 2015
    #122

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id

    Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Hold the phone. That genealogy can't even be correct since it is not the same list given in Luke. Oops. Now what?? Maybe you just opt out of the Virgin Birth Plan, omitting two lies from columns C and D, plus the inconsistency you mention between columns B and C, in order for a promise of immortality in column E. Or maybe you refer back to column A, "Thou shalt not lie" and put more money there, and start ripping out the pages that make you cringe. Oh, I get it. That's why there are so many Christian denominations!

    Actually this is beginning to make sense. Jehovah did indeed inspire the Bible (which one? who cares) but since he was discovered to be a sock puppet of the banned user Yahweh (reason: lying, flaming, threatening members, preaching, pretending to be God, and trolling generally) there just hasn't been enough interest in his posts to continue dialogue on the subject. After all, the participants were expected to have about a 7th grade level of education to follow the discussion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Aqueous Id, Jan 2, 2015
    #123

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id

    Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Now that's what we call Divine Inspiration.
     
    Aqueous Id, Jan 2, 2015
    #124
  8. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    From the post Top Signs you are Reading Woo:

    ===============
    Cranks often enjoy posting on science forums. Once they feel the thrill of making up some pseudoscientific woo, telling it to a friend and having the friend think they are clever - they come on line, find a science forum and post away, hoping for kudos and compliments on their imagination and intelligence. We see them here all the time.

    But how can you tell a true crank from someone who is just confused, or someone who has a reasonable idea that is just not developed? How can you tell plain old errors from woo? Below is a guide to help with that decision. It lists several characteristics of cranks. If you see one of these characteristics, be wary. If you see several, well - either ignore the fellow or have some fun with him.

    . . . . .

    17) The Grand Trampling Exit. Often cranks, once they have realized that they are not going to get kudos and attaboys for their unconventional thinking, will make a "final post" that is usually along the lines of "you're all a bunch of idiots! I'm going to leave this once and for all, and deny you all the pleasure of my company. Instead I am going to post on a board where intelligent people have open minds!"

    Reading the Grand Trampling Exit, readers of the forum might be tempted to breathe a sigh of relief as the signal to noise ratio improves. However this relief is often short-lived. Cranks love attention, and thus more often than not they come back sometime later, often with a statement along the lines of "well, I just had to say one more . . ." or "I realized you wanted me to leave, so I'm going to stick around to get back at you!"
    =================
     
    billvon, Jan 2, 2015
    #125
    Aqueous Id likes this.
  9. spidergoat

    spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036

    Sorry, that doesn't make atheism a religion. It's a legal principle that means atheism is protected the same way religious freedom is protected.


    That's absurd. You've already lost.
     
    spidergoat, Jan 2, 2015
    #126
  10. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Wow.. Four responses in a row.


    1) It was s suggestion, because it is very distracting and annoying.

    2) We are all adults and not pre-schoolers who need to have bright bold letters in bright colours to read. So it comes across as being condescending.

    3) While there are no rules about constant huge bolds and colours like we are small children learning sight words for the first time, there are rules and suggestions about how you participate on this site.

    How can you debunk any source you openly declared to have never read?

    Not to mention that your own link and quote debunked you and what you were trying to claim.

    Finally, no, Torcaso v. Watkins never ruled that atheism is a religion. Far from it. What it found and reaffirmed was that a Government requirement or demand that one believes in God is unconstitutional. The reason for that is simple. You should read your First Amendment to understand why.


    No thank you.

    I do not micro-manage. What I do is make suggestions when I see a thread start to fall into a pit of trolling and flaming and where one or more parties are making wild claims that are completely unfounded. Such as when I noticed you supposedly debunk something, but you had no idea what you were debunking because you claimed you hadn't read it. I also saw you demanding people support their argument (which you are still to do) and then tell them that you were not going to read it. That is trolling. It shows that you are not interested in discussing or debating anything. You should read up on the trolling section in this site's rules for further clarification.


    But you aren't debating. You are lecturing. There is a difference.

    I am not rescuing them. They do not need to be rescued. And frankly, there is nothing to rescue them from. Unless you think my suggesting you not troll, that you support your argument and that you not demand people support their argument and then refuse to read it is some kind of rescue mission? This is a basic expectation on most forums. That you support your argument, that you actually read what people post especially if you demand they post it, before you label it as being "debunked". These should not be hard tasks. It is also in the rules of this site.

    Surely there should come a point where you should start to realise that it isn't everyone from the dozens of websites who are the problem and perhaps it is how you participate in discussions that may be the problem.

    If you think the suggestion that you adhere to this site's rules by not trolling is my not remaining neutral, then really, it is somewhat laughable. If you are going to demand people support their side of an argument, you can't then dismiss it from the outset after declaring you were not even going to read it, misrepresent a quote from wiki as a reason for your refusing to read it, when your quote clearly notes that the traditions were mostly oral, which completely destroys your own argument.

    Because I suggested you not troll and that you support your side of the argument?

    The other participants in this thread participated in it in good faith. They all supported their argument, which you clearly and openly refused to read, you refused to address those who were genuinely interested in discussing this with you and instead dismissed their efforts, the time they took to research their position and support their argument. It is clear that while they were participating in this discussion with you in good faith, you had no intention of doing the same.

    Dyw did not mention his "writings" in his post. You went to wiki and declared that none of what he posted could be true (without having read them) because none of his writings have survived, while ignoring the fact that what we know is because of the "oral nature of his teachings".. So not only did you openly declare that you aren't reading what people are posting, you also misrepresented your own quotes or you did not understand what you actually quoted.

    Ergo this:

    Is wrong. Because the "nature of his teachings" were oral. Not written. How do we know this? From what you quoted:

    Ancient Pythagoreans usually quoted their master's doctrines with the phrase autos ephe ("he himself said") — emphasizing the essentially oral nature of his teaching.​


    So your proposition and your dismissals are completely incorrect because you misread and misrepresented fact.

    As I noted above, if it's that many websites, perhaps the issue is you and not everyone else.

    Err okay.. I didn't even notice you had an avatar. It is obviously important to you.

    Have a good day and I hope that you find a site that will allow you to lecture instead of discuss.
     
    Bells, Jan 2, 2015
    #127
  11. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Looks like you need to work on those research skills.
     
    James R, Jan 2, 2015
    #128
  12. Billy T

    Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    This measurement of earth's radius at ~250BC was quite accurate* and done by knowledge that on two days each year, the noon sunlight fell "straight down" a deep well briefly illuminating the full water surface. On one (or more?) of those days from a city (or site) due North of that well a measured distance, they measured the shortest length (I. e. at "high noon") of a tall vertical stick's shadow. The ratio of the shadow length to the stick length is the tangent of the angle the known distance arc along the curved surface of the earth made. For example, if the arc length was 556 Km and the angle with that tangent was 5 degree (values made up to illustrate their method, which required no clock, and yet get nearly the correct answer) then the circumference of the Earth would be 556(360/5) = 40,036km.

    * As I recall the value obtained by the ancient Greeks was more correct (as illustrated here) than the post-revolution French could do. I.e. they defined the meter (I think) so that 10,000 m was 1/4 of the earth's circumference. Those old elite Greeks were quite smart. If you think you have discovered something directly observable or in simple math, it is a good idea to ask an ancient Greek scholar what name the Ancient Greeks gave to your discovery.

    The circumference of earth passing thru the poles, is 40,075 km
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2015
    Billy T, Jan 2, 2015
    #129
Page 7 of 7

Share This Page