Ignorance and the Bible

[domer76]

Says the atheist ranter about a book he believes is a fabrication. Why do you, MAGAts and others hypocrites keep insisting on having it both ways?

You're free to deny magic with one hand and support it with the other. I disagree. This is why I distrust you, your 12 year old friend and militant atheists/religious fanatics in general.

Scroll up for your answer, domer. IF you are as smart as you think you are, the answer is there.

I deny magic on EVERY hand. If you think I’ve stated otherwise, you’re a fool.

 

[domer76]

How can the birth story be factual when it is devoid of observed facts? It's a faith story.

Bingo. Just like the resurrection story.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, I agree, I believe the birth narrative in Luke was written to make a theological point.

Paul was writing 30 years before Luke, and Mark had access to the apostle Peter and wrote about 15 years before Luke

A miraculous virgin birth is so extraordinary, it's hard to fathom why Paul, Mark, John never mention it.

No doubt in my mind that those early believers strongly believed, even to the point of death.

Cults, like Trump's personality cult, are all lead by one person. Waco is a popular example among the white nationalists. Ruby Ridge another.

The difference with Christianity is that many of its leaders died for their beliefs yet the number of believers grew. Obviously there are some sociological factors here as you and I have previously discussed.

IMO, like the USA is experiencing presently, it was a blending of cultures. Jesus brought something new, fair and loving. An attitude which conflicted with the "STFU, keep your head down and we won't kill you" attitude of the time.

The Bible, as well edited as it is, is just one book of many. If there truly is a God, wouldn't that God want us to learn as much as possible? Why else are we here? To sing Hosannas? LOL

The religious nutjobs, both atheists and theists, are free to rant, but as they always complain, "Don't impose your will on me!"

Like MAGAts, all the militant atheists on JPP are both hypocritical and very authoritarian. Sad. Weird, but sad.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I deny magic on EVERY hand. If you think I’ve stated otherwise, you’re a fool.

Yeah. Me too. Scroll up. What does that have to do with the price of wheat in Kansas, Dome?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

import random

# Randomly choose between "famous" and "noted"
descriptor = random.choice(["famous", "noted"])

# Print the phrase with the chosen descriptor
print(f"{descriptor} atheist biblical scholar Bart Ehrman sez...")

Beep Boop Beep the retard strives to be smarter than @Cypress again!

What is this fascination you have with Cypress all about, Perry? Anything sexual? Asking for a friend. TIA

 

[Cypress]

Luke claims……Well, that fucking settles it. Which “eyewitnesses” did he talk to? Be specific.

When was Luke written? 80BCE or so? The few, VERY few “eyewitnesses” are long gone.

Think man, Think!

Just because it was written in 80 AD doesn't mean it's only based on information Luke found and collected just in the year 80 AD.

Luke was a companion of Paul, and during Paul's life some of the apostles were still alive. When Luke wrote his Gospel he was drawing on information that he came into possession of long before 80 AD. Paul's ministry was in the 50s AD.

You don't seem to be aware of any of these facts.

You claim to be knowledgeable about the New Testament, but is sure seeks like you aren't familiar with. Luke's introduction doesn't identify any eyewitnesses by name that he is referencing, but your free to believe Luke is lying his ass off about it.

Or maybe just temporarily in a coma. LOL

That THEY aren’t familiar with analytical history is irrelevant. The current era is when scholars are trying to determine the historicity. And they apply certain standards. One of those is not hypothesizing that Christ wasn’t actually dead, but merely comatose. PRICELESS!

BTW, Biblical SCHOLARS, almost without exception, are the ones claiming Luke and Matthew copied Mark. Not me. Arguing that point makes you look for foolish than the coma thing.

And, since we’re talking about historical accuracy, you still avoid the two birth narratives. You can’t cherry pick, Jethro. The stories are there. So, which one is historically true? (The answer? NEITHER)

Herodotus' Historia wouldn't be published in a modern peer reviewed journal because it doesn't meet the rigorous standards of modern analytical history.

But it is still an important source of historical information for scholars of ancient history who know how to handle and interpret writing from classical antiquity.


Your favorite atheist Scholar Bart Ehrman agrees with me about the historicity of how the eyewitnesses genuinely came to believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

What we do know:.
1. We know that some (all? most? a few?) of his disciples who knew Jesus had been killed claimed at a later time (that his tomb was visited by some of his women followers three days later and was found to be empty.
2. They also claimed to have seen him alive afterwards.
3. They came to believe that he had been raised from the dead.
4. This claim completely changed their lives and the history of our world ever since.

- Bart Ehrman

 

[domer76]

Yeah. Me too. Scroll up. What does that have to do with the price of wheat in Kansas, Dome?

Scroll up. You made the claim I support magic, guppy.

 

[Cypress]

No doubt in my mind that those early believers strongly believed, even to the point of death.

Cults, like Trump's personality cult, are all lead by one person. Waco is a popular example among the white nationalists. Ruby Ridge another.

The difference with Christianity is that many of its leaders died for their beliefs yet the number of believers grew. Obviously there are some sociological factors here as you and I have previously discussed.

IMO, like the USA is experiencing presently, it was a blending of cultures. Jesus brought something new, fair and loving. An attitude which conflicted with the "STFU, keep your head down and we won't kill you" attitude of the time.

The Bible, as well edited as it is, is just one book of many. If there truly is a God, wouldn't that God want us to learn as much as possible? Why else are we here? To sing Hosannas? LOL

The religious nutjobs, both atheists and theists, are free to rant, but as they always complain, "Don't impose your will on me!"

Like MAGAts, all the militant atheists on JPP are both hypocritical and very authoritarian. Sad. Weird, but sad.

Agree, there was something different about the Jesus movement in the first century

Jesus was not the only apocalyptic prophet the Romans executed. But in each prior case, the prophet's followers just dispersed, or they looked for a new leader. Jews believed in a general resurrection at the end of time, if they thought of a world-to-come at all. The alleged resurrection of a single individual like Jesus would have been totally unprecedented, as was the lasting impact and influence of the movement he founded.

All of it defies the expectations of first century Palestinian context

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Scroll up. You made the claim I support magic, guppy.

You do, as straw man argument. Weird.

What's more interesting to me is how much you and Perry are alike when it comes to atheism and hating Cypress. With Perry, I expect it. he's fucked up on many levels, but you only go nuts when it comes to Christianity. Why?

FWIW, I was raised a Protestant, an atheist by 14 and an agnostic by 17. Most of my professional career has included evaluating people, often for literal life-and-death assignments. When people fall outside the norm, it draws my curiosity.

 

[domer76]

Think man, Think!

Just because it was written in 80 AD doesn't mean it's only based on information Luke found and collected just in the year 80 AD.

Luke was a companion of Paul, and during Paul's life some of the apostles were still alive. When Luke wrote his Gospel he was drawing on information that he came into possession of long before 80 AD. Paul's ministry was in the 50s AD.

You don't seem to be aware of any of these facts.

You claim to be knowledgeable about the New Testament, but is sure seeks like you aren't familiar with. Luke's introduction doesn't identify any eyewitnesses by name that he is referencing, but your free to believe Luke is lying his ass off about it.


Herodotus' Historia wouldn't be published in a modern peer reviewed journal because it doesn't meet the rigorous standards of modern analytical history.

But it is still an important source of historical information for scholars of ancient history who know how to handle and interpret writing from classical antiquity.


Your favorite atheist Scholar Bart Ehrman agrees with me about the historicity of how the eyewitnesses genuinely came to believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

What we do know:.
1. We know that some (all? most? a few?) of his disciples who knew Jesus had been killed claimed at a later time (that his tomb was visited by some of his women followers three days later and was found to be empty.
2. They also claimed to have seen him alive afterwards.
3. They came to believe that he had been raised from the dead.
4. This claim completely changed their lives and the history of our world ever since.

- Bart Ehrman

Which apostles, specifically did they talk to? Paul never really did write about Christ’s life did he? Nothing biographical at all. Not about his teachings, parables, etc. No real documentation of his life at all. Not important to him, so why do you think he shared all of that with Luke. Especially when we already know Luke merely copied Mark for that info.

Quit fucking lying about my words. I never claimed Luke lied about anything.

Yep. That’s what Ehrman says and I agree. Those are the witnesses claims and beliefs. Know what else Ehrman says? IT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S TRUE.

THINK MAN THINK!

 

[Cypress]

import random

# Randomly choose between "famous" and "noted"
descriptor = random.choice(["famous", "noted"])

# Print the phrase with the chosen descriptor
print(f"{descriptor} atheist biblical scholar Bart Ehrman sez...")

I'm glad you noticed I'm using an expert who is an prominent skeptic and atheist to support my argument, which is why my arguments are so effective and draw attention from militant atheist posters like they are angry wasps.

I'm not using Bible thumping theologians.

 

[domer76]

You do, as straw man argument. Weird.

What's more interesting to me is how much you and Perry are alike when it comes to atheism and hating Cypress. With Perry, I expect it. he's fucked up on many levels, but you only go nuts when it comes to Christianity. Why?

FWIW, I was raised a Protestant, an atheist by 14 and an agnostic by 17. Most of my professional career has included evaluating people, often for literal life-and-death assignments. When people fall outside the norm, it draws my curiosity.

Look, fuckwit, we can’t proceed if you keep lying. First about the magic bullshit and now insert the hate word. Is that how you “evaluate” people? By misinterpreting what they REALLY say?

I am outside the norm. I graduated from one of the top universities in the country with a degree in chemistry. Way back when, I accidentally discovered my IQ and it’s substantially on the right side of the bell curve. My professional career involved evaluating evidence in literal life-and-death situations.

So, my evaluation of your evaluation is that you suck at it.

 

[gmark77]

I'm glad you noticed I'm using an expert who is an prominent skeptic and atheist to support my argument, which is why my arguments are so effective and draw attention from militant atheist posters like they are angry wasps.

I'm not using Bible thumping theologians.

If that is what you wish to take from my post then by all means.

 

[Cypress]

Which apostles, specifically did they talk to? Paul never really did write about Christ’s life did he? Nothing biographical at all. Not about his teachings, parables, etc. No real documentation of his life at all. Not important to him, so why do you think he shared all of that with Luke. Especially when we already know Luke merely copied Mark for that info.

Quit fucking lying about my words. I never claimed Luke lied about anything.

Yep. That’s what Ehrman says and I agree. Those are the witnesses claims and beliefs. Know what else Ehrman says? IT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S TRUE.

THINK MAN THINK!

You literally thought Luke was only using information he acquired only in the year 80 AD, and you didn't know he was a companion of Paul 30 years before that when many of the eyewitness were alive and running in Paul's social circles.
What is this, amateur hour? lol

What Bart Ehrman and I believe is that the apostles genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

You know what that does? It blows the doors of the long-standing atheist claims that the apostles just conspired to lie and fabricate a resurrection account out of whole cloth.

Congratulations for finally, and grudgingly seeing it my way.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Look, fuckwit, we can’t proceed if you keep lying. First about the magic bullshit and now insert the hate word. Is that how you “evaluate” people? By misinterpreting what they REALLY say?

I am outside the norm. I graduated from one of the top universities in the country with a degree in chemistry. Way back when, I accidentally discovered my IQ and it’s substantially on the right side of the bell curve. My professional career involved evaluating evidence in literal life-and-death situations.

So, my evaluation of your evaluation is that you suck at it.

QED on your irrationality when it comes to people who disagree with you about Christianity. Fascinating. I evaluate people by their behavior over both the long and the short term. Specifically, patterns of behavior. There's a norm and then there's "Abbie Normal". When it comes to Christianity, you become Abbie Normal.

Yeah, lots of smart nutjobs out there. The stupid ones usually get shot or imprisoned pretty quickly. LOL

Thanks for your expression of anger.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If that is what you wish to take from my post then by all means.

What is behind your attraction to @Cypress? Is it sexual? Even platonically? It's certainly not intellectual since, well, you know.

 

[Cypress]

I am outside the norm. I graduated from one of the top universities in the country with a degree in chemistry. Way back when, I accidentally discovered my IQ and it’s substantially on the right side of the bell curve. My professional career involved evaluating evidence in literal life-and-death situations.

So, my evaluation of your evaluation is that you suck at it.

I just went to a public university, my GRE scores probably barely cracked the top 25 percent, and I wasn't even in the ballpark in the running for valedictorian.

What I did profit from was being as impartial as I could when it came to learning about religion, history, culture. I've read and listened to prominent atheists, skeptics, religious scholars, Catholic monks, Protestant theologians because I think trying to ascertain the truth demands a level of open mindedness.

 

[domer76]

You literally thought Luke was only using information he acquired only in the year 80 AD, and you didn't know he was a companion of Paul 30 years before that when many of the eyewitness were alive and running in Paul's social circles.
What is this, amateur hour? lol

What Bart Ehrman and I believe is that the apostles genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

You know what that does? It blows the doors of the long-standing atheist claims that the apostles just conspired to lie and fabricate a resurrection account out of whole cloth.

Congratulations for finally, and grudgingly seeing it my way.

Either your illiterate and can’t comprehend my posts or your a fucking liar.

 

[domer76]

QED on your irrationality when it comes to people who disagree with you about Christianity. Fascinating. I evaluate people by their behavior over both the long and the short term. Specifically, patterns of behavior. There's a norm and then there's "Abbie Normal". When it comes to Christianity, you become Abbie Normal.

Yeah, lots of smart nutjobs out there. The stupid ones usually get shot or imprisoned pretty quickly. LOL

Thanks for your expression of anger.

Never angry here. Nobody on this forum is worth it. So, once again, your “evaluation” technique sucks.

Nor irrational. Rational people, those who accept science over supernatural, know that both the birth and the resurrection narratives are scientifically impossible. Rational people require evidence. Irrational people require faith.

Yeah, I’m Abbie Normal on this subject, too, because most people aren’t aware of the Synoptic Problem. Either are you, apparently. Or you’re incapable of addressing the issues. Instead, two of you concoct absurd “alternate facts”. Additionally, both of you twist my words to the point of lying about them. Don’t do that anymore.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Duh. No shit but glad you are catching up to the adults on the discussion. You really are blind when it comes to discussing Christianity. You hate and insult anyone who disagrees with you about it in the slightest. Weird. This is why I suspect some sort of trauma in your past is driving such hatred and bigotry.

MAGAts are usually consistent in their hatred and bigotry which indicates mental deficiency. You only go nuts on the subject of Christianity, which indicates trauma to me.

Atheists like domer76 and gmark77 go on and on about the supposed hypocrisy of theism...but are purposefully blind about the unrelenting hypocrisy of atheists of his sort.

Atheism, especially implicit atheism, is a joke with hypocrisy being its punchline.