Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-02-2008, 07:00 PM | #141 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
I'm amazed anyone here is still taking your obscurantism seriously. |
|
07-02-2008, 07:26 PM | #142 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
There's not enough information there to argue about anything else. |
||
07-02-2008, 07:38 PM | #143 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
|
07-02-2008, 08:15 PM | #144 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Sigh. It's just too tempting and too easy...
Quote:
Quote:
You regard Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23 as quoting Luke? Fathom, you are simply embarrassing yourself! Which one of your team did you get that one from, your dog or your cat? Quote:
1Co 15:3,4, 5 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. Lines 2 to 5 are what Paul previously "delivered" to the Corinthians. How is the idea of "according to the scriptures" in the matter of sins and rising again carried over into the seeing by Cephas and others? Does he attach the phrase to those 'seeings'? Can't you see that verse 5 and following is simply dependent on "delivered"? Are you as inept at the English language as you are at Greek? Quote:
There may be no passage about being buried, which is why Paul does not attach the "kata tas graphas" to that item, although he has other reasons for including it. Hosea 6:2 on the third day he will restore us. And don't you dare say this doesn't speak about Christ. These are messianically-interpreted passages, which Paul and others like him have applied to their spiritual sacrificial Son. Even mainstream scholarship regards them as prophecies about Jesus in the minds of early Christians. And if you are not familiar with those basic OT scriptures and the role they play in NT studies, which your demand to me clearly shows, what the hell are you doing posting on this forum? Why are you wasting our time? Your ignorance is exceeded only by your masochistic chutzpah. There may be a certain entertainment value to it, but it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and I'm not particularly disposed toward killing helpless animals. Earl Doherty |
||||
07-02-2008, 10:33 PM | #145 | ||||||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
Quote:
Are you trying to deny the existence of other gospels during Paul's time? Quote:
Show me where I have been shown wrong and abandoned it? Where? What are you talking about? You haven't said anything to demonstrate me as being wrong, so what are you on about? Quote:
There is not a scholar on the planet who will deny that those words are found in the gospels, and none will ever doubt the greater possibility that Paul is quoting from a gospel. Quote:
Should we think that line 3 is not according to the scriptures, if we use your reasoning? That's a horrble argument, Earl. It's senseless. Quote:
Quote:
I'd like to see who in mainstream scholarship believes that Hosea 6.2 speaks of Christ. References please. Quote:
If I say something personally insulting back to you, will that make me a scholar also? Regards Team FFI |
||||||||||||
07-03-2008, 12:16 AM | #146 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I asked before if you were relying on Islamic scholarship, because you make assertions that no scholar that I am familiar with would make. I think that it is time for you to follow the basic rules of internet debate: When you assert something, please cite a source. If you claim that scholars support a certain position, name the scholars, the books they have published, and include quotes of exact language. Do you see the point of this? |
|||
07-03-2008, 01:01 AM | #147 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now list one who doesn't. Quote:
Yet you expect your theories to find acceptance when they are so incredibly unscholarly? You put up a single fact, and then support it with only speculation? You pull text out of context and redefine its meaning? You cherry pick verses and string them together to propagate a theory? You take a Greek word and attempt to utilize it's most unlikely or totally obscure definition? When you do these things, I don't even seen an education, let alone anything that could even cower from real scholarship. Regards. Team FFI |
|||||
07-03-2008, 01:12 AM | #148 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
At this point, this thread does not belong in this forum. Fathom is refusing to identify his sources, and his arguments are too idiosyncratic to fit into any tradition. This makes dialogue impossible.
I will lock the thread for review. It might be moved to E if it stays open. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|