IIT we discuss and study the Bible. I will be using the King James Version and will take the stance of a fundamental literalist, which is a bit redundant, but these days there exist many that claim to be fundamental but reject the literal interpretation of Scripture when they encounter something they don't agree or understand. I am not a Bible scholar, I'm not a pastor, I don't currently attend any denomination's church service. I'm just an anon that really like to study the Bible. Feel free to argue with me, I could be completely wrong and I hope to learn more about the Bible along the way.
I will post below my first study topic and what I have researched about it. Hopefully it will be interesting and somewhat engaging.
/ub/ - Überhengst
Becoming better
File (): 9383C489FF59AA7EC7E7559014DF0B8F-245693.gif (239.9 KB, 840x618, biblereading.gif)
517 replies and 203 files omitted.
By posting this, I am not making an argument or positing an idea. This is being posted purely as food for thought.
https://youtu.be/KGNAOZTXkac
https://youtu.be/KGNAOZTXkac
https://youtu.be/x6_ESSfyiYE
Jordan Peterson, talking about his transition from Atheism. Not literally a bible study matter, but it compliments bible study so well that it's being posted
Jordan Peterson, talking about his transition from Atheism. Not literally a bible study matter, but it compliments bible study so well that it's being posted
File (): CDCEFF53CD460CED764C4E70428D7BBD-170299.jpg (166.3 KB, 1024x680, St.Michaelprayer-1024x680.jpg)
File (): B3179ABCED0E085E8BE0AB75E63AC1F1-84211.jpg (82.2 KB, 768x768, bible 2.jpeg)
File (): 0019583D836075B434D6CBFA439F5047-84337.jpg (82.4 KB, 768x570, bible 3.jpeg)
File (): 0CC4951B44F5342C33C2E65EF54A730D-2129774.mp4 (2.0 MB, Resolution:270x480 Length:00:00:40, Pride in the Bible.mp4) [play once] [loop]
https://youtu.be/ZMc8FVlOZZg
Here is a short video featuring Geneticall Modified Skeptic speaking with Dr. Bart Ehrman - among the world's foremost contemporary Biblical historians - about 4 common misconceptions pertaining to the New Testament.
I will be purchasing a pass to their 4-day conference, which afyer viewing I will.make available to the board (what, GMS openly invites people to share with their friends).
OP, I hope to have a good discussion about the content.
Here is a short video featuring Geneticall Modified Skeptic speaking with Dr. Bart Ehrman - among the world's foremost contemporary Biblical historians - about 4 common misconceptions pertaining to the New Testament.
I will be purchasing a pass to their 4-day conference, which afyer viewing I will.make available to the board (what, GMS openly invites people to share with their friends).
OP, I hope to have a good discussion about the content.
>>5615
I’m still working on my first project. I’ll see where I can add this into the series as this thing is going to take multiple parts at this rate to organize.
Have to rework an opening to the whole thing now that the damn atheist hate thread has so much traction that I need to define and defend my worldview and lay down the foundation of the faith as not Jewish subversion in order to not be immediately discounted and my work ignored outright. Plus the other interests I want to get into such as learning music and such, I will get to it in time.
I’m still working on my first project. I’ll see where I can add this into the series as this thing is going to take multiple parts at this rate to organize.
Have to rework an opening to the whole thing now that the damn atheist hate thread has so much traction that I need to define and defend my worldview and lay down the foundation of the faith as not Jewish subversion in order to not be immediately discounted and my work ignored outright. Plus the other interests I want to get into such as learning music and such, I will get to it in time.
>>5615
I can tell you though immediately that first point is completely wrong in John 21:24
This is the disciple which testified that of these things and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Directly claiming to be the one in the same as the disciple that testified in the beginning in John 1:6-8
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that light.
You will find all were written in the third person to try to obfuscate praise directly to themselves, in which John replaces all mentions of John with “the disciple Jesus loved” to avoid taking credit from the parts of the story he was present in. The titles were added in post and not by the authors themselves, which makes doubly strange why the doctor here thinks Revelation was a proper title when it literally is another added in post title to a letter from a prison meaning revealing what happens. There are no titles in the Bible that were not added in post. Genesis means beginning. Exodus means leaving. This is a pattern throughout.
As for who wrote it, the books say they were written the same as was told to people as they mention in the letters from Paul and Peter, saying they are all to be used for doctrine, meaning that if they were written afterwards, they could not have ratified their legitimacy. Furthermore, if everything was written, including the letters, at a later date, then the Roman backed sources calling for the execution of Christians makes no sense, as that creation date would not explode in enough time to meet with the documented cases of Romans seeing Christian expansion as a problem.
Ultimately, it is up to you to decide which is more likely, a religion made on the fly far later than we know or something that built on the events that claimed to happen and would explain how it matches historical records. I know you already have your answer, but I will have more research and evidence to provide as I continue with my project. If my arguments don’t satisfy, then my project likely won’t either, but it will at least be the best I can give.
I can tell you though immediately that first point is completely wrong in John 21:24
This is the disciple which testified that of these things and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Directly claiming to be the one in the same as the disciple that testified in the beginning in John 1:6-8
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that light.
You will find all were written in the third person to try to obfuscate praise directly to themselves, in which John replaces all mentions of John with “the disciple Jesus loved” to avoid taking credit from the parts of the story he was present in. The titles were added in post and not by the authors themselves, which makes doubly strange why the doctor here thinks Revelation was a proper title when it literally is another added in post title to a letter from a prison meaning revealing what happens. There are no titles in the Bible that were not added in post. Genesis means beginning. Exodus means leaving. This is a pattern throughout.
As for who wrote it, the books say they were written the same as was told to people as they mention in the letters from Paul and Peter, saying they are all to be used for doctrine, meaning that if they were written afterwards, they could not have ratified their legitimacy. Furthermore, if everything was written, including the letters, at a later date, then the Roman backed sources calling for the execution of Christians makes no sense, as that creation date would not explode in enough time to meet with the documented cases of Romans seeing Christian expansion as a problem.
Ultimately, it is up to you to decide which is more likely, a religion made on the fly far later than we know or something that built on the events that claimed to happen and would explain how it matches historical records. I know you already have your answer, but I will have more research and evidence to provide as I continue with my project. If my arguments don’t satisfy, then my project likely won’t either, but it will at least be the best I can give.
File (): 33141FCE0A460A360808F3042DC56FB3-1148292.mp4 (1.1 MB, Resolution:270x480 Length:00:00:21, Gentile DOES NOT Mean Non-Jew.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>5618
I don’t know who this guy is, but that’s not correct. The word Gentile is not in Genesis 25:23, the word nation is. In this context, two nations will be born, yes, but Gentile means those that are not circumcised. The New Testament clarifies that there is no difference save that the circumcised were bound to the law and there is no binding law after Christ’s work, thus the practice is no longer justified as a separation between people.
Since only Jews practiced circumcision in Biblical context, it does indeed mean non-Jew, as no people other than Jews did it in the region. Plus, it doesn’t make sense otherwise when looking at the declaration that there is no difference in circumcision and no circumcision, between Jew and Greek, and the Jew and Gentile as referenced in Romans 9:24, as each would be subject to condemnation for sins and Christ removed all sins equally from all people, calling all to be the sons of God.
Romans 9:24
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
I don’t know who this guy is, but that’s not correct. The word Gentile is not in Genesis 25:23, the word nation is. In this context, two nations will be born, yes, but Gentile means those that are not circumcised. The New Testament clarifies that there is no difference save that the circumcised were bound to the law and there is no binding law after Christ’s work, thus the practice is no longer justified as a separation between people.
Since only Jews practiced circumcision in Biblical context, it does indeed mean non-Jew, as no people other than Jews did it in the region. Plus, it doesn’t make sense otherwise when looking at the declaration that there is no difference in circumcision and no circumcision, between Jew and Greek, and the Jew and Gentile as referenced in Romans 9:24, as each would be subject to condemnation for sins and Christ removed all sins equally from all people, calling all to be the sons of God.
Romans 9:24
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
>>5617
Just to clarify, you're contesting his historical analysis because it says in the bible that the person writing the book derived 'the author's' gospel from things that they said? Doesnt that kind of prove Ehrman's point? Wouldnt the author write in the first person?
Just to clarify, you're contesting his historical analysis because it says in the bible that the person writing the book derived 'the author's' gospel from things that they said? Doesnt that kind of prove Ehrman's point? Wouldnt the author write in the first person?
>>5624
I will contest because otherwise the author is deceiving the audience, meaning there is no use for the entire text. It would be equivalent to Mien Kampf being written by some dude decades after Hitler. It would make the document useless as a study about the lives of the people it is written about because it would be either speculation by the author or it would be outright fiction.
We know each author claimed that the Holy Spirit gave inspiration for their writing style. Given their desire to not take credit as divine influences themselves, only giving testimony to the truthfulness of their witness, they wrote in the third person to keep themselves from being worshipped as equivalent to the one they wrote about.
Each of the four Gospels not only agree with each other, but connect directly with other writings from the Bible such as the letters by Paul and Peter to Old Testament prophecy and pattern. It isn’t just true because of necessity, but because it connects where other written works do not. It is clearly written by eye witnesses because each were written as a testimony to give either during trial or to prove their claims as legitimate. Luke’s Gospel was written to prove Paul’s claims were accurate to a man named Theophilus for example.
Luke 1:3
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
He claims to have perfect understanding of all things that took place from the beginning of the story. This means eye witness. We get further proof that the same author wrote Acts.
Acts 1:1
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Direct claims that an author is writing that is involved with the life of Christ and is writing to an individual despite third person. It is indeed possible to argue against this doctor’s claims because they are a simplistic dismissal despite textual evidence to the contrary.
I will contest because otherwise the author is deceiving the audience, meaning there is no use for the entire text. It would be equivalent to Mien Kampf being written by some dude decades after Hitler. It would make the document useless as a study about the lives of the people it is written about because it would be either speculation by the author or it would be outright fiction.
We know each author claimed that the Holy Spirit gave inspiration for their writing style. Given their desire to not take credit as divine influences themselves, only giving testimony to the truthfulness of their witness, they wrote in the third person to keep themselves from being worshipped as equivalent to the one they wrote about.
Each of the four Gospels not only agree with each other, but connect directly with other writings from the Bible such as the letters by Paul and Peter to Old Testament prophecy and pattern. It isn’t just true because of necessity, but because it connects where other written works do not. It is clearly written by eye witnesses because each were written as a testimony to give either during trial or to prove their claims as legitimate. Luke’s Gospel was written to prove Paul’s claims were accurate to a man named Theophilus for example.
Luke 1:3
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
He claims to have perfect understanding of all things that took place from the beginning of the story. This means eye witness. We get further proof that the same author wrote Acts.
Acts 1:1
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Direct claims that an author is writing that is involved with the life of Christ and is writing to an individual despite third person. It is indeed possible to argue against this doctor’s claims because they are a simplistic dismissal despite textual evidence to the contrary.
>>5625
Ill skip the appeals to authority for the time being. So you are alleging that Dr. Ehrman's findings are inaccurate cuz... the Bible says so?
Are you honestly suggesting that the Bible's position was not considered, or that the historical analysis is in some way insufficient? Aside from the Bible - the very document Ehrman is alleging is historically false (with evidence) - and your convictions to it, what evidence do you have that can refute his position?
Ill skip the appeals to authority for the time being. So you are alleging that Dr. Ehrman's findings are inaccurate cuz... the Bible says so?
Are you honestly suggesting that the Bible's position was not considered, or that the historical analysis is in some way insufficient? Aside from the Bible - the very document Ehrman is alleging is historically false (with evidence) - and your convictions to it, what evidence do you have that can refute his position?
>>5628
I literally gave you textual evidence that has the first person. Did you read what I posted at all? His claim is completely faulty because he said it was all third person and could not be written by an eye witness. That was his proof he gave. The author mentioned by name a recipient that was alive at the time that aligns with the historical narrative. This means that it is at least possible to have been written when it was claimed to by who it was. The dismissal has a lack of evidence. My evidence is pointing this out. If you want more, you are going to have to wait for me to research and compile a video lesson.
You are also appealing to the authority of a doctor who tried to dismiss something by giving factually incorrect analysis. This is why I am going to make a whole video series to explain this shit because you just skip over anything I write down. Maybe in video format I can make it these points stick.
I literally gave you textual evidence that has the first person. Did you read what I posted at all? His claim is completely faulty because he said it was all third person and could not be written by an eye witness. That was his proof he gave. The author mentioned by name a recipient that was alive at the time that aligns with the historical narrative. This means that it is at least possible to have been written when it was claimed to by who it was. The dismissal has a lack of evidence. My evidence is pointing this out. If you want more, you are going to have to wait for me to research and compile a video lesson.
You are also appealing to the authority of a doctor who tried to dismiss something by giving factually incorrect analysis. This is why I am going to make a whole video series to explain this shit because you just skip over anything I write down. Maybe in video format I can make it these points stick.
>>5630
But see, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility that the gospels ARE accurate; I find it highly implausible, but that's my bias for you.
Conversely, are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that the gospels are NOT infallible? And you'll note, I expressly DECLINED to appeal to authority. Having said, the doc has put himself and his research on the forefront. Moreover, that video is just a snippet; the actual discussion is a several day affair. Im not saying the doc is wrong, Im saying its premature to dismiss his position simply because the document in question can be said to assert its own viability in a few of a number of interpretations.
But see, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility that the gospels ARE accurate; I find it highly implausible, but that's my bias for you.
Conversely, are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that the gospels are NOT infallible? And you'll note, I expressly DECLINED to appeal to authority. Having said, the doc has put himself and his research on the forefront. Moreover, that video is just a snippet; the actual discussion is a several day affair. Im not saying the doc is wrong, Im saying its premature to dismiss his position simply because the document in question can be said to assert its own viability in a few of a number of interpretations.
>>5631
I will work with the possibility it is fallible for the research and debate of authenticity. It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible but I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is without proof. Don’t be surprised when I default to it as my primary resource as the whole point of Christianity is that this book is correct.
Meanwhile, I respect that you believe you are not appealing to authority. I realize in this field of discussion you need to rely on sources outside ourselves as the evidence has been millennia in accumulation. However, you did say that my reference to the Bible when it was expressly brought up in context of what it did or did not contain was comparable to saying the Bible says so therefore it must be.
The reason this is not a worthy comparison is that I could say the same about the author, who said the Bible is not correct because the Bible is written in x style, therefore it is wrong. However, both him and my own referencing the Bible is fully acceptable given the debate of the contents. He said the Gospels contained no first person language which discounted it as written by any eye witness. This was countered by my observation.
This observation doesn’t prove the Bible as correct. It not proved the doctor as wrong. It does contain the language. His assumption in the first place was also faulty that the lack of first person language does not disprove anything. Let me give you an example from my previous employment. Someone had complained about their experience at the bank and claimed to want to take legal action against the bank. I had to write a report about the happening in the third person where I could relating to the person, leaving out my personal experience with the person to let the bank know exactly what the person was doing. Did I not write the report? It has third person language.
Even given the argument that third person language might suggest there might be another writer than an eye witness, not only is it not enough to dismiss the author as one, but there is first person language. The argument is rendered nonsensical.
So now your suggestion that I am relying on an appeal to authority while your claim that you are not makes little sense. We both have authorities we are appealing to. The difference is I have provided counter evidence to the claim and it is being dismissed because I used the text in question, poisoning the use of it as only assuming it is infallible when I have used it in proper context.
I assume he does indeed have many more proofs and ones I am not equipped to answer or counter. However, I do have the ability to research as well and come up with a better, more encompassing response in time. I cannot dismiss all he has claimed based on one point. I can dismiss his one particular point as it is faulty both in evidence and logic.
I will work with the possibility it is fallible for the research and debate of authenticity. It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible but I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is without proof. Don’t be surprised when I default to it as my primary resource as the whole point of Christianity is that this book is correct.
Meanwhile, I respect that you believe you are not appealing to authority. I realize in this field of discussion you need to rely on sources outside ourselves as the evidence has been millennia in accumulation. However, you did say that my reference to the Bible when it was expressly brought up in context of what it did or did not contain was comparable to saying the Bible says so therefore it must be.
The reason this is not a worthy comparison is that I could say the same about the author, who said the Bible is not correct because the Bible is written in x style, therefore it is wrong. However, both him and my own referencing the Bible is fully acceptable given the debate of the contents. He said the Gospels contained no first person language which discounted it as written by any eye witness. This was countered by my observation.
This observation doesn’t prove the Bible as correct. It not proved the doctor as wrong. It does contain the language. His assumption in the first place was also faulty that the lack of first person language does not disprove anything. Let me give you an example from my previous employment. Someone had complained about their experience at the bank and claimed to want to take legal action against the bank. I had to write a report about the happening in the third person where I could relating to the person, leaving out my personal experience with the person to let the bank know exactly what the person was doing. Did I not write the report? It has third person language.
Even given the argument that third person language might suggest there might be another writer than an eye witness, not only is it not enough to dismiss the author as one, but there is first person language. The argument is rendered nonsensical.
So now your suggestion that I am relying on an appeal to authority while your claim that you are not makes little sense. We both have authorities we are appealing to. The difference is I have provided counter evidence to the claim and it is being dismissed because I used the text in question, poisoning the use of it as only assuming it is infallible when I have used it in proper context.
I assume he does indeed have many more proofs and ones I am not equipped to answer or counter. However, I do have the ability to research as well and come up with a better, more encompassing response in time. I cannot dismiss all he has claimed based on one point. I can dismiss his one particular point as it is faulty both in evidence and logic.
>>5632
>It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible
Then any gesture you might affect is a lie. Thank you for admitting that you are unwilling to (with intellectual honesty) acknowledge the possible fallibility. Next time a 'no' will suffice.
Curious, what is original sin according to Christians (specifically baptists, since you can't credibly represent other denominations, especially given the Baptist aversion to ecumenism)?
Cuz in 'Christianity' BEFORE Constantine and the church, it was Ignorance. Followed in close second by dishonesty.
Ill leave you to your ignorance then.
And yes, if you're relying on a source to validate its self in defiance of dissent, original sin.
Feel free to ignore me!
>It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible
Then any gesture you might affect is a lie. Thank you for admitting that you are unwilling to (with intellectual honesty) acknowledge the possible fallibility. Next time a 'no' will suffice.
Curious, what is original sin according to Christians (specifically baptists, since you can't credibly represent other denominations, especially given the Baptist aversion to ecumenism)?
Cuz in 'Christianity' BEFORE Constantine and the church, it was Ignorance. Followed in close second by dishonesty.
Ill leave you to your ignorance then.
And yes, if you're relying on a source to validate its self in defiance of dissent, original sin.
Feel free to ignore me!
>>5633
I will quote my last post:
I will work with the possibility it is fallible for the research and debate of authenticity. It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible but I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is without proof.
I will highlight my statements:
I will work with the possibility it is fallible.
I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is [infallible] without proof.
You once again have ignored every statement I have made, including that I will consider the Bible as possibly fallible outside of my religious convictions to the contrary. You have zero respect for me and so I shall have none for you. Stay the hell away from my thread in the future if you are not going to argue in good faith without attacking my credibility as a debater.
I will quote my last post:
I will work with the possibility it is fallible for the research and debate of authenticity. It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible but I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is without proof.
I will highlight my statements:
I will work with the possibility it is fallible.
I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is [infallible] without proof.
You once again have ignored every statement I have made, including that I will consider the Bible as possibly fallible outside of my religious convictions to the contrary. You have zero respect for me and so I shall have none for you. Stay the hell away from my thread in the future if you are not going to argue in good faith without attacking my credibility as a debater.
>I will consider the Bible as possibly fallible outside of my religious convictions to the contrary
And yet you said that after declaring that so assuming is anathema to faith. Therefore you can't genuinely entertain such a notion without being in conflict with your faith. As I know your faith is paramount, you therefore assign second fiddle to intellectual exploration, meaning any gesture you could/would.make is false.
So which is it? Are you wavering in your faith, or are you disingenuously trying to palcate? Feel free to ignore.
And yet you said that after declaring that so assuming is anathema to faith. Therefore you can't genuinely entertain such a notion without being in conflict with your faith. As I know your faith is paramount, you therefore assign second fiddle to intellectual exploration, meaning any gesture you could/would.make is false.
So which is it? Are you wavering in your faith, or are you disingenuously trying to palcate? Feel free to ignore.
>>5637
You are free to respond however you want to. Also, what things? I’m not calling you names, I’m stating what you are doing.
>>5638
If that was an issue, why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it? See >>5615
You said you wanted me specifically to have a discussion. If you believe I am incapable as a debater, then I suppose you only ask for validation? I would rather believe you actually care to hear what the opposing side has to say, but seeing as you have yet to respond to any of my statements besides those that offend you to some degree, I am beginning to have my doubts.
I have answered why I had issue with the doctor in the video, I gave logical answers to why I hold issue and you instead zero into my beliefs as proof that I am not going to argue in good faith. If you want to continue, your attacks will indeed make me ignore you as you are showing your intent isn’t the debate but discrediting me as a presenter. Take down my arguments and then I will respect you. Keep this up and I will heed your advice to simply ignore your contributions to my thread.
>>5639
>you must choose or you are a liar
Why? I guess you must genuinely believe in flat earth since you debate that autist in his thread. Wait… are you actually holding the position that you can both believe something is either fundamentally correct or incorrect and still hold a worthwhile debate over the logical and empirical evidence presented? No. It couldn’t be that.
>>5640
>pretending
Are you pretending to debate the flat earther? Maybe you are just wasting time in his thread to feel nice, but I had the impression you were actually trying to prove him incorrect.
And why do you keep saying “feel free to ignore”? You have ignored my rebuttal for several posts now. You don’t have to respond to them, but your outburst against me seems on the surface to be fueled by my refutation. I’m going to assume it isn’t because I was convincing, but rather perhaps it comes from the act of arguing against your position itself. The frustration that I’m not in agreement with something that seems obvious to you. Otherwise your calls to ignore your statements seems ill fitting because I have in fact respond to you consistently and fully with each of our points. Had I missed a point, it was not my intention as I am trying to be care to do so.
Perhaps I’d you be straightforward with me about your problems with me, we can actually come to an understanding instead of this dance of accusations.
You are free to respond however you want to. Also, what things? I’m not calling you names, I’m stating what you are doing.
>>5638
If that was an issue, why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it? See >>5615
You said you wanted me specifically to have a discussion. If you believe I am incapable as a debater, then I suppose you only ask for validation? I would rather believe you actually care to hear what the opposing side has to say, but seeing as you have yet to respond to any of my statements besides those that offend you to some degree, I am beginning to have my doubts.
I have answered why I had issue with the doctor in the video, I gave logical answers to why I hold issue and you instead zero into my beliefs as proof that I am not going to argue in good faith. If you want to continue, your attacks will indeed make me ignore you as you are showing your intent isn’t the debate but discrediting me as a presenter. Take down my arguments and then I will respect you. Keep this up and I will heed your advice to simply ignore your contributions to my thread.
>>5639
>you must choose or you are a liar
Why? I guess you must genuinely believe in flat earth since you debate that autist in his thread. Wait… are you actually holding the position that you can both believe something is either fundamentally correct or incorrect and still hold a worthwhile debate over the logical and empirical evidence presented? No. It couldn’t be that.
>>5640
>pretending
Are you pretending to debate the flat earther? Maybe you are just wasting time in his thread to feel nice, but I had the impression you were actually trying to prove him incorrect.
And why do you keep saying “feel free to ignore”? You have ignored my rebuttal for several posts now. You don’t have to respond to them, but your outburst against me seems on the surface to be fueled by my refutation. I’m going to assume it isn’t because I was convincing, but rather perhaps it comes from the act of arguing against your position itself. The frustration that I’m not in agreement with something that seems obvious to you. Otherwise your calls to ignore your statements seems ill fitting because I have in fact respond to you consistently and fully with each of our points. Had I missed a point, it was not my intention as I am trying to be care to do so.
Perhaps I’d you be straightforward with me about your problems with me, we can actually come to an understanding instead of this dance of accusations.
>>5641
Autocorrect fucked that last statement. Perhaps you should be straightforward with me is what I attempted to say.
Autocorrect fucked that last statement. Perhaps you should be straightforward with me is what I attempted to say.
>>5641
>I’m not calling you names, I’m stating what you are doing.
Okay, let's see then
>You once again have ignored every statement I have made
What are you, a tranny? Do I have to affirm everything for you to feel safe?
>why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it?
Silly, its so you display to the audience.
>If that was an issue, why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it?
Well, at the time I toom you as credibke. At the time, my request/prompt was sincere. As the exchange dragged on, it became for luls.
I do care what the opposing side has to say, so long as they are operating with intellectual integrity (read: feelings and preconceptions are irrelevant)
>I have answered the doc
And I thank you for it
>You dont seem to respond to them
Not in order, no
>you zero in on my beliefs
The preexisting bias IS the most onerous,....
>discrediting me as a presenter
Uh, Im not the one who presented you as a CREDIBLE prese ter, so,... ur bad
>take down my arguments
Isnt that what Ive been doing?
>you must believe in flat earth cuz u keep on
Is one to assume I believe in orthodoxy since I keep bothering (you)?
>And why do you keep saying “feel free to ignore”?
Because I know you will. Im granting you largesse to do as you will. I am a humble God. lol, that was just to twist ur knickers
>’m going to assume it isn’t because I was convincing, but rather perhaps it comes from the act of arguing against your position itself
You're welcome to whatever interpretation is favorable. Not that you needed my blessings, what with your,... you know.
>be straightforward
But that's simply no fun! I much prefer to dance cires around what my i terlocutor thinks I'm arguing, to better vrt them to candidly say things they wouldnt otherwise admit! Come on now, this isnt your first rodeo
>I’m not calling you names, I’m stating what you are doing.
Okay, let's see then
>You once again have ignored every statement I have made
What are you, a tranny? Do I have to affirm everything for you to feel safe?
>why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it?
Silly, its so you display to the audience.
>If that was an issue, why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it?
Well, at the time I toom you as credibke. At the time, my request/prompt was sincere. As the exchange dragged on, it became for luls.
I do care what the opposing side has to say, so long as they are operating with intellectual integrity (read: feelings and preconceptions are irrelevant)
>I have answered the doc
And I thank you for it
>You dont seem to respond to them
Not in order, no
>you zero in on my beliefs
The preexisting bias IS the most onerous,....
>discrediting me as a presenter
Uh, Im not the one who presented you as a CREDIBLE prese ter, so,... ur bad
>take down my arguments
Isnt that what Ive been doing?
>you must believe in flat earth cuz u keep on
Is one to assume I believe in orthodoxy since I keep bothering (you)?
>And why do you keep saying “feel free to ignore”?
Because I know you will. Im granting you largesse to do as you will. I am a humble God. lol, that was just to twist ur knickers
>’m going to assume it isn’t because I was convincing, but rather perhaps it comes from the act of arguing against your position itself
You're welcome to whatever interpretation is favorable. Not that you needed my blessings, what with your,... you know.
>be straightforward
But that's simply no fun! I much prefer to dance cires around what my i terlocutor thinks I'm arguing, to better vrt them to candidly say things they wouldnt otherwise admit! Come on now, this isnt your first rodeo
>>5643
Theme of your post:
https://youtu.be/VlUnqTP4ltY
>do I need to affirm everything
You need to address arguments if you hope to impress the viewer as you admit
>it’s so you display your the audience
Perhaps I’m just too naive, but I recall avoiding critical arguments to be the mark of someone that can’t face the truth and has to play off of charisma to attempt to win. Consistently playing saying I’m not worth talking to doesnt so much in the charisma department for me. Maybe I’m just not seeing the grand strategy.
Meanwhile, I actually care for the debate. If anyone enjoys the argument in the meanwhile, that is a bonus. I’m not playing for the vindication of others.
>at the time I took you as credible
You say that often I have noticed. You tend to default on the same question as well of will you renounce the Bible to justify cutting me out whenever you feel like it. How about you confront me despite my values?
>intellectual integrity
I am fairly certain I have displayed my fair share of that by addressing each of your points without devolving to lambasting you for your own beliefs nor will I ignore you unless you are just giving me the go around and don’t have any intentions on discussing with me.
>not in order
Or at all apparently. I am still waiting on how the examples I gave are not first person or how third person exclusively proves there was no eye witness testimony written.
>I’m not presenting you as credible
Let’s take another quote.
“ Well, at the time I toom you as credibke.”
You took me as credible. You in fact did implicitly give me credibility in interacting with me and then you are attempting to say I am lying and deceiving in my debate.
>the preexisting bias
Isn’t that the point of me honestly addressing that from the opening of the OP?
>isn’t that what I’ve been doing
Dodgeball isn’t debate. My arguments stand as you have not questioned any of them, only my intent.
>I know you will
Only if you give up actually trying. I have to work on my project and hobbies. You playing games won’t make it get done any faster.
>I am granting you
Cool.
>whatever interpretation is favorable
I prefer the one that is true. I don’t like taking whatever and making it whatever I want it to be.
>simply no fun
>illegible text
>what they wouldn’t otherwise admit
I admit freely to whatever is asked. You should know me well enough to know that. It isn’t really a game to get me to say what is on my mind. I will state it plain. I believe the Bible to be infallible. Should that end your interest in serious discussion, then I’ll see you around. Otherwise, you are spinning your wheels trying to manipulate someone that you can simply ask and it will be done.
Theme of your post:
https://youtu.be/VlUnqTP4ltY
>do I need to affirm everything
You need to address arguments if you hope to impress the viewer as you admit
>it’s so you display your the audience
Perhaps I’m just too naive, but I recall avoiding critical arguments to be the mark of someone that can’t face the truth and has to play off of charisma to attempt to win. Consistently playing saying I’m not worth talking to doesnt so much in the charisma department for me. Maybe I’m just not seeing the grand strategy.
Meanwhile, I actually care for the debate. If anyone enjoys the argument in the meanwhile, that is a bonus. I’m not playing for the vindication of others.
>at the time I took you as credible
You say that often I have noticed. You tend to default on the same question as well of will you renounce the Bible to justify cutting me out whenever you feel like it. How about you confront me despite my values?
>intellectual integrity
I am fairly certain I have displayed my fair share of that by addressing each of your points without devolving to lambasting you for your own beliefs nor will I ignore you unless you are just giving me the go around and don’t have any intentions on discussing with me.
>not in order
Or at all apparently. I am still waiting on how the examples I gave are not first person or how third person exclusively proves there was no eye witness testimony written.
>I’m not presenting you as credible
Let’s take another quote.
“ Well, at the time I toom you as credibke.”
You took me as credible. You in fact did implicitly give me credibility in interacting with me and then you are attempting to say I am lying and deceiving in my debate.
>the preexisting bias
Isn’t that the point of me honestly addressing that from the opening of the OP?
>isn’t that what I’ve been doing
Dodgeball isn’t debate. My arguments stand as you have not questioned any of them, only my intent.
>I know you will
Only if you give up actually trying. I have to work on my project and hobbies. You playing games won’t make it get done any faster.
>I am granting you
Cool.
>whatever interpretation is favorable
I prefer the one that is true. I don’t like taking whatever and making it whatever I want it to be.
>simply no fun
>illegible text
>what they wouldn’t otherwise admit
I admit freely to whatever is asked. You should know me well enough to know that. It isn’t really a game to get me to say what is on my mind. I will state it plain. I believe the Bible to be infallible. Should that end your interest in serious discussion, then I’ll see you around. Otherwise, you are spinning your wheels trying to manipulate someone that you can simply ask and it will be done.
>>5644
Circles, Interlocutor, and get. Sorry. my mind can connect these things, so i dont bother to correct them.
> I don’t like taking whatever and making it whatever I want it to be.
Lol, keep ttwlling yourself that. Pack that in next to
>I admit freely to whatever is asked. You should know me well enough to know that.
Cuz goodie-boy Stix dont NEVER lie and deceive for his own (I kid, 'other anon's') benefit.
Liar.
Circles, Interlocutor, and get. Sorry. my mind can connect these things, so i dont bother to correct them.
> I don’t like taking whatever and making it whatever I want it to be.
Lol, keep ttwlling yourself that. Pack that in next to
>I admit freely to whatever is asked. You should know me well enough to know that.
Cuz goodie-boy Stix dont NEVER lie and deceive for his own (I kid, 'other anon's') benefit.
Liar.
Why can't we have a civil thread without these asinine morons arguing about obscure interpretations of things? Can't we just talk about what the Bible actually says in written words here?
File (): D7331E7027ED3C5B9217C997FAF15D62-4595648.mp4 (4.4 MB, Resolution:270x480 Length:00:03:04, Amen, brother.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>5645
Well, at least you are being straightforward now with me. You are upset at me personally.
Well, I apologize for making you upset. Lying is wrong and I deserve what I get for it. If you are willing, I am open to make amends for previous actions.
>>5647
It appears there are obstacles that need to be overcome first. Civility is being worked towards I think. Patience and we will be back on topic soon. Not like much was happening before today anyway.
>>5648
Not the best time for a random clip. Thanks for having interest in the thread though anon.
Well, at least you are being straightforward now with me. You are upset at me personally.
Well, I apologize for making you upset. Lying is wrong and I deserve what I get for it. If you are willing, I am open to make amends for previous actions.
>>5647
It appears there are obstacles that need to be overcome first. Civility is being worked towards I think. Patience and we will be back on topic soon. Not like much was happening before today anyway.
>>5648
Not the best time for a random clip. Thanks for having interest in the thread though anon.
>>5649
I just want to study the scripture and ask the occasional question about syntax and verbage. All of this extraneous schizo stuff isn't helpful.
The title of this thread is misleading. Is this the Bible study thread, or is it Christianity-and-all-adjacent-religious-dogma general.
I just want to study the scripture and ask the occasional question about syntax and verbage. All of this extraneous schizo stuff isn't helpful.
The title of this thread is misleading. Is this the Bible study thread, or is it Christianity-and-all-adjacent-religious-dogma general.
>>5650
Have you ever asked such a question anon? I have tried a little exploration of Revelation and no such interaction has come for months. And yes, Christian doctrine is kind of included in Bible study as
II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It’s going to come up, especially when the Bible itself is questioned to be even worth study. If you want a specific topic, please do introduce it to get back on track to how you want the thread to go.
Have you ever asked such a question anon? I have tried a little exploration of Revelation and no such interaction has come for months. And yes, Christian doctrine is kind of included in Bible study as
II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It’s going to come up, especially when the Bible itself is questioned to be even worth study. If you want a specific topic, please do introduce it to get back on track to how you want the thread to go.
File (): 20AB94A83A2A00EF61B71698DA8B415D-214396.jpg (209.4 KB, 1920x1080, 39577a4a0c9416b0434c546c0caf7277.JPG)
April 23, 2022
Debate Hosted by Killstream -
>Is Christianity a Hoax? "Is Christianity a Jewish Ploy?" - Adam Green Vs. Dr. E. Michael Jones
https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1/emj-debate-720:4
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qG8VGY7S06mF/
I didn't watch it yet, but Michael Jones didn't re-post it in his channel. I wonder why.
Debate Hosted by Killstream -
>Is Christianity a Hoax? "Is Christianity a Jewish Ploy?" - Adam Green Vs. Dr. E. Michael Jones
https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1/emj-debate-720:4
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qG8VGY7S06mF/
I didn't watch it yet, but Michael Jones didn't re-post it in his channel. I wonder why.
>>5655
While waiting for OP's take, there was a snippet early on that Im sure plenty could take umbrage with, paraphrasing:
>"... unifying the jewish tradition of faith with the Greek tradition of reason, which forms the basis of Catholicism, and Catholicism is the onky true form of Christianity that exists in the world today." - E. Michael Jones @13:00-14:00
While waiting for OP's take, there was a snippet early on that Im sure plenty could take umbrage with, paraphrasing:
>"... unifying the jewish tradition of faith with the Greek tradition of reason, which forms the basis of Catholicism, and Catholicism is the onky true form of Christianity that exists in the world today." - E. Michael Jones @13:00-14:00
>>5655
>A Neo Pagan Larper Vs a Cathlocuck Who Denys Race and the JQ on a revenge pornographers dying internet show hosted on a gay mexican catboy lovers' federally backed website
I'll pass, catholics should be burned at the stake.
>A Neo Pagan Larper Vs a Cathlocuck Who Denys Race and the JQ on a revenge pornographers dying internet show hosted on a gay mexican catboy lovers' federally backed website
I'll pass, catholics should be burned at the stake.
https://youtu.be/dKShBLRixR8
Bart Ehrman vs. Jimmy Akin (? catholic) on the reliability of the new testament as a historical document
Bart Ehrman vs. Jimmy Akin (? catholic) on the reliability of the new testament as a historical document
File (): E394E915AB09973432536158DA237F61-83274.jpg (81.3 KB, 624x775, img_6740-624x775.jpg)
I have a dilemma.
Should I post videos talking about freemasons and satanists subverting Christianity and The Bible in this bread, or should I create a new one?
Given the matter is broad and may require many videos and additional posts, I think is better to listen to the poners' opinion.
Should I post videos talking about freemasons and satanists subverting Christianity and The Bible in this bread, or should I create a new one?
Given the matter is broad and may require many videos and additional posts, I think is better to listen to the poners' opinion.
>>5687
Honest question: is it actual evidence and veritas, or is it rhetoric, conjectural, and spurious? Nothing like the flat earth thread, one hopes
Honest question: is it actual evidence and veritas, or is it rhetoric, conjectural, and spurious? Nothing like the flat earth thread, one hopes
File (): 57956B10348FFE2799CFE60F5752B787-56594.jpg (55.3 KB, 1280x720, 62Hok9BkYcY.jpeg)
>>5688
>Maybe I’ll discuss what can be derived from the Bible out of it.
I think there is plenty.
>>5689
>Honest question: is it actual evidence and veritas, or is it rhetoric, conjectural, and spurious?
Let's find out.
>An Inconvenient History - (1:53:46 long)
>The history and ideology of the occult societies that have been behind the events that have shaped our world and how they all stem from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I ask you to approach the information from a non-emotional point of view and understand that my goal is to share truth, not criticism.
https://odysee.com/@probablyalexandra:6/an-inconvenient-history:b
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/C3f0DV9TmBxe/
>Maybe I’ll discuss what can be derived from the Bible out of it.
I think there is plenty.
>>5689
>Honest question: is it actual evidence and veritas, or is it rhetoric, conjectural, and spurious?
Let's find out.
>An Inconvenient History - (1:53:46 long)
>The history and ideology of the occult societies that have been behind the events that have shaped our world and how they all stem from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I ask you to approach the information from a non-emotional point of view and understand that my goal is to share truth, not criticism.
https://odysee.com/@probablyalexandra:6/an-inconvenient-history:b
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/C3f0DV9TmBxe/
File (): 3FD98CF9AE1755C6D56A9C9BB76E066B-1206386.mp4 (1.2 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:00:39, An Inconvenient History_EDIT.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>5693
Not bad, she certainly did her homework and the overwhelming majority is agreeably consistent.
However, it's too early to give her a pass. She likes to build foundations of well-established concept, but sprinkle them with loose or unsubstantiated claims before returning to her foundation. Not saying she's wrong, just that one might find themselves saying "Wait, what? How do you go from here to there? No, go back, how did you... Oh ffs".
Not a formal critique, but an observation.
As a cursory criticism, its funny that she avoids naming "Neuro-linguistic programming" being that she employs it at interval (assumed she doesnt, only watched 1/2).
She is MOSTLY spot on, but does make a few mistakes that are common, such as not affiliating the old testament with Judaism,... not sure how one neglects that credibly.
Not bad, she certainly did her homework and the overwhelming majority is agreeably consistent.
However, it's too early to give her a pass. She likes to build foundations of well-established concept, but sprinkle them with loose or unsubstantiated claims before returning to her foundation. Not saying she's wrong, just that one might find themselves saying "Wait, what? How do you go from here to there? No, go back, how did you... Oh ffs".
Not a formal critique, but an observation.
As a cursory criticism, its funny that she avoids naming "Neuro-linguistic programming" being that she employs it at interval (assumed she doesnt, only watched 1/2).
She is MOSTLY spot on, but does make a few mistakes that are common, such as not affiliating the old testament with Judaism,... not sure how one neglects that credibly.
File (): 100B432ED4071914946177BDA38B776D-105768.jpg (103.3 KB, 1024x1024, CXqYvxFWYAAgZHk.jpg)
>>5695
Elaborating a bit. I do not think constipated speech is anything else but an aesthetical addition for public speech. Certainly not a mind control technique.
Elaborating a bit. I do not think constipated speech is anything else but an aesthetical addition for public speech. Certainly not a mind control technique.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-500] [501-550] [551-567] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
567 replies | 215 files | 128 UUIDs | Page 2