Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WILLOWTREE · 07-21-2004, 11:29 AM

Hi Amaleq:

If you are interested in the sources of Dr. Scott then go to this site which specializes in the books Dr. Scott recommends. www.capstonebooks.com

Presently, massive amounts of transcripts are being prepared for distribution.

In about 3 - 6 months these transcripts will be released.

If you are interested in obtaining a sample, then email me with an address and I will send you a copy of the Resurrection teaching. Or call Dr. Scott yourself and ask for the free magazine 1-800-338-3030. Your address will NOT be placed on his mailing list nor will it ever be released to anyone else.

pyramidial@yahoo.com

Amaleq13 · 07-21-2004, 11:50 AM

Willow,

I asked for replies to be sent via PM so as to not continue to derail the thread from the OP. It troubles me that you would ignore this request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWevcTREE

Still, nobody in this debate can refute my source.

That is only because you consider your source to be irrefutable not because offered rebuttals have been shown to be without merit. It is a deomonstrable fact that very smart and knowledgeable people make mistakes and reach false conclusions but this can only be established if the legitimacy and reliability of sources external to the assertions of those individuals is acknowledged. I know of no expert in any field who does not acknowledge the existence of such external sources of reliable information.

If an individual is assumed to be the only legitimate and reliable source for a given assertion, there is no logical possibility, for someone not accepting the assumption, to determine if that assertion is factually correct.

Specific claims attributed to your source have received rebuttals but you have offered nothing, to my knowledge, substantive in response. Unless you can, I don't see any legitimate purpose in continuing this thread since proselytizing is inappropriate here.

Except that they are contrary to assertions made by your source, can you offer any specific rebuttals against, for example, the references offered by CX linked above?

WILLOWTREE · 07-21-2004, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Willow,

I asked for replies to be sent via PM so as to not continue to derail the thread from the OP. It troubles me that you would ignore this request.

That is only because you consider your source to be irrefutable not because offered rebuttals have been shown to be without merit. It is a deomonstrable fact that very smart and knowledgeable people make mistakes and reach false conclusions but this can only be established if the legitimacy and reliability of sources external to the assertions of those individuals is acknowledged. I know of no expert in any field who does not acknowledge the existence of such external sources of reliable information.

If an individual is assumed to be the only legitimate and reliable source for a given assertion, there is no logical possibility, for someone not accepting the assumption, to determine if that assertion is factually correct.

Specific claims attributed to your source have received rebuttals but you have offered nothing, to my knowledge, substantive in response. Unless you can, I don't see any legitimate purpose in continuing this thread since proselytizing is inappropriate here.

Except that they are contrary to assertions made by your source, can you offer any specific rebuttals against, for example, the references offered by CX linked above?

Hi Amaleq:

I can find no refutation of Dr. Scott - you are asserting.

Your feel good accusations of proselytizing are conceited ego trips - God is not desparate for your company. I can't even save myself much less anyone else.

Nobody has refuted my points - they have only avoided them by repeating a reconfigured point.

When refutation is occurring, the debater cut and pastes each line and then specifically refutes. CX ignored my points just like you have done for the second time.

Amaleq13 · 07-21-2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWevcTREE

Nobody has refuted my points

If you believe you have stated your entire case for the fulfillment of the alleged prophecy, then we can allow anyone who wishes to read this thread before it vanishes to reach their own conclusions about which claims are more credible.

Amaleq13 · 07-21-2004, 09:31 PM

Apparently Vorkosigan's suggestion wasn't sufficiently clear. This thread will not become about Dr. Scott whether bashing of or proselytizing for.

Unless Willow chooses to respond further to specific criticisms that have already been offered, this thread would appear to have run its course.

Dr_Paine · 07-21-2004, 11:06 PM

Sorry, I was responding to a challenge directed at me specifically by WILLOWevcTREE.

I failed to read the intervening posts clearly enough; I must have missed the edict.

Consider me sufficiently scolded; I shall transgress no further.

I will now resume my lowly position in the forum's hierarchy.

Amaleq13 · 07-21-2004, 11:41 PM

Your understanding and cooperation are greatly appreciated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr_Paine

I will now resume my lowly position in the forum's hierarchy.

Bah! The number of posts is irrelevant. It is the quality that counts.

Even an Great and Powerful Administrator must acknowledge a solid argument based on reliable sources.

WILLOWTREE · 07-22-2004, 02:43 PM

I have evidenced the prophecy fulfillment of Matthew 21/Psalm 8.

The majority of "refutation" asserted Matthew a liar. This is really a recognition of the arguments veracity and the inability to refute with argument/evidence.

I also dismantled the false claim that prophecy failed because Jews are not as the "sand of the sea/stars of heaven". That refutation went unchallenged and it contained a Matthew claim about the lost tribes which I evidenced to be true.

Now I will go to Mark.

Mark is an honest reporter.

Here is how I know:

The best scholarship agrees that Mark wrote to gentiles, either egyptians or romans. I tend to favor egyptians because he was martyred in Alexandria.

Mark wrote his gospel to convince gentiles that Jesus was the Son of God, yet he constantly has Jesus calling Himself "Son of Man".

Why would Mark, writing to gentiles, who have zero knowledge concerning the Messianic personage Son of Man as reported in Daniel and Enoch, have Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man ? This hurts his intent to prove Jesus Son of God.

In Daniel and Enoch Son of Man is Divine Messianic title that Jews know all about, but Mark wrote to gentiles and to them Son of Man means son of a man and not God.

Mark was honest because even though it hurt his claim he reported what Jesus called Himself. Mark's gospel contains the most references of Jesus referring to Himself as Son of Man.

If Mark is a liar perpetuating a fraud of resurrected Christ then he would NOT of had Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man.

Mark is proven honest - he reported Jesus rose - it is true.

Mark could of avoided martyrdom by recanting and not preaching Christ raised. Why would he accept a horrible death if it was not true ?

He was by himself in Egypt, if he recanted nobody would know. He could leave Egypt and claim all went well and nobody would ever know.

funinspace · 07-22-2004, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWevcTREE

Now I will go to Mark.

Mark is an honest reporter.

Here is how I know:

The best scholarship agrees that Mark wrote to gentiles, either egyptians or romans. I tend to favor egyptians because he was martyred in Alexandria.

Mark wrote his gospel to convince gentiles that Jesus was the Son of God, yet he constantly has Jesus calling Himself "Son of Man".

Why would Mark, writing to gentiles, who have zero knowledge concerning the Messianic personage Son of Man as reported in Daniel and Enoch, have Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man ? This hurts his intent to prove Jesus Son of God.

In Daniel and Enoch Son of Man is Divine Messianic title that Jews know all about, but Mark wrote to gentiles and to them Son of Man means son of a man and not God.

Mark was honest because even though it hurt his claim he reported what Jesus called Himself. Mark's gospel contains the most references of Jesus referring to Himself as Son of Man.

If Mark is a liar perpetuating a fraud of resurrected Christ then he would NOT of had Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man.

Mark is proven honest - he reported Jesus rose - it is true.

Mark could of avoided martyrdom by recanting and not preaching Christ raised. Why would he accept a horrible death if it was not true ?

He was by himself in Egypt, if he recanted nobody would know. He could leave Egypt and claim all went well and nobody would ever know.

Which Mark? The one that ends at 16:8 or the one with the forged ending taking it to 16:20? The originating guy may or may not have been honest, but somebody came after and had some fun with new endings... Just curious as to which one you prefer?

funinspace · 07-22-2004, 03:00 PM

From: http://www.bible.org/netbible/

Quote:

9tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (�? B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (�? B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.�? This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Y 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Q Ë13 33 2427 �? lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers�? (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.�?

sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

The above generally agrees with other Biblical comentary books. So, scribes were fully willing to adjust texts to meet expectations or assumptions. That speaks volumes for authority, honesty, and integrety. I don't mean "lier' by honesty, but just that these people that were culling the texts together had no problem with making modifications for the domga/religion that was under construction.

Yep, Mark is a great example. Thank you.

07-22-2004, 02:43 PM	#108
WILLOWTREE Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: LOS ANGELES Posts: 544	Veracity of Mark I have evidenced the prophecy fulfillment of Matthew 21/Psalm 8. The majority of "refutation" asserted Matthew a liar. This is really a recognition of the arguments veracity and the inability to refute with argument/evidence. I also dismantled the false claim that prophecy failed because Jews are not as the "sand of the sea/stars of heaven". That refutation went unchallenged and it contained a Matthew claim about the lost tribes which I evidenced to be true. Now I will go to Mark. Mark is an honest reporter. Here is how I know: The best scholarship agrees that Mark wrote to gentiles, either egyptians or romans. I tend to favor egyptians because he was martyred in Alexandria. Mark wrote his gospel to convince gentiles that Jesus was the Son of God, yet he constantly has Jesus calling Himself "Son of Man". Why would Mark, writing to gentiles, who have zero knowledge concerning the Messianic personage Son of Man as reported in Daniel and Enoch, have Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man ? This hurts his intent to prove Jesus Son of God. In Daniel and Enoch Son of Man is Divine Messianic title that Jews know all about, but Mark wrote to gentiles and to them Son of Man means son of a man and not God. Mark was honest because even though it hurt his claim he reported what Jesus called Himself. Mark's gospel contains the most references of Jesus referring to Himself as Son of Man. If Mark is a liar perpetuating a fraud of resurrected Christ then he would NOT of had Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man. Mark is proven honest - he reported Jesus rose - it is true. Mark could of avoided martyrdom by recanting and not preaching Christ raised. Why would he accept a horrible death if it was not true ? He was by himself in Egypt, if he recanted nobody would know. He could leave Egypt and claim all went well and nobody would ever know.

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

07-21-2004, 11:29 AM	#101
WILLOWTREE Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: LOS ANGELES Posts: 544	Hi Amaleq: If you are interested in the sources of Dr. Scott then go to this site which specializes in the books Dr. Scott recommends. www.capstonebooks.com Presently, massive amounts of transcripts are being prepared for distribution. In about 3 - 6 months these transcripts will be released. If you are interested in obtaining a sample, then email me with an address and I will send you a copy of the Resurrection teaching. Or call Dr. Scott yourself and ask for the free magazine 1-800-338-3030. Your address will NOT be placed on his mailing list nor will it ever be released to anyone else. pyramidial@yahoo.com

07-21-2004, 09:31 PM	#105
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Apparently Vorkosigan's suggestion wasn't sufficiently clear. This thread will not become about Dr. Scott whether bashing of or proselytizing for. Unless Willow chooses to respond further to specific criticisms that have already been offered, this thread would appear to have run its course.

07-21-2004, 11:06 PM	#106
Dr_Paine Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Indiana Posts: 533	Sorry, I was responding to a challenge directed at me specifically by WILLOWevcTREE. I failed to read the intervening posts clearly enough; I must have missed the edict. Consider me sufficiently scolded; I shall transgress no further. I will now resume my lowly position in the forum's hierarchy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.