Debate Topic - Is the bible and biblical characters historical?

Truthspoon

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
151
Reaction score
19
Points
18
The name ouroboros (or, in Latinized form, uroborus) is Greek οὐροβóρος, "tail-devourer". The depiction of the serpent is believed to have been inspired by the Milky Way, as some ancient texts refer to a serpent of light residing in the heavens.

Which ancient texts?
 

Truthspoon

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
151
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Adam, Eve, and the (female) Serpent at the entrance to Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Medieval Christian art often depicted the Edenic Serpent as a woman, thus both emphasizing the Serpent's seductiveness as well as its relationship to Eve. (This connection might be due do the influence of Lilith, as well.) Several early Church Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, interpreted the Hebrew "Heva" as not only the name of Eve, but in its aspirated form as "female serpent".

NO. Nothing to do with female serpents. Utter nonsense.

Eve comes from the Semitic HAWA or HAVA which means 'breath of life'.

You see, someone like me who has a passing knowledge of ancient language, history and etymology can quickly and easily debunk your bullshit.
 

Wikkiidd

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
96
Reaction score
18
Points
8
The anti Christ folk dismiss the bible yet take the Fallen Ones text of history as facts. Never tapped into the occult, have ya now? And the current state of world affairs? This new normal have you taking that DNA defiling jab? C'mon, ya use the same troll tactic of 'have you seen God"? My question: do you feel anything other than want & bowel movement? A booze buzz? Just watch those movies & football. You shall soon have a knock at the door. PAPERS! JAB or git on the truck. Hell yes, you will know who blind your spirt has been. The Chabad/Catholic gangs sure have a lot of power from someone. The devil you say....................
 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
G'day Truthspoon.

Are you drunk?

Or are you simply triggered?

Surely when you claim superiority of intellect you could quote the post and address each point instead of making multiple posts (10 in total) minutes apart, instead of failing to respond to the questions asked in a previous post (quoted below), as well as failing to present any verifiable evidence for the claims you made that are the debate topic and were quoted in the OP.

------------

G'day Truthspoon.

Again, the above is from the OP and is the thread topic.

What you have posted in your previous reply is off topic and irrelevant.

Do you have no comprehension of what a debate is?

Is that why you fail to address the information presented and fail to answer questions that are asked?

Is that why you have failed to present any verifiable evidence for the claims that you have made quoted in the OP?

On numerous occasions I have asked you the following four questions ...

Why do you not believe in all of the other 'Gods'?

Or do you?

What evidence for the existence of all the other 'Gods' "would you find acceptable"?

Would it be verifiable evidence?

... and you failed to answer them every single time that they have been asked. These are only four of the questions that you fail to answer out of numerous others.

If you are unwilling to present any verifiable evidence for your claims and you are unwilling to answer questions that I ask, what is your point for posting on this thread?

Are you willing to withdraw the claims that you have made?
 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
G'day Truthspoon.

Today at 12:02 AM
Today at 12:05 AM
Today at 12:09 AM
Today at 12:12 AM
Today at 12:20 AM
Today at 12:21 AM
Today at 12:23 AM
Today at 12:29 AM
Today at 12:33 AM
Today at 12:37 AM

Above are the times that you made your 10 posts, which are between 1 minute and 8 minutes apart; 1 x 1 minute; 1 x 2 minutes; 2 x 3 minutes; 3 x 4 minutes; 1 x 6 minutes; 1 x 8 minutes ... = triggered.

The posts that you made are unsupported denials without references, as well as ad hominem logical fallacies.

Your claims of intellectual superiority persist, which it is well known that a superiority complex is a cover for an inferiority complex. This means that you posts are an attempt to attack the character of Who I Am in the vain attempt to elevate yourself out of your self-judgement of inferiority into a self-idolised position of superiority. In doing so, you simply project your own issues onto the individual that you attack, in this case Who I Am.

This is easily recognised by everyone reading the thread because everyone can see that you have failed to present any verifiable evidence for your claims that the thread topic is about and are quoted in the OP, as well as your failure to respond directly to questions that have been asked of you.

Debate Forum Intro and Rules

.....
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.
.....
9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).


The above is from the Debating Christianity and Religion forum, which is run by Otseng, a christian. Funny enough, it is christians that get banned way more than non-theists, atheists, agnostics. Personally, I believe that the issue is that the vast majority of christians spend their time in a 'mutual admiration club' where they are unchallenged in their opinions and then, when they 'step outside' the 'holy huddle' (which is actually a sub-forum on DC&R) of their 'mutual admiration club' they are unprepared for the challenges raised by those outside of their 'mutual admiration club'. In essence, they go from a 'back-slapping' environment to an environment that challenges the shibboleths that they hold dear, no matter how ridiculous those shibboleths are. In such a 'new' environment they react by having a 'temper tantrum' in which they show to one and all how completely immature they are and how little discernment that they possess.

You, Truthspoon, show the above described characteristics, as evidenced by your posts on this thread. :thumbup:
 

Truthspoon

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
151
Reaction score
19
Points
18
What you interpret as being 'drunk' or 'triggered' is actually intelligence.

I read your posts and reply to each 'point' you made one by one in separate post.

And because I know my facts I can do it more or less instantly........

You see? Novel concept for you to meet someone who knows things.....and can reply off the cuff instead of reaching down into some back yard outhouse shithouse of nonsense from the 19th century which is what you do.......

How about you start acting more like a man and less like a pussy?

Then maybe we can be something like friends and equals....

I can't stand men with the mind of women though.....get out of that faggot mindset please.
 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
G'day Truthspoon.

Thank you for providing further evidence for what I stated in my previous post. :thumbup:

What you interpret as being 'drunk' or 'triggered' is actually intelligence.

That is not evidenced by the content of the posts.

I read your posts and reply to each 'point' you made one by one in separate post.

No, you didn't. Which is obvious and can be shown by presenting a few points from the thread that you have failed to respond to ...

Post #5
"I suppose I should have started by asking, 'Which bible is claimed by you to be "a historical source"?'.

This link provides plenty to choose from ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations

... or are you claiming that they are all "a historical source"?"

Post #7
"The Genesis creation myth is about the Flower of Life. Draw a circle with a compass and then put the point on the edge of the circle drawn and then draw a second circle. This creates what is known as the Vesica Pisces. Where each edge of the second circle touches the the first circle, use that point to draw another two circles and continue to follow this process. You will find that you have drawn what is known as the Seed of Life (also called the Genesis pattern). The Seed of Life has 6 circles with each centre point resting on the edge of the 1 circle in the centre ... and 'God' created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

Surely you do not believe that an all powerful 'God' that created all of Life would require a rest day?

For what purpose?

For what cause?

The Number 666 has been vilified as 'the Devils number', yet it is inherent within creation itself ...

1. Life on this planet is carbon-based and Carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.

2. The spinning of the Earth on its axis we call 1 day ...
1 day = 24 hours and 2 + 4 = 6
1 hour = 60 minutes and 6 + 0 = 6
1 minute = 60 seconds and 6 + 0 = 6

... and it keeps going (check out the link in my signature Music - Number - Geometry for more)."

Post #16
"You offer no verifiable evidence that any "genuine miracle" occurred.

I simply point out that 'turning water into wine' is a common parlour trick, not a "genuine miracle"."

Post #19
"Are you afraid of the flying spaghetti monster?

If not, is it because you do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Feel free to insert any of the other 'Gods' that you do not believe in into those questions instead of the flying spaghetti monster.

How, in any way, shape or form could you possibly think that anyone would be afraid of something that they do not believe in?

You have a disbelief in thousands of 'Gods' except one. I disbelieve them all. Therefore, you disbelieve one less 'God' than I do.

After all, you didn't state that 'Anubis' was going to judge the weighing of my heart against the feather of 'Ma'at', the 'Goddess' personifying order, truth and what is right.

Are you afraid of being judged by 'Anubis'?

So, please explain how you could possible "suspect" that I have a fear of judgement from what I believe are invisible, imaginary friends for adults (the politically correct term is 'Gods'). It makes no sense and is completely illogical.
.....
By the way, how about you check inside the cover of the bible that you believe out of all the bibles known, then look for the copyright. I guarantee you it isn't 'God', which of course means that it isn't 'the Word of God'.

Or do you have a bible that claims 'God' is the owner of the copyright and therefore actually is 'the Word of God'?"

Post #21
"The 'Raglan Hero Pattern' is presented throughout the first minute and a half (to 1:36 seconds actually).

Out of 22 Hero Patterns

Oedipus = 22
Theseus = 20
Jesus = 19
Romulus = 17
Hercules = 17
Perseus = 16
Zeus = 15
Jason = 15
Robin Hood = 13
Apollo = 11"

Post #30
"Again, the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

By your standards, then all of the other 'Gods' exist, which includes, though is not limited to, Hercules, Zeus, Apollo, Odin, Thor, Osiris, Isis, Horus, Thoth, Ra, Krishna, Buddha, Prometheus, Dionysus, Zoroaster, Mithra, Perseus, Gilgamesh, Enki, Enlil, Nanna (Sin), etc., etc., for all thousands of 'Gods' that have been claimed to exist and have had followers.

Do you believe in any of them?"

Post #32
"Verifiable evidence. :thumbup:

Why do you not believe in all of the other 'Gods'?

Or do you?

What evidence for the existence of all the other 'Gods' "would you find acceptable"?

Would it be verifiable evidence?"

Post #35
"Furthermore, the 'Gospels' were written in Greek, a strange thing for Jewish disciples to do. Surely they would have written in their own language, Hebrew. They were also anonymous, the names were added to them at a later date.

Then there are the contradictions between the 'Gospels', for instance ...

Matthew 1:16 states that Jacob is the father of Joseph.
Luke 3:23 states that Heli is the father of Joseph.

Matthew 2:1 states Jesus was born in the days of Herod.
Luke 2:2-3 states Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Matthew 10:9-10 states acquire no staff.
Luke 9:3-5 states take no staff.
Mark 6:8 states take nothing except a staff.

Matthew 26:57 states Jesus was taken to the High priest.
Mark 14:53 states Jesus was taken to the High priest.
Luke 22:54 states Jesus was taken to the High priest.
John 18:13,24 states they first led him to Annias.

Mark 15:7 states Barabbas had committed murder.
Luke 23:18-19states Barabbas had committed murder.
John 18:40 states Barabbas was a robber.
.....
Now these are the questions that I asked, are you going to answer them?

Why do you not believe in all of the other 'Gods'?

Or do you?

What evidence for the existence of all the other 'Gods' "would you find acceptable"?

Would it be verifiable evidence?"

Post #39
"You haven't answered the questions that I asked ...

Why do you not believe in all of the other 'Gods'?

Or do you?

What evidence for the existence of all the other 'Gods' "would you find acceptable"?

Would it be verifiable evidence?"

Post #44
""ask a question I can actually answer" says it all.

I asked you four simple questions ...

Why do you not believe in all of the other 'Gods'?

Or do you?

What evidence for the existence of all the other 'Gods' "would you find acceptable"?

Would it be verifiable evidence?

... which you refuse to answer for obvious reasons."

Post #46
"I asked you four simple questions ...

Why do you not believe in all of the other 'Gods'?

Or do you?

What evidence for the existence of all the other 'Gods' "would you find acceptable"?

Would it be verifiable evidence?

... which you refuse to answer for obvious reasons.

You continue to refuse answering the above questions, why?"

Post #48
"If you are not Jewish, then why do you follow the Jewish 'God' of 'Abraham and Moses'?"

Post #50
"On numerous occasions I have asked you the following four questions ...

Why do you not believe in all of the other 'Gods'?

Or do you?

What evidence for the existence of all the other 'Gods' "would you find acceptable"?

Would it be verifiable evidence?

... and you failed to answer them every single time that they have been asked. These are only four of the questions that you fail to answer out of numerous others."

And that is a short list of "each 'point'" you have failed to respond to.

And because I know my facts I can do it more or less instantly........

If that was true, then surely you would be able to respond to all of the above points that I have listed that you have failed to respond to. :thumbup:

You see? Novel concept for you to meet someone who knows things.....and can reply off the cuff instead of reaching down into some back yard outhouse shithouse of nonsense from the 19th century which is what you do.......

Yes, I do "see".

EVERYONE "knows things", though this does not make those "things" true. So no, it is not "Novel" in any way, shape or form.

How about you start acting more like a man and less like a pussy?

I prefer to act like the S.O.U.L. (Singularity Of Unique Light) that I am.

Then maybe we can be something like friends and equals....

Each and everyone of us are "equals" because we are each an unique individuated aspect of the totality, All That Is. Said another way, each of us are a Singularity Of Unique Light, S.O.U.L., a microcosm of the macrocosm that is the Source Of Universal Light, S.O.U.L. and thus a fractal representation of the whole.

I can't stand men with the mind of women though.....get out of that faggot mindset please.

That is your own 'cross' to bare and has nothing to do with Who I Am.
 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

By
name.png
- October 20, 2007

Detail from the Arch of Titus showing the sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE​

Introduction​


For most of Christian history the Gospel of Mark has been the least appreciated Gospel and viewed as the least significant. This is partly because the Gospel of Mark is the shortest Gospel, was not viewed as an eyewitness account, contains the least significant theological constructs, lacks any mention of the birth or origin of Jesus, paints the least flattering image of the disciples, and was believed to have been written after the Gospel of Matthew. This all changed, however, in the 18th century when the theory of Markan priority was first proposed. Since that time there has been a growing interest in the Gospel of Mark and its status has changed from being viewed as the least significant Gospel to far and away the most significant Gospel, if not the most significant Christian writing period.

The importance of the Gospel of Mark is elevated all the more not simply because it was certainly written before the others, but indeed because all of the other canonical Gospels are based on it. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are directly based on the Gospel of Mark, and this is now widely accepted among Biblical scholars. Because of this, these three Gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, are collectively known as the Synoptic Gospels.

There is debate, however, as to whether or not the Gospel of John was influenced by the Synoptic Gospels. It was long accepted that it was, even before the Synoptic Problem was outlined, but some apologists have tried to argue that John is a fully independent work, which was not influenced by the Synoptics. This argument has gained favor among Christian apologists in an attempt to strengthen the Gospel tradition by asserting that the Gospels do still contain independent accounts of the life of Jesus, as was believed prior to the outlining of the Synoptic Problem, which showed that, unlike the traditional belief, at least the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were not independent accounts, and thus not eyewitness accounts. I will argue here, however, that the Gospel of John was also influenced by the Synoptic works as well.

Another significant realization of modern scholarship about the Gospel of Mark is that it was written during or shortly after the conquering of Judea and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. That the Gospel of Mark was written during or shortly after the war between the Jews and Romans that spanned from 67 to 73 CE is widely accepted by modern scholars and supported by internal evidence from within the work, based partly on the descriptions of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Mark 13.

What most Biblical scholars have failed to do, however, is fully recognize the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in relation to the Gospel of Mark. Most Biblical scholars simply view the destruction of Jerusalem as a reference point in time in relation to which the Gospel of Mark can be dated, simply an event on a timeline, but few actually put the Gospel of Mark in the context of the Jewish War. This is because most Biblical scholars view all of the Gospels as being "about Jesus". For them Jesus is the subject, Jesus is the impetus, Jesus is the driving factor behind the writing of the Gospels. If you were to ask most Biblical scholars why the Gospels were written the answer would invariably be, "In order to record the life and teachings of Jesus Christ." The Gospel of Mark is viewed no differently than the other Gospels in this regard. Why was the Gospel of Mark written according to Christians? In order to record the life and teaching of Jesus of course...

Well, not so. At least, what I propose and hope to demonstrate is that this is not so. I will demonstrate that the Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the destruction of Jerusalem is not simply an event which can be used to date the writing, but that the destruction of Jerusalem was the impetus for the writing of the Gospel of Mark, that it is central to understanding the Gospel of Mark, and that the narrative of the Gospel of Mark is rooted in symbolism about the destruction of Jerusalem. I will here argue that the author of the Gospel of Mark was writing a fictional story and that the author himself knew that Jesus was not a real person, but rather the author was using Jesus as a fictional character in an intentionally fictional and allegorical narrative.

I hope to demonstrate the following key points:
  • The Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE
  • The Gospel of Mark was written as an allegorical fiction
  • The author of Mark was a Christian follower of a Pauline sect
  • The author of Mark was familiar with the letters of Paul
  • The Gospel of Mark is not based on any prior narratives about Jesus
  • Almost all the scenes in the Gospel of Mark are symbolic and/or literary allusions to the Hebrew scriptures
  • The author of Mark regarded the earlier Jewish oriented Christ movement as a failure

Throughout history many scholars have considered the Gospel of Mark a puzzling, and at times incoherent, work. This is yet another reason why this Gospel was so little regarded for so long, but what I hope to demonstrate here is that confusion over the Gospel of Mark stems from supposing that it is something which it is not, and that once you realize that the Gospel of Mark was not written as a foundational religious document at all, but that it was written as an allegorical story to portray the Judean Jews and the early Christian apostles as fools who brought destruction upon themselves, then the work makes perfect sense.

As a story that was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem the Gospel of Mark is a story of absurdity and despair. This story of loss, despair, and destruction, was only later transformed into a story of hope and resurrection by the later Gospel writers, and by those who edited the Gospel of Mark and added the portions after Mark 16:8. Indeed, the Gospel of Mark may have been written by a disaffected ex-Christian who viewed the Christian movement in general as a failure. That such a bizarre and disaffected story would have become the basis for the other narratives which portray a life of Jesus (the other Gospels) can only indicate the sheer lack of other biographical material.

Sources and Materials​


The majority of this article and analysis is based simply on the Biblical texts themselves. The primary Bible translation used for this analysis is the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version). As a secondary translation I also use the NIV (New International Version). For the "Old Testament" scriptures I also heavily use the Septuagint, specifically the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). My primary Biblical reference is the Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible.

All Bible quotations presented in this article are from the NRSV unless otherwise specified. In addition, I make use of the translational notes and will often substitute the text from the notes in place of the text that is found within the body of the translation because the notes are often more accurate. What is typically presented in the body is either a more traditional reading (even though such a reading is not supported by the best or earliest manuscripts) or a reading that is altered in order to achieve a certain effect that is intended by the compliers of the translation. For example the NRSV often uses "brothers and sisters" in places where the real texts use only "brothers", or in some places they substitute the word "servant" for "slave", etc. In the quotations I present I use the text that is deemed more likely to be closer to the original based on what the notes say.

Deciding how to make comparisons between passages from the Gospel of Mark and the "Old Testament" can be difficult. This is because nobody knows exactly what translations the author of Mark may have had access to or used. Furthermore, it is impossible to know what variations of the texts could have been in the materials that the author of Mark used. Even, for example, if we know that the author of Mark used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, further variations from our known versions of the texts could have been present. In addition, the author could have used a mix of both Greek and Aramaic or Hebrew translations. We simply don't know, and can't know, the exact wording of the Hebrew scriptures that the author of Mark used, and it has been proposed by several scholars that the author of Mark did use a combination of both Aramaic and Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures.

Most modern English versions of the Old Testament, such as the NRSV and NIV, minimize the use of Greek sources and maximize the use of Hebrew sources in an attempt to construct what is believed to be a "most accurate" version of the "Old Testament" texts. This may be a valid approach for trying to construct what is believed to be an accurate translation of "the word of God", but this is not useful for understanding the texts that the Gospel writers would have been familiar with since they were most likely using the Septuagint.

When comparing the text of Mark to the Old Testament I look first to the Septuagint, because this is most likely closest to the text that the author of Mark would have been using. However, since it is possible that he was also using Hebrew / Aramaic texts, and since we can't know for sure exactly what any of his texts said word-for-word, I do also refer to modern translations that use Hebrew sources, either the NRSV or the NIV. These modern translations use a mix of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin sources for their versions in attempts to use the best existing sources, or on occasion to preserve a specific reading. I quote from the Septuagint in this article only when it is important to the comparison however, primarily just because I have to hand write passages from the Septuagint but I can copy and paste passages from the other sources.

While the objective of this work is to address the entire Gospel of Mark, I do leave a few passage out of my analysis, primarily because these are passages that have little relevance to the story line, are passages in which not much happens, or are passages that simply repeat themes that have already been addressed.

..... continued at ..... http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm
 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
Which Ten
Commandments?
A Reprintable, Royalty-Free Handbill
edited by Cliff Walker
and the late Jyoti Shankar


HTML Version Below!!

Graphic Rule

One of the best-kept secrets in the discussions on the Ten Commandments concerns the fact that (according to the story) Moses smashed the first set of tables in a fit of anger, because the Israelites chose to worship the golden calf. (That this would happen or would be told casts doubt on the whole Exodus tale, but we will not cover that here.)

As the tale goes, Moses smashed the tables of stone, and God said he'd make a new set of tables containing "the words that were on the first" (Exodus 34:1). However, as we see on the second page, the second Ten Commandments in no way resemble the first set. To popularize this knowledge is to knock the wind out of this entire move to place "The" Ten Commandments in our schools.

Positive Atheism encourages readers to print out and distribute the PDF file of the two center pages of our July, 1999, issue, and distribute it far and wide. (If you don't have Adobe Acrobat, you can download it for free. If you don't use Acrobat, the contents are reproduced in HTML 2.0 below.) Although we know that the main premise of theism is flawed, many Americans haven't thought much on these things. Thus, to show biblical discrepancies can, with many people, go further than any discussion of the main premises of theism.

A discrepancy not mentioned is that between the original Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and the recap listed in Deuteronomy 5. Exodus 20 requires keeping the Sabbath because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." But in Deuteronomy, Jews must "remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath [sic] day." Nothing is said about God resting after the six days it took to create the universe.


Graphic Rule


Which Ten Commandments?



Protestant

Catholic

Hebrew
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

King James Bible, issued by the American Bible Society.


Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri, "published with Ecclesiastical approval" and bearing the imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop, New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.


Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1922.


Graphic Rule


Which Ten Commandments?

First Tables of Stone (Exodus 20)
("which Moses didst break")
Second Tables of Stone (Exodus 34)
("the words that were on the first")
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. You shall not kill.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. You shall not steal.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. You shall not covet.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.

Adapted from Microsoft Bookshelf 98


K. Budde, History of Ancient Hebrew Literature


Graphic Rule


Ten Punishments
(Let's post these in the schoolroom!)
1. Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
2. Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
3. Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
4. Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
5. Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
6. Exodus 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
7. Leviticus 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.
8. Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
9. Mark 16:16: He that believeth not, shall be damned.
10. Malachi 2:1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, ... behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

 

Truthspoon

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
151
Reaction score
19
Points
18
"Are you afraid of the flying spaghetti monster?

This is the level of your debate is it?

So you're an atheist huh.........

You're in for a surprise....and it might not be a nice one if you haven't tried to live right.

I have known people dying rogues........ lived their lives selfishly, hurt people...repeatedly....someone in my family in fact, and on their deathbed they saw demons waiting for them......

My nana however, near her death.....she saw all her old pet dogs, and she said, will someone get these dogs off my bed...of course no-one could see them except her. Then she saw her own mother at the door, and my nana went up kicked her away, 'go away, it's not my time yet'.

Fact is there is cause and effect in this world and the next....here it works much more slowly, but in the next world you will be held accountable for what you have done......like attracts like....if you like.....

The flying spaghetti monster you fear is whatever you yourself have created.

Do you have something to fear?

Seems to me you do and you're projecting and you think denying God will save you from yourself.
 

Truthspoon

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
151
Reaction score
19
Points
18
BTW please stop spamming the thread with boring old shit from someone's else's website. I don't read them. I only read your individual little comments.... If you can't explain something in your own words you don't know the facts. So why bother?

This is supposedly a debate between me and you, not me and all the loony Satanic cranks of the internet since day one.
 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
G'day Truthspoon.

"Are you afraid of the flying spaghetti monster?

This is the level of your debate is it?

Quoting out of context in a vain attempt to ridicule to support your self-proclaimed superiority of intellect. How about responding to the whole quote (below) as well as the rest of the quotes/questions from each post that you failed to respond to and are listed in the post you took that one line from.

Post #19
"Are you afraid of the flying spaghetti monster?

If not, is it because you do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Feel free to insert any of the other 'Gods' that you do not believe in into those questions instead of the flying spaghetti monster.

How, in any way, shape or form could you possibly think that anyone would be afraid of something that they do not believe in?

You have a disbelief in thousands of 'Gods' except one. I disbelieve them all. Therefore, you disbelieve one less 'God' than I do.

After all, you didn't state that 'Anubis' was going to judge the weighing of my heart against the feather of 'Ma'at', the 'Goddess' personifying order, truth and what is right.

Are you afraid of being judged by 'Anubis'?

So, please explain how you could possible "suspect" that I have a fear of judgement from what I believe are invisible, imaginary friends for adults (the politically correct term is 'Gods'). It makes no sense and is completely illogical.
.....
By the way, how about you check inside the cover of the bible that you believe out of all the bibles known, then look for the copyright. I guarantee you it isn't 'God', which of course means that it isn't 'the Word of God'.

Or do you have a bible that claims 'God' is the owner of the copyright and therefore actually is 'the Word of God'?"

So you're an atheist huh.........

I am S.O.U.L.

What about that do you not comprehend?

You're in for a surprise....and it might not be a nice one if you haven't tried to live right.

No surprise. Been there, done that ... and no mythological deity showed up.

I have known people dying rogues........ lived their lives selfishly, hurt people...repeatedly....someone in my family in fact, and on their deathbed they saw demons waiting for them......

And how would you know what they "saw"?

My nana however, near her death.....she saw all her old pet dogs, and she said, will someone get these dogs off my bed...of course no-one could see them except her. Then she saw her own mother at the door, and my nana went up kicked her away, 'go away, it's not my time yet'.

And the point for your unverifiable claim is ... ?

Fact is there is cause and effect in this world and the next....here it works much more slowly, but in the next world you will be held accountable for what you have done......like attracts like....if you like.....

Have you been to "the next" world to know that firstly it is there and secondly what is there and how it functions?

The flying spaghetti monster you fear is whatever you yourself have created.

:shemused: "This is the level of your debate is it?" :shemused:

Do you have something to fear?

No. Do you?

Seems to me you do and you're projecting and you think denying God will save you from yourself.

Such are your self-delusions and inability to comprehend reality based in a belief of invisible, imaginary friends for adults.
 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
An Easter Challenge For Christians

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

What time did the women visit the tomb?

* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

* Mark: No (16:13)
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?

* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

* Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone

 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
G'day Truthspoon.

I could answer these points but .....

Considering that you haven't answered "points" throughout this thread, it becomes obvious why you typed "but" after your claim.

The content of your posts continue to show to one and all reading along that you have no verifiable evidence for the claims that this thread topic is about. Instead of posting verifiable evidence, you continue to attack the character of Who I Am, an ad hominem logical fallacy, the last resort of someone that has no evidence to present.

The contents of your posts, such as this one below ...

How about you start acting more like a man and less like a pussy?

.....

I can't stand men with the mind of women though.....get out of that faggot mindset please.

... show you to be misogynistic and homophobic. In essence, the content of your posts condemn you and discredit you far more than anything that I have posted ..... congratulations. :thumbup:

So, "could" you "answer these points" ... yes, of course you "could".

The real question is would any "answer" you provide be logically consistent and coherent?

Exemplified by the history of your posts on this thread it would appear that any "answer" that you provided would be illogical and incoherent. So truly, what would be the point?

After all, it would be better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak up and confirm it. :thumbup:
 
Top