Creationist Scientists?

"No the burden is not on me. I just pointed out that you have no evidence to justify your beliefs. As I said I have no beliefs you do."

Your argument style is idiotic. If you make the claim, you prove it's validity. It's not my responsibility to come up with the proofs. I'm sorry, but as you get into more of these you'll learn that the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim, which is you in this case.

"You stated they were middle age and had jobs. I assumed you had evidence to make this statement."

I used the same deduction process that you did. If you say it's not true, then you lose all credibility on your last few posts, because I'm doing the same thing you are.

"Well , that is when the earliest gospels can be dated.You can't have it both ways."

I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'm going to ignore that.

"I really don't think it that far of a stretch to assume they would use their common language first in order to communicate."

Unless they were communicating to Greeks.

In Canada we speak English first, French second. My Dad speaks English and Ukranian. Under your logic, he should speak French because that's the next language to learn, but he doesn't. Sorry, but you'll have to accept that fact that some people are multilingual.

"Can you find anyone that says that Jesus and the apostles spoke Greek? I can find many biblical scholars that say the same thing, Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic."

Show me. I've seen examples of Paul speaking Aramaic....but he spoke Greek too I believe....

RedClaw/JJ
What Would Jesus Do?
Member of -=DoS-United=-

"StarCraft is fun" - me

Author	Comment
RedClaw Posts: 1501 (9/18/02 2:57 pm) Reply	Re: creationists That's ok. You can keep imagining that it's not real.... RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 379 (9/20/02 3:38 pm) Reply	creationists Red "That's ok. You can keep imagining that it's not real...." NO, that is your hobby. You don't have any evidence for what you believe. When someone presents some evidence that is reliable then I will take another look. The only evidence that exists for Jesus come from the gospels of Matthew,Mark Luke and John and we know nothing of THEM. On top of that these gospels don't even claim to be the gospel "OF" but rather the gospel "ACCORDING TO". No human knows who wrote a single line of these works.There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died.//// Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles.//// We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D. " Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon." The fact that we have discussed before is that the earliest gospels were written in Greek proves that they were not written by Christs apostles or by any of the early Christians. So the bottom line is this ,we have, foreign gospels ,written by unknown persons , in a foreign tongue , several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts, this is the evidence that is relied on to prove that Jesus lived.
RedClaw Posts: 1504 (9/20/02 7:32 pm) Reply	Re: creationists "You don't have any evidence for what you believe." Yes I do. "On top of that these gospels don't even claim to be the gospel "OF" but rather the gospel "ACCORDING TO" So? "No human knows who wrote a single line of these works." I've narrowed it down to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. "There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died.//// Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles." Uh-huh "We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible." Right..... "The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D." Can't have been any earlier I guess. Considering the fact that we've discovered every single historical artifact in the world's history, including the missing links within evolution....and my favorite, pro-avis. "How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived?" You hang on this detail pretty well.... "The fact that we have discussed before is that the earliest gospels were written in Greek proves that they were not written by Christs apostles or by any of the early Christians." Because, in ancient times, there was no such thing as a multilingual human being...and we all know this to be true and therefore it proves that the Bible is not accurate because it was impossible for Jewish people to learn Greek and write to a Greek audience in their native langauge.... RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 387 (9/20/02 8:49 pm) Reply	creationists Red "You don't have any evidence for what you believe."Nu "Yes I do." Where is it? "On top of that these gospels don't even claim to be the gospel "OF" but rather the gospel "ACCORDING TO"NU "So?" The answer is just below , you must have missed it. "No human knows who wrote a single line of these works."NU "I've narrowed it down to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively." Go back up to the part that says the "Gospel according to" this is not the Gospel OF/ big difference here. "There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died.//// Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles."nu "Uh-huh" YEP "We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible." "Right..... Find a complete gospel earlier than this and let us know. "The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D." "Can't have been any earlier I guess. Considering the fact that we've discovered every single historical artifact in the world's history, including the missing links within evolution....and my favorite, pro-avis." Well , until we find YOUR missing link we have to be content that the evidence remains MISSING and therefor nonexistant. There is no reason to believe it exists and anything more is just wishfull thinking. Back to proavis again? Have you talked to anyone about this problem? "How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived?" Nu "You hang on this detail pretty well...." It is very significant. If historical evidence is lacking do we have history or storytelling? "The fact that we have discussed before is that the earliest gospels were written in Greek proves that they were not written by Christs apostles or by any of the early Christians."nu "Because, in ancient times, there was no such thing as a multilingual human being...and we all know this to be true and therefore it proves that the Bible is not accurate because it was impossible for Jewish people to learn Greek and write to a Greek audience in their native langauge...." Yea, you want us to believe that the apostles were walking with Jesus writing down all the important events while at the same time learning Greek so they could convert them first.The apostles and Jesus spoke and wrote Aramaic.Jesus had to know Hebrew because in Luke 4:16-30 Jesus read the Scroll of the Law from the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue and this was certainly in Hebrew.The first correspondence would have been Aramaic. This is not very hard to understand. The Greek translations came later or should I say fictions? Why not learn Egyptian? Why not Latin, it was just as popular as Greek?(not very,these two languages were spoken BY A SMALL GROUP of persons found in State administrations and education)They couldnt get the Jews to accept Jesus what in your wildest imagination would make you think that the apostles would want to win over the Greeks first? Your reasoning for defending your beliefs remind me of the physics that continue to throw down cards all time claiming they knew which one was next.
RedClaw Posts: 1511 (9/20/02 10:06 pm) Reply	Re: creationists "Where is it?" Ask Nukes... "The answer is just below , you must have missed it." "According to" normally indicates it's them... "Find a complete gospel earlier than this and let us know." I found a penny on the floor the other day.... "Back to proavis again? Have you talked to anyone about this problem?" I bring up pro-avis so much because it creates problems for the foundation of your argument. "It is very significant. If historical evidence is lacking do we have history or storytelling?" This question was answered, that was my point. "Yea, you want us to believe that the apostles were walking with Jesus writing down all the important events while at the same time learning Greek so they could convert them first." These were middle aged men. I'm sure they learned SOMETHING in school.... "The Greek translations came later or should I say fictions? Why not learn Egyptian? Why not Latin, it was just as popular as Greek?(not very,these two languages were spoken BY A SMALL GROUP of persons found in State administrations and education)" Why not do this? Why not do that? RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 393 (9/21/02 6:16 am) Reply	creationists Red "Where is it?"NU (in response to questionable evidence) "Ask Nukes...' Stop using Nukes as a crutch. "The answer is just below , you must have missed it." "According to" normally indicates it's them..." No it doesn't. At best it indicates they are writing on their behalf. It in no way indicates the the name of the gospel is written by the name in question. "Yea, you want us to believe that the apostles were walking with Jesus writing down all the important events while at the same time learning Greek so they could convert them first."NU "These were middle aged men. I'm sure they learned SOMETHING in school...." Were you there? How do you know they were middle aged men? If you are right then it is even more skeptical that these guys did any writing a hundred years later.They were nearing the end of their normal life span.I wonder what courses they took in high school anyway? It couldn't have been the public school system with all this education they had. "The Greek translations came later or should I say fictions? Why not learn Egyptian? Why not Latin, it was just as popular as Greek?(not very,these two languages were spoken BY A SMALL GROUP of persons found in State administrations and education)"NU "Why not do this? Why not do that? " Why not go back and read what is in ( ) and tell me if you think your argument is still valid.
RedClaw Posts: 1517 (9/21/02 8:53 am) Reply	Re: creationists "Stop using Nukes as a crutch." But it's so convenient! "No it doesn't. At best it indicates they are writing on their behalf. It in no way indicates the the name of the gospel is written by the name in question." Yes it does.... "Were you there?" Oh give me a break man! Were you there during WWII? Did you land on the beaches on June 6th 1944? No? I didn't think so either? How do you know it happened? Maybe D-Day is just a big government conspiracy! Get real man, you can't use the "you weren't there so you can't be sure it's true" argument in matters of history. "How do you know they were middle aged men?" How old do you think they were? They had jobs, so it's obvious that they had to be of an appropriate age to do so. "If you are right then it is even more skeptical that these guys did any writing a hundred years later." That's because they didn't. Only you and other people who ignore Nukes think like that. "It couldn't have been the public school system with all this education they had." How many people actually are interested in travelling or learning another language? If it wasn't in school it could have been by other means. An argument based upon unproven speculation is not going to win this debate for you, I hope you realize that. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me Edited by: RedClaw at: 9/21/02 9:01:30 am
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 396 (9/21/02 9:05 am) Reply	creationists RED Stop using Nukes as a crutch."NU "But it's so convenient!" I know , but try harder. "Were you there?"NU "Oh give me a break man! Were you there during WWII? Did you land on the beaches on June 6th 1944? No? I didn't think so either? How do you know it happened? Maybe D-Day is just a big government conspiracy! Get "real man, you can't use the "you weren't they so "you can't be sure it's true" argument in matters of history." NO but I'm not the one making claims without evidence in order to justify my beliefs. "How do you know they were middle aged men?"nu "How old do you think they were? They had jobs, so it's obvious that they had to be of an appropriate age to do so." I asked first on their age. What kind of jobs did they have? I wonder if they were covered under a collective bargaining agreement. "If you are right then it is even more skeptical that these guys did any writing a hundred years later."nu "hat's because they didn't. Only you and other people who ignore Nukes think like that.' Finally we have agreement. The original apostles DID NOT DO THE ORIGINAL WRITING. Therefore what we have later is SECOND HAND. "ow many people actually are interested in travelling or learning another language? If it wasn't in school it could have been by other means. An argument based upon unproven speculation is not going to win this debate for you, I hope you realize that." I haven't made the claim for bilingualism, you did. You have absolutely no evidence for this claim. You use it to make your beliefs fit your preconcieved ideas of reality.
RedClaw Posts: 1521 (9/21/02 2:08 pm) Reply	Re: creationists "NO but I'm not the one making claims without evidence in order to justify my beliefs." You started this, so you made the claims. The burden of proof is on you and you have failed to provide compelling evidence. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is not always on the theist. "I asked first on their age. What kind of jobs did they have? I wonder if they were covered under a collective bargaining agreement." I'm not going to answer that. You claim to have read the Bible several times, so you should be able to answer a basic question like that yourself. "Finally we have agreement. The original apostles DID NOT DO THE ORIGINAL WRITING. Therefore what we have later is SECOND HAND." I never said that they didn't write them, I said they didn't write them over a hundred years after the death of Christ. "I haven't made the claim for bilingualism, you did. You have absolutely no evidence for this claim. You use it to make your beliefs fit your preconcieved ideas of reality." The only evidence you provided is speculation at best. In your own words, "that wouldn't hold up in a court of law". RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 400 (9/21/02 3:19 pm) Reply	creationists Red -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "NO but I'm not the one making claims without evidence in order to justify my beliefs."NU "You started this, so you made the claims. The burden of proof is on you and you have failed to provide compelling evidence. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is not always on the theist." No the burden is not on me. I just pointed out that you have no evidence to justify your beliefs. As I said I have no beliefs you do. "I asked first on their age. What kind of jobs did they have? I wonder if they were covered under a collective bargaining agreement."NU "I'm not going to answer that. You claim to have read the Bible several times, so you should be able to answer a basic question like that yourself." You stated they were middle age and had jobs. I assumed you had evidence to make this statement. "Finally we have agreement. The original apostles DID NOT DO THE ORIGINAL WRITING. Therefore what we have later is SECOND HAND." "I never said that they didn't write them, I said they didn't write them over a hundred years after the death of Christ." Well , that is when the earliest gospels can be dated.You can't have it both ways. "I haven't made the claim for bilingualism, you did. You have absolutely no evidence for this claim. You use it to make your beliefs fit your preconcieved ideas of reality." "The only evidence you provided is speculation at best. In your own words, "that wouldn't hold up in a court of law". No its not speculation. Jesus and the apostles spoke and wrote Aramaic. It was the main language of the area in which they lived. The second main language was Hebrew. I really don't think it that far of a stretch to assume they would use their common language first in order to communicate. "The only evidence you provided is speculation at best. In your own words, "that wouldn't hold up in a court of law". Can you find anyone that says that Jesus and the apostles spoke Greek? I can find many biblical scholars that say the same thing, Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic.
RedClaw Posts: 1525 (9/21/02 11:51 pm) Reply	Re: creationists "No the burden is not on me. I just pointed out that you have no evidence to justify your beliefs. As I said I have no beliefs you do." Your argument style is idiotic. If you make the claim, you prove it's validity. It's not my responsibility to come up with the proofs. I'm sorry, but as you get into more of these you'll learn that the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim, which is you in this case. "You stated they were middle age and had jobs. I assumed you had evidence to make this statement." I used the same deduction process that you did. If you say it's not true, then you lose all credibility on your last few posts, because I'm doing the same thing you are. "Well , that is when the earliest gospels can be dated.You can't have it both ways." I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'm going to ignore that. "I really don't think it that far of a stretch to assume they would use their common language first in order to communicate." Unless they were communicating to Greeks. In Canada we speak English first, French second. My Dad speaks English and Ukranian. Under your logic, he should speak French because that's the next language to learn, but he doesn't. Sorry, but you'll have to accept that fact that some people are multilingual. "Can you find anyone that says that Jesus and the apostles spoke Greek? I can find many biblical scholars that say the same thing, Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic." Show me. I've seen examples of Paul speaking Aramaic....but he spoke Greek too I believe.... RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
YHVH is my Light Private Posts: 1 (4/27/03 4:25 pm) Reply	. Creation scientists are not as dumb as they seem. Restoration of Truth

The Faithful Knights of Christ > Christian Discussion > Creationist Scientists?
Page 1 2 3	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>