Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 01-05-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
I completely disagree with you. The scholars of whom we are speaking start with "no miracles can exist."

No, they don't. They start with the evidence.

Quote:

The go from there. That is a religion, whether you admit it or not.

No, it is not a religion, no matter how many times you claim it to be. There is no definition of "religion" that fits what you are saying. This isn't a game of you merely claiming and repeating the claim. Repetition is not proof.

Sauron · 01-05-2007, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
Sorry pal. Your bias is clear.

My only bias is that I insist on evidence. That tends to make bible apologists nervous and angry.

Quote:

The evidence is there. You can go and read it, and do what you want with it. You have the ability to find more. It is all in your court.

I've already done all that. In fact, I spent over three years writing a rebuttal to most of these prophetic claims. the document is well over five hundred pages, with multiple primary sources.

I've examined more about this than you'll ever realize. That's why I'm telling you that you are sadly, tragically wrong.

The Evil One · 01-05-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd

I will take that as a 'no' you don't understand about Protestants, Catholics, and NT Christians.

You can take it any way you like, but unless you care to explain exactly what distinguishes your beliefs from those of the extremist wing of Protestantism, it doesn't amount to much.

Quote:

And no, my beliefs may be simliar to some of theirs, but by no means all, and in some very important points they are very different.

So you say; however, I will continue to think of you as an extrmeist Protestant until I actually see you espousing some belief which is incompatible with you being an extremist Protestant.

Quote:

I simply am not going to take the time to reproduce the volumes of info on the Aramaic argument.

Why not? You are willing to take the time to complain at length about our supposed biases. Could you not post an overview or summary? Or give examples of one or two lingusitic arguments which you think are particularly strong?

Quote:

I'll copy and paste it if you like. The two links I read are large, and in depth. I could do it in my own words. I just really do not have the time however, to do so.

Of course you don't. Accusing us of bias is, after all, so very time-consuming.

Jayrok · 01-06-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

The context of Matthew 24 reveals that the disciples and Christ were walking in and around the newly completed Temple. The stones of this temple were about 40' by 10' on average and weighed tons and tons. Jesus said to the disciples something they couldn't believe:

" verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Mat. 24:2).

The disciples are then prompted to ask two questions:

1.Tell us, when shall these things be?
2. and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

In the disciples minds, the day the stones would be destroyed (the incredibly large stones, unable to be moved by people, so they thought in a practical sense) was the day of the end of all things. Yet, they asked two questions in that regard and Jesus gives two DIFFERENT answers.

In verses 4-35 Jesus answers the first question, which was directly related to the stones of the Temple. He concludes all that is within that by saying:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Mat. 24:34-35).

That generation would not pass till everything Jesus spoke about (some in apocalyptic language) came to pass.

The things of which Jesus spoke did come to pass in A.D. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem. It was then that the Temple was destroyed by the Romans who wanted the gold from it. In that battle Josephus records that over a million Jews died, but no Christians died. The Christians knew what to look for because they listened to what was taught concerning it.

The second question Jesus answers and says:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat. 24:36).

He goes on to describe the uncertainty of that day by comparing it to Noah, and shows He speaks of the Judgment by saying:

"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come" (24:42, and also note ref. to the "Son of Man" in verse 44).

So if you leave Matthew 24 in context, the parts you observed do not apply to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) at all.

So in your opinion, verses 4-35 are directly talking about the temple being destroyed (AD 70) and not the end of the world/coming of Christ.

Matthew 24:15 -- "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand"

So in AD 70, when the temple was destroyed, the abomination that causes desolation was set up in the temple. He brought an end to daily sacrifice and set up the abomination that causes desolation. How could this be "set up" if the temple was destroyed?

Daniel 9:27 says he will set up on a wing of the Temple. How did this happen if the Temple was destroyed by the Romans?

Or do you want to say that this portion is yet to come?

Quote:

One more thing. The "last days" began at the start of the church. That is why Peter noted it (Acts 2:16f). The 'last days' (the Christian dispensation) will continue until the Lord returns for the final (2nd) time.

Daniel 12:11 -- From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

If this happened in AD 70, how long is the abomination that causes desolation going to remain "set up" before Jesus returns?

Quote:

John 20:22 is parallel with Mat. 16:16-19. The word "receive," according to Greek scholars, could be translated "take." The action of Christ, whatever it entailed here, was a symbolic gesture of the authority that was to come.

I do not know that anyone can say precisely what 'breathed on' was, whether it was literal or figurative. There simply isn't enough evidence either way that is revealed. What is revealed and very plainly is when the power came (Acts 2:1-4). One scholar noted that the word in 20:22 could not, by its structure, contain a time element. So it is thought by some that Jesus was referring to what would occur at Pentecost.

22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

So you are saying he was figuratively speaking to them and wasn't actually giving them the Holy Spirit. Uh huh. If he had mentioned they would receive the HS at Pentecost and to look for it, then maybe. John's gospel is different from Luke and Acts.

Quote:

The church is God's kingdom, and Christ is the King, the head of the church (Eph. 1:22f; 5:23f). And the Bible surely teaches that God is never 'happy' so to speak when His bride (the church) is being attacked. To attack the church of Christ is to attack Christ Himself, as Paul learned when he was still Saul (see Acts 8-9).

I'm not referring to the church being attacked. I'm talking about the corruption from within.

spin · 01-06-2007, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Notsri,
This link was very helpful to me. So too are the souces cited, which you can also go and find for even deeper reading.

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html

Yeah, ya cn see that our boy is cribbing crap from here, no effort at understanding anything. Just eat and regurgitate.

Look you guys, either one pulls the tektonics slop apart permanently with a stitch up page to send these wallies to or you'll be dealing with the same inanities for the next umpteen years.

Leave this one in the wilderness. You won't kick-start the brain. You've seen it so often now with the bfniiis of the world. You lead him to water and if he doesn't drink, let him go loco... but elsewhere. It's just so boring to watch them do exactly the same thing as the previous one. :banghead:

spin

Sven · 01-06-2007, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

The entire idea that it is the "scholars" who make the ratioanl arguments (never irrational mind you) is an 'elitism' that is unbelievable.

What exactly is "elitist" in asking for a decent education?
What exactly is "elitist" in asking for that peers investigate the arguments before and after they are published?

You know what's unbelievable? That you chose to attack perfectly rational standards of enquiry only because they don't result in the conclusion you want to be true.

It's actually sad.

Quote:

Which one of you can name three Bible apologists whom you trust, and whom you have seen make sound, logical arguments, about things with which you still disagree?

I can't.

You asked later:

Quote:

Coleslaw, but why then are not the 'peers' of Apologists, who certainly do not all agree with one another, not counted in such?

Because they don't consult each other before they publish their work and modify their work accordingly. "peer-review" in apologetics means - if it exists at all - to show your work to people you know beforehand agreeing with you and be glad that they nod to each of your claims.
It's as simple as this.

Sven · 01-06-2007, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
Your entire assumption is that Bible apologists have not done the things you list for 'scholars.' That is completley off base.

That's once again not an assumption, but a conclusion.
If you disagree, point out which apologists have received an education in the relevant field and are reviewed by people not-necessarily in favor of their case.

Quote:

It is 'religious' to believe that there is no God!

By which definition of "religious", please?
And I may point out that there's a difference between "to believe that there is no god" and "no to believe that there is a god". The first is a negative belief, the second a neutral one.

Quote:

So the 'scholars' make an effort to defend what they believe.

:banghead:
The majority of scholars are Christians. Nevertheless, they reach a different conclusion than apologists. This could tell you something.

Quote:

One need only look at all the ridiculous positions some have taken through the years on various matters, only to have to eat their words when archaeology confirms what the Bible said all along.

I don't know where you got these lies from: Modern archeology disproves more and more of what the Bible (more specifically, the OT) says. Try "The Bible Unearthed" for a start.

Quote:

By their nature you say. I say the same about the scholars who do not believe in the supernatural.

Which are a minority among scholars. *shrug*

Quote:

Which is why I said earlier that this would come down to a 'source verses source' argument. The determining factor is not the evidence, for I can match your sources one by one. And you can do the same. That you reject mine means nothing. I reject yours. See?

Only that your rejection is based on faith, whereas ours is based on ratio. See?

Sven · 01-06-2007, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
I completely disagree with you. The scholars of whom we are speaking start with "no miracles can exist." The go from there.

Even the Christian ones?

Quote:

That is a religion, whether you admit it or not.

We've asked you about dictionary definition agreeing with your strange view of "religion" for quite some time now. It's obvious that you can't back up your silly view.

Quote:

[...] Protestants, Catholics, and NT Christians. And no, my beliefs may be simliar to some of theirs, but by no means all, and in some very important points they are very different.

Which are?

gregor · 01-06-2007, 08:42 AM

Spin
It would be helpful to have a claim-by-claim refutation of tektonics, similar to the TalkOrigins index to creationist claims. However, I fear the hyra-effect to some degree.

Also, Robert Turkel (aka jpholding) can avoid gainful employment and beg for cash from the flock while we have to feed the bulldog by real jobs.

Here's a fun test, let's guess how many logical fallacies mdd34 has relied upon in this single thread (loved the recent No True Scotsman, strawmen grow like 'shrooms, and appeal to (non)authorities are omnipresent). I'll place the over-and-under at 20.

Your answer key can be found here:

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

Amaleq13 · 01-06-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Look at the views of 'religious' people. What amazing and unfettered bias you guys have. And do you know 'why' you have it? It is because they disagree with you.

No, it is because we value logic and reason. Their arguments are fundamentally and fatally flawed by special pleading, circular reasoning, and (disappointingly enough) blatantly false claims.

It makes no sense to do anything but reject such nonsense.

To reduce this to the rather simplistic notion that I don't "like" them simply misses the point entirely. Actually, I suspect is less a case of missing the point as it is willfully ignoring it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2007, 08:42 AM	#199
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Spin It would be helpful to have a claim-by-claim refutation of tektonics, similar to the TalkOrigins index to creationist claims. However, I fear the hyra-effect to some degree. Also, Robert Turkel (aka jpholding) can avoid gainful employment and beg for cash from the flock while we have to feed the bulldog by real jobs. Here's a fun test, let's guess how many logical fallacies mdd34 has relied upon in this single thread (loved the recent No True Scotsman, strawmen grow like 'shrooms, and appeal to (non)authorities are omnipresent). I'll place the over-and-under at 20. Your answer key can be found here: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.