Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

[cuchulain]

19 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Well, I guess I just don't understand how a person can be insulted by a book that they don't even believe is true? Seems ridiculous... What your saying is that you don't believe a word of it, but your highly offended by it.. How can you be insulted by something you deem fictional? I suspect that you just don't like the message, whether its true or not?

 

 

My point was simply that the verse explains that spiritual things are discerned spiritually, whereby those who require natural evidence to prove the existence of God will only be disillusioned by the notion and find it to be a foolish endeavor.  You can't discern spiritual truths via natural investigation, so God cannot be proved or disproved by looking around and trying rationalize how He could exist. 

 

Man is both natural (flesh & blood) and spiritual beings, so no, I don't believe the verse defeats any argument that God cannot be spiritually perceived. Being called by faith demands sight beyond what's visible to the natural man. It only seems like a circular argument because you've blocked yourself from considering anything beyond what you can materialistically comprehend. 'He that hath eyes to see, let him see', is not necessarily referencing a mountain view.

I dont believe that.  If you can prove spirit exists i will reevaluate.

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I'm done here.

 

That's probably for the best, your really not discussing anything anyway.  Your a very crabby man and your hatred of anything Christian is evident. 

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I dont believe that.  If you can prove spirit exists i will reevaluate.

 

Your spirit is the intellect and character of your soul, it exist within yourself.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's probably for the best, your really not discussing anything anyway.  Your a very crabby man and your hatred of anything Christian is evident. 

 

 

I'm amazed.  I didn't think that my opinion of you, could possibly be worse than it already was.  I stand corrected.  Now, I do think even less of you.

 

With a little effort on your part, My opinion of you might drop again.  Care to try?

 

 

 

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I didn't think that my opinion of you, could possibly be worse than it already was.  I stand corrected.  Now, I do think even less of you.

 

You seem to be under the impression that I care about your opinion of me...... I don't.

Your angry retorts just demonstrate that you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

I've noticed that every time you lose a debate/argument, you resort to name calling and insults.  

I understand your frustration, but your remark "I have an even lower opinion of you' is getting redundant.

I haven't responded likewise because I don't need to stoop to childish comments or temper tantrums.

Perhaps that's a notable difference between Christians & Agnostics?

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

You seem to be under the impression that I care about your opinion of me...... I don't.

Your angry retorts just demonstrate that you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

I've noticed that every time you lose a debate/argument, you resort to name calling and insults.  

I understand your frustration, but your remark "I have an even lower opinion of you' is getting redundant.

I haven't responded likewise because I don't need to stoop to childish comments or temper tantrums.

Perhaps that's a notable difference between Christians & Agnostics?

 

 

 

 

 

[mark 45]

🙄

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mark 45 said:

🙄

 

 

 

 

Exactly my point.

 

 

[cuchulain]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 4:21 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Your spirit is the intellect and character of your soul, it exist within yourself.

I don't believe in that.  If you can prove that a soul exists, I will reevaluate that.

[cuchulain]

On 11/27/2018 at 12:53 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Psalm 22 is very specific in describing a crucifixion, which didn't even exist 1000 years prior when David wrote it; "they pierced my hands and my feet" (verse 16). Also consider Psalm 22:18; "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" compared to Mark 15:24; "And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take."  The Psalm not only describes a form of execution that didn't exist at the time it was written, but also accurately articulates the action of the Roman soldiers who gambled for his cloths... How specific is that?

The oldest dated dead sea scrolls, the oldest documents containing the bible at all, have been dated to 480 bce and some(not duplicates, but original text) as late as 318 ce.  So...no.  Not a specific writing over a thousand years prior.  In addition, the original translates 'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion' not 'they pierced my hands and feet'.

 

I took your word for the dating and translation until i heard the dead sea scrolls dated, then looked a few things up myself...i wont take your word again.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The oldest dated dead sea scrolls, the oldest documents containing the bible at all, have been dated to 480 bce and some(not duplicates, but original text) as late as 318 ce.  So...no.  Not a specific writing over a thousand years prior.  In addition, the original translates 'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion' not 'they pierced my hands and feet'.

 

I took your word for the dating and translation until i heard the dead sea scrolls dated, then looked a few things up myself...i wont take your word again.

 

 

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The oldest dated dead sea scrolls, the oldest documents containing the bible at all, have been dated to 480 bce and some(not duplicates, but original text) as late as 318 ce.  So...no.  Not a specific writing over a thousand years prior.  In addition, the original translates 'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion' not 'they pierced my hands and feet'. 

 

I took your word for the dating and translation until i heard the dead sea scrolls dated, then looked a few things up myself...i wont take your word again.

 

I didn't say there was an original 1000 bc manuscript, I wrote that David wrote the 22 Psalm a thousand years before Christ.. King David was the second king of Israel and and reigned approximately 1000BC.. I didn't mention or suggest that the Dead Sea scrolls were that old.

 

As for the alternate translation, I've heard it before, but I believe the KJV is correct. Think about it; "'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion",  does that make any sense at all? How and when have lions ever surrounded hands & feet? https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

I didn't say there was an original 1000 bc manuscript, I wrote that David wrote the 22 Psalm a thousand years before Christ.. King David was the second king of Israel and and reigned approximately 1000BC.. I didn't mention or suggest that the Dead Sea scrolls were that old.

 

As for the alternate translation, I've heard it before, but I believe the KJV is correct. Think about it; "'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion",  does that make any sense at all? How and when have lions ever surrounded hands & feet? https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html

 

 

 

 

Such a shame -- when you can't make Jewish instruments play Christian music.  

[cuchulain]

13 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I didn't say there was an original 1000 bc manuscript, I wrote that David wrote the 22 Psalm a thousand years before Christ.. King David was the second king of Israel and and reigned approximately 1000BC.. I didn't mention or suggest that the Dead Sea scrolls were that old.

 

As for the alternate translation, I've heard it before, but I believe the KJV is correct. Think about it; "'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion",  does that make any sense at all? How and when have lions ever surrounded hands & feet? https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html

 

 

You said a thousand years before christ...what would that date be?  Why...approximately 1000 bce of course, since the time of christ was...6 to 4 bce, unless your nitpicking a couple of years.  You DID say 1000 bce, by saying 1000 years before christ.  Unless your changing the timeline to seem more reasonable.

 

The translation i gave was original hebrew which should trump kjv...not my fault your bible doesnt make sense, that's the authors failing.

[Dan56]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You said a thousand years before christ...what would that date be?  Why...approximately 1000 bce of course, since the time of christ was...6 to 4 bce, unless your nitpicking a couple of years.  You DID say 1000 bce, by saying 1000 years before christ.  Unless your changing the timeline to seem more reasonable.

 

 

I don't get your point, your confirming that I was correct? Yes, the prophecy was written around 1000BC... And as the link I posted mentioned, the older Hebrew manuscripts support the KJV translation.

 

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

you can't make Jewish instruments play Christian music

 

"It is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ."

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

I don't get your point, your confirming that I was correct? Yes, the prophecy was written around 1000BC... And as the link I posted mentioned, the older Hebrew manuscripts support the KJV translation.

 

 

"It is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ."

 

 

 

 

 

 

The depth of your antisemitism is astonishing.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The depth of your antisemitism is astonishing.

 

More baseless criticism.

 

Many of the older manuscripts that predate Christianity read; “pierced my hands and feet”. This was later changed in the Masoretic manuscripts which predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. It was changed to read; “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet”. So if the original translation was changed in the post Christian era in order to conceal a prophecy about Christ, that's not anti-Semitism, its anti-Christian. Even the dead sea scrolls which predate Christianity have it saying; “pierced my hands and feet”.

 

And by the way, can you explain; “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet”? Tell me how that even makes sense? Or be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the likely reason it makes no sense is because its a fabricated translation. The two Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion” are remarkably similar. All that separates the two Hebrew words is the length of an upright vowel stroke, so its not so unfathomable to understand why "lion" was the chosen substitute, even though it formulates a ridiculous nonsensical phrase.    

Edited December 20, 2018 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

21 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

More baseless criticism.

 

Many of the older manuscripts that predate Christianity read; “pierced my hands and feet”. This was later changed in the Masoretic manuscripts which predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. It was changed to read; “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet”. So if the original translation was changed in the post Christian era in order to conceal a prophecy about Christ, that's not anti-Semitism, its anti-Christian. Even the dead sea scrolls which predate Christianity have it saying; “pierced my hands and feet”.

 

And by the way, can you explain; “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet”? Tell me how that even makes sense? Or be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the likely reason it makes no sense is because its a fabricated translation. The two Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion” are remarkably similar. All that separates the two Hebrew words is the length of an upright vowel stroke, so its not so unfathomable to understand why "lion" was the chosen substitute, even though it formulates a ridiculous nonsensical phrase.    

 

 

Just because Christianity is central to your life -- does not make it central to Jews or Judaism.  You insist on projecting your thoughts onto others.  Your issue.  Not theirs.  Not mine.

 

 

[cuchulain]

On 12/18/2018 at 11:42 PM, Dan56 said:

 

I didn't say there was an original 1000 bc manuscript, I wrote that David wrote the 22 Psalm a thousand years before Christ.. King David was the second king of Israel and and reigned approximately 1000BC.. I didn't mention or suggest that the Dead Sea scrolls were that old.

 

As for the alternate translation, I've heard it before, but I believe the KJV is correct. Think about it; "'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion",  does that make any sense at all? How and when have lions ever surrounded hands & feet? https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html

 

 

This is my point.  See above where you claim you didnt say there was a thousand bc manuscript?  Well you literally did.

[cuchulain]

20 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

More baseless criticism.

 

Many of the older manuscripts that predate Christianity read; “pierced my hands and feet”. This was later changed in the Masoretic manuscripts which predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. It was changed to read; “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet”. So if the original translation was changed in the post Christian era in order to conceal a prophecy about Christ, that's not anti-Semitism, its anti-Christian. Even the dead sea scrolls which predate Christianity have it saying; “pierced my hands and feet”.

 

And by the way, can you explain; “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet”? Tell me how that even makes sense? Or be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the likely reason it makes no sense is because its a fabricated translation. The two Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion” are remarkably similar. All that separates the two Hebrew words is the length of an upright vowel stroke, so its not so unfathomable to understand why "lion" was the chosen substitute, even though it formulates a ridiculous nonsensical phrase.    

I dont believe that there are manuscripts predating the jewish translation.  Can you provide proof of that claim?