Archaeology of the New Testament

[Into the Night]

Distinction between organic chemistry and biochemistry​

"Organic chemistry focuses on the structure, synthesis, and reactions of carbon-based compounds broadly, including man-made materials. Biochemistry specializes in the chemical processes within living organisms, such as enzymes, metabolism, and DNA."

AI summary

Biochemistry is not a word. Don't try to substitute your brain for AI. AI does not define any word.
Define 'life'.

 

[Into the Night]

because indulging mass murder satanic Naziism ends our ability to allow anything, because we would all be dead.

Go learn English. Random words is not English.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't ever remember playing it. Throwing a ball at people seems like a lame sport. I preferred the skill sports. I remember playing little league baseball, pee wee football, little league soccer, flag football, basketball, tennis.

You really should watch a dodgeball championship.

 

[ZenMode]

nope.

it facilitates cooperation.

What makes cooperation moral?

do you think there would be no laws if god didn't exist?

Of course there would be laws. Man made up all the laws that exist today.

morality to have a hight trust society.

and behaviors and attitudes that facilitate that are easily identified.

you're just of a criminal exploiter mindset, a predator, and hate morality.

The question is whether or not there is objective morality. A God saying X is moral is, again, just divine preference. Gods have endorsed incest, genocide, slavery, etc. What makes you believe your god is an objective source for morality?

 

[Into the Night]

Explain to the board why my interest in archeology and history causes you to descend into anger and insanity.

Everyone needs a hobby. Your speculations are yours.

 

[Into the Night]

What makes cooperation moral?

His morals.

Of course there would be laws. Man made up all the laws that exist today.

So you think cooperation is also important. A 'moral'.

The question is whether or not there is objective morality.

There is no such thing as 'objective morality'. Buzzword fallacy.

A God saying X is moral is, again, just divine preference.

So? Your point?

Gods have endorsed incest, genocide, slavery, etc. What makes you believe your god is an objective source for morality?

There is no such thing as 'objective morality'. There is no absolute morality.

Now if you want to ignore the wonderful teachings that are in the Bible, that is YOUR problem.

 

[Cypress]

Biochemistry is not a word!!!

ftfy

Michigan Tech University:​

"Biochemistry is the study of the chemicals and chemistry of living organisms. Biochemists study biomolecules (such as proteins, RNA, DNA, sugars, and lipids), their applications and interactions in the body, and biochemical and metabolic processes. Biochemists apply their knowledge to design drugs, genetically engineer plants and microbes, and understand more about how life works at the molecular level."

What is Biochemistry?

Biochemistry is the study of the chemicals and chemistry of living organisms. Biochemists study biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, DNA, sugars, and lipids and their applications and interactions in the body as well as biochemical and metabolic processes. Biochemists apply their knowledge to...

www.mtu.edu

 

[Into the Night]

ftfy

Michigan Tech University:​

"Biochemistry is the study of the chemicals and chemistry of living organisms. Biochemists study biomolecules (such as proteins, RNA, DNA, sugars, and lipids), their applications and interactions in the body, and biochemical and metabolic processes. Biochemists apply their knowledge to design drugs, genetically engineer plants and microbes, and understand more about how life works at the molecular level."

What is Biochemistry?

Biochemistry is the study of the chemicals and chemistry of living organisms. Biochemists study biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, DNA, sugars, and lipids and their applications and interactions in the body as well as biochemical and metabolic processes. Biochemists apply their knowledge to...

www.mtu.edu

Biochemistry is not a word. Michigan Tech Univesity does not define any word.

 

[Cypress]

You really should watch a dodgeball championship.

Dodgeball is a boring sport that lazy unmotivated PE teachers make kids play in gym class.

If you want to work on the skill set needed to throw a ball, then baseball, football, and basketball are what sports-oriented kids need to be playing.

I don't remember any dudes in high school who wanted to play dodge ball in gym class.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

Dodgeball is a boring sport that lazy unmotivated PE teachers make kids play in gym class.

If you want to work on the skill set needed to throw a ball, then baseball, football, and basketball are what sports-oriented kids need to be playing.

I don't remember any dudes in high school who wanted to play dodge ball in gym class.

We loved Dodgeball in Gym! Nothing like hitting someone in the face from point blank range

 

[Steinbeck]

So? They deny the Bible. Big hairy deal. Both Adam and Eve are clearly described as specific individuals.

In English translations from the Greek.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no such thing as 'objective morality'. Buzzword fallacy.

Exactly. There's only divine preference or non-divine preference.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

What makes cooperation moral?

its moral because it facilitates human well-being.

Of course there would be laws. Man made up all the laws that exist today.

what are man's laws based on?

The question is whether or not there is objective morality. A God saying X is moral is, again, just divine preference. Gods have endorsed incest, genocide, slavery, etc. What makes you believe your god is an objective source for morality?

there is objective morality.

morality is the set of attitudes and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative, and mutually beneficial relationships.

human predators, like internationalist fascists such as you, hate this definition because you prey on other humans as a way of life, and under this obvious definiton of morality, you fail specatularly as your evil is revealed openly to all.

it's why you hate jesus.

 

[ZenMode]

its moral because it facilitates human well-being.


what are man's laws based on?

there is objective morality.

morality is the set of attitudes and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative, and mutually beneficial relationships.

human predators, like internationalist fascists such as you, hate this definition because you prey on other humans as a way of life, and under this obvious definiton of morality, you fail specatularly as your evil is revealed openly to all.

it's why you hate jesus.

If you are saying that objective morality comes from the experience of conscious creatures, then I would agree. There's no need to smuggle any magical beings into the conversation.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

If you are saying that objective morality comes from the experience of conscious creatures, then I would agree. There's no need to smuggle any magical beings into the conversation.

objective morality comes from the underpinning that humans survival is good.

that's why Nazi satanists hate morality, because they hate humanity.

its long been known that Satan fell because of jealousy of humans.

Satan wants you dead, and nihilist nazis eugenicists borrow their agenda from Satan.

so really its the anti-moralists who take marching orders from the spiritual dimension.

 

[Cypress]

Jesus was also accused of being a fraud by followers of other "sons of gods

Post your source written by an eyewitness.
Don't post something written by somebody who only vaguely knew Jesus, or someone who didn't know him at all nor knew the genuine eyewitnesses.

There are hostile references to Jesus in Jewish and Greek sources, but they aren't by eyewitnesses, people who interviewed the eyewitnesses, nor people who knew the people that knew the eyewitnesses.

So, we agree that eyewitness testimony means basically nothing, right?

Tell the judge that when a series of eyewitnesses testify against you in court.

That doesn't make any of the claims of the Bible or Jesus true. It just means that people believed they were true.

Correct. The apostles genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. You have a hard time convincing me a mass hallucination is the best explanation.

Lots of people died because Marshall Applewhite convinced them that they would be teleported to a nearby comet if they put on Nike's and drank his Kool-aid. Do you think

Thanks for making the case that Jesus' followers did not just lie their asses off and fabricate the whole story, because that's what many atheists claim. You can't claim they were just lying about everything, if the evidence is they genuinely believed what they were reporting.

Belief means nothing.

Belief is a huge part of your life.
You believe the pharmacist can be trusted not to give you poison. Otherwise, you would bring your chemistry kit to test the Rx you receive.

You believe a finely tuned, lawfully organized, mathematically rational universe popped into existence by random chance and due to irrational and inanimate physical conditions.

Sure. People, in similar situations today, believe they see dead loved ones. Followers of Apollonius believed they saw him after his death. Do you think they did or do you believe, of all of the "sons of gods" before and after Jesus, the Christian son of God just happens to be the one legit one? If so, why? Nothing you've presented as distinguishing factors is unique to Jesus or his followers.

You are attempting to use a terrible analogy and equate it to the historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.

There is only one genuine written source about Appolonius, and it is not written by an eyewitness, somebody who knew the eyewitnesses, or somebody who was even remotely connected to his circle of students.

The single primary source on Appolonius was written in the third century AD.

Appolonius lived in the first century AD.

So, your source is not a witness account, and it's written in the third century long after the events purportedly described.

Sorry, that is just very weak and dubious historical documentation,, and I'm not as naive as you to consider it good evidence.

 

[Cypress]

Biochemistry is not a word!!!

Merriam Webster Dictionary​

Biochemistry: chemistry that deals with the chemical compounds and processes occurring in organisms.

 

[ZenMode]

Post your source written by an eyewitness.
Don't post something written by somebody who only vaguely knew Jesus, or someone who didn't know him at all nor knew the genuine eyewitnesses.

None of the books in the NT were written by a person who a) saw/met Jesus or b) was an eye witness to any of the claims they are making.

There are hostile references to Jesus in Jewish and Greek sources, but they aren't by eyewitnesses, people who interviewed the eyewitnesses, nor people who knew the people that knew the eyewitnesses

There's no reason to believe that the writers of the NT books ever met any of the people close to Jesus.

Tell the judge that when a series of eyewitnesses testify against you in court.

Do you believe that Benny Hinn supporters believe they are witnessing miracles? Do you believe they are actually witnessing miracles?

Correct. The apostles genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. You have a hard time convincing me a mass hallucination is the best explanation.

We don't know what the Apostles believed because none of them wrote any of the books of the NT.

Thanks for making the case that Jesus' followers did not just lie their asses off and fabricate the whole story, because that's what many atheists claim. You can't claim they were just lying about everything, if the evidence is they genuinely believed what they were reporting.

Belief doesn't create reality. Writing down your beliefs doesn't make them real. Marshall Applewhite's followers writing down their belief that he is a prophet doesn't make him a prophet. Writing down that they are going to be teleported to a nearby comet after death doesn't mean they were teleported to a comet after dying.

Belief is a huge part of your life.
You believe the pharmacist can be trusted not to give you poison. Otherwise, you would bring your chemistry kit to test the Rx you receive.

My belief in system that puts medicine in my hand doesn't create reality. A deranged pharmacist could give me poison.

You believe a finely tuned, lawfully organized, mathematically rational universe popped into existence by random chance and due to irrational and inanimate physical conditions.

I don't know how the universe came into existence and saying "I don't know" is infinitely more honest than manufacturing magical beings.

You are attempting to use a terrible analogy and equate it to the historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.

There is only one genuine written source about Appolonius, and it is not written by an eyewitness,

Neither were any of the books of the NT, so why believe them?

somebody who knew the eyewitnesses, or somebody who was even remotely connected to his circle of students.

We don't know how close the writers of the gospels were to Jesus. Considering they were originally written in Greek, it seems highly unlikely that the writers were close with the followers of Jesus in Galilee.

The single primary source on Appolonius was written in the third century AD.

Appolonius lived in the first century AD.

So, your source is not a witness account, and it's written in the third century long after the events purportedly described.

None of your Biblical sources were eyewitnesses. Paul, one of Jesus' biggest proponents and the only identifiable author of any NT books, never saw Jesus.

Sorry, that is just very weak and dubious historical documentation,, and I'm not as naive as you to consider it good evidence.

I don't consider it to be good evidence. The question is why you consider the NT books to be good sources of information about much of anything.

 

[ZenMode]

Merriam Webster Dictionary​

Biochemistry: chemistry that deals with the chemical compounds and processes occurring in organisms.

He knows it's a word. He's playing his standard idiotic word games that he will continue playing indefinitely.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Post your source written by an eyewitness.
Don't post something written by somebody who only vaguely knew Jesus, or someone who didn't know him at all nor knew the genuine eyewitnesses.

There are hostile references to Jesus in Jewish and Greek sources, but they aren't by eyewitnesses, people who interviewed the eyewitnesses, nor people who knew the people that knew the eyewitnesses.

Tell the judge that when a series of eyewitnesses testify against you in court.

Correct. The apostles genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. You have a hard time convincing me a mass hallucination is the best explanation.

Thanks for making the case that Jesus' followers did not just lie their asses off and fabricate the whole story, because that's what many atheists claim. You can't claim they were just lying about everything, if the evidence is they genuinely believed what they were reporting.

Belief is a huge part of your life.
You believe the pharmacist can be trusted not to give you poison. Otherwise, you would bring your chemistry kit to test the Rx you receive.

You believe a finely tuned, lawfully organized, mathematically rational universe popped into existence by random chance and due to irrational and inanimate physical conditions.

You are attempting to use a terrible analogy and equate it to the historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.

There is only one genuine written source about Appolonius, and it is not written by an eyewitness, somebody who knew the eyewitnesses, or somebody who was even remotely connected to his circle of students.

The single primary source on Appolonius was written in the third century AD.

Appolonius lived in the first century AD.

So, your source is not a witness account, and it's written in the third century long after the events purportedly described.

Sorry, that is just very weak and dubious historical documentation,, and I'm not as naive as you to consider it good evidence.

if you're not talking directly to the eyewitness yourself, it's hearsay.

there's no such thing as "eyewitness 10 times removed".