“creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.” – kathy
divine inspiration is fine, but if your only source for this divine inspiration is the fella who’s claiming to speak for god then “faith” and “gullibility” look a lot alike.
“If you would look at this discovery OBJECTIVELY, you would understand that the presence of dining rooms in the temples does not mean anything … except that people ate there. It doesn’t even indicate if they were Greeks (probably were, as Ruth suggests, but there is no objective evidence to confirm this).”
So, Nan, why do you believe they were “probably” Greeks?
Have none of you ever watched tv in your lives? If so, I don’t know how you could have missed all the court room dramas.. or the most watched trial with OJ or Casey Anthony? I guess not, because if you had this all wouldn’t be so confusing for you.. if you had watched I imagine it had to be very confusing.
This appears to be avoiding the question I asked.
So, basically what you are claiming is that a Book about God, the Creator of all, wouldn’t claim that the Creator of all could give revelation to His follower, a creation of His… because that’s just not possible.. it just can’t be done.. creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.
Um. No. I’m not claiming that there is a creator of the Universe. You are. There’s some more of that magic dust. And you accuse us of reaching? That you can and are willing to believe that is your business but to be incredulous that others don’t is absurd.
““creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.” – kathy
divine inspiration is fine, but if your only source for this divine inspiration is the fella who’s claiming to speak for god then “faith” and “gullibility” look a lot alike.”
That’s why there are multiple authors/ witnesses of the Bible.. for corroboration… aka evidence for the objective.
Ruth,
“True or false? Simple question, it requires a simple answer.
False.
Next.”
“Have none of you ever watched tv in your lives? If so, I don’t know how you could have missed all the court room dramas.. or the most watched trial with OJ or Casey Anthony? I guess not, because if you had this all wouldn’t be so confusing for you.. if you had watched I imagine it had to be very confusing.
This appears to be avoiding the question I asked.
So, basically what you are claiming is that a Book about God, the Creator of all, wouldn’t claim that the Creator of all could give revelation to His follower, a creation of His… because that’s just not possible.. it just can’t be done.. creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.
Um. No. I’m not claiming that there is a creator of the Universe. You are. There’s some more of that magic dust. And you accuse us of reaching? That you can and are willing to believe that is your business but to be incredulous that others don’t is absurd.”
Ruth, you’re playing games. You were the last person I had hope for on this site.
I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest. It’s a waste of
time.
Ruth, you’re playing games. You were the last person I had hope for on this site.
I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest. It’s a waste of
time.
Had hope for what?
I had high hopes for you, too, but if you can’t be objective it’s a waste of time. Here’s a link to Oxford Biblical Studies about oral tradition and it’s role in the creation of the Bible:
I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest.
I would also add that you’ve been playing games this entire time. On several occasions you said you wanted ‘debate’ so that you could learn. In this one phrase you have let on that you were here to teach – never to learn.
What I said was that Ruth was probably correct in her assumption because the website said the dining rooms were in the temples of Asclepius (the Greek god of medicine) and Demeter (the Greek goddess of harvest).
It does not, however, in any way, validate what they ate, whether they were Greek Christians, or whether Paul was there.
As I’ve repeatedly said, which you seem to have a problem grasping, is that the archaeological evidence of dining rooms in the temples is not evidence of anything.
All of those questions have been addressed, you can find the possible answers with a simple google search.
A lot of the questions like these have
very reasonable explanations.. that you’ve obviously chosen to reject..
and I would question your decision to reject them..
where did the women encounter the angels at the tomb?
how many angels were there at the tomb?
When you have different witnesses you are not going to get identical accounts.
This is simple common sense. If all the accounts were identical while coming from
numerous people, then that WOULD be questionable.
“When you have different witnesses you are not going to get identical accounts.
This is simple common sense. If all the accounts were identical while coming from
numerous people, then that WOULD be questionable.” – kathy
but you’re claiming they were all divinely inspired. and we know the gospels aren’t eye witness testimony, even the believer cant say they were completely as they write about events they slept through, etc…
and when witnesses get details wrong, like details we have in the bible, it’s a sign of collusion, as in they agreed or had knowledge of broad and generic details, but when they tried adding specifics, they were all wrong. In you court room tv dramas, it’s details like these that end up damning the criminal.
cop: were there angels?
guy 1: yes
guy 2: yes
cop: how many?
guy 1: 2
guy 2: 3
cop: where did you see them?
guy 1: inside
guy 2″ outside
cop: yep, this is exactly the same event. I mean, if they had answered all the questions exactly the same, i’d think they were lying. but now we can be certain that there were maybe 1 or 2 angels, that were encountered either inside or outside.
and for your google searched answers to those questions, yes, I think they’re all rubbish. You wouldnt accept crap like that if trying to explain away errors with the koran or anything else.
“maybe it could mean…”
“it doesnt really mean what it says, it means this…”
No, Kathy. It doesn’t mean probably, possibly, maybe, by chance, in all likelihood they were eating meat sacrifices. Geez!!! I can’t understand how you can be so dense. It means exactly what it says. There were dining rooms in two of the Greek temples. Period.
You can assume all you want about this discovery to justify your personal bias about what Paul wrote related to meat sacrifices. But that’s all it is. An assumption.
If you can produce some sort of evidence that confirms there were people sitting at these tables eating meat sacrificed to idols (pictures, maybe?), then I stand by my original statement.
William, those are all valid questions.. there are possible explanations.
First, you make an assumption that nothing was ever recorded.. that’s an impossible assumption to make.. the most that can be claimed is that we have nothing.
And when you look at the length of time that has gone by, it’s very understandable that
not everything survived. This is one possible explanation.
What this should say about me William is that I have weighed ALL the evidence.. and these
few questions are not enough to discount the supportive evidence.
Finding Truth 
“creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.” – kathy
divine inspiration is fine, but if your only source for this divine inspiration is the fella who’s claiming to speak for god then “faith” and “gullibility” look a lot alike.
LikeLike
Nan,
“If you would look at this discovery OBJECTIVELY, you would understand that the presence of dining rooms in the temples does not mean anything … except that people ate there. It doesn’t even indicate if they were Greeks (probably were, as Ruth suggests, but there is no objective evidence to confirm this).”
So, Nan, why do you believe they were “probably” Greeks?
LikeLike
Have none of you ever watched tv in your lives? If so, I don’t know how you could have missed all the court room dramas.. or the most watched trial with OJ or Casey Anthony? I guess not, because if you had this all wouldn’t be so confusing for you.. if you had watched I imagine it had to be very confusing.
This appears to be avoiding the question I asked.
So, basically what you are claiming is that a Book about God, the Creator of all, wouldn’t claim that the Creator of all could give revelation to His follower, a creation of His… because that’s just not possible.. it just can’t be done.. creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.
Um. No. I’m not claiming that there is a creator of the Universe. You are. There’s some more of that magic dust. And you accuse us of reaching? That you can and are willing to believe that is your business but to be incredulous that others don’t is absurd.
LikeLike
““creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.” – kathy
divine inspiration is fine, but if your only source for this divine inspiration is the fella who’s claiming to speak for god then “faith” and “gullibility” look a lot alike.”
That’s why there are multiple authors/ witnesses of the Bible.. for corroboration… aka evidence for the objective.
LikeLike
Also, Kathy, do you work in some sort of law enforcement or the judicial system?
LikeLike
…aka evidence for the objective.</i.
Or gullible.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“True or false? Simple question, it requires a simple answer.
False.
Next.”
“Have none of you ever watched tv in your lives? If so, I don’t know how you could have missed all the court room dramas.. or the most watched trial with OJ or Casey Anthony? I guess not, because if you had this all wouldn’t be so confusing for you.. if you had watched I imagine it had to be very confusing.
This appears to be avoiding the question I asked.
So, basically what you are claiming is that a Book about God, the Creator of all, wouldn’t claim that the Creator of all could give revelation to His follower, a creation of His… because that’s just not possible.. it just can’t be done.. creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.
Um. No. I’m not claiming that there is a creator of the Universe. You are. There’s some more of that magic dust. And you accuse us of reaching? That you can and are willing to believe that is your business but to be incredulous that others don’t is absurd.”
Ruth, you’re playing games. You were the last person I had hope for on this site.
I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest. It’s a waste of
time.
LikeLike
“That’s why there are multiple authors/ witnesses of the Bible.. for corroboration… aka evidence for the objective.” – kathy
kathy, if they all agreed, then okay. If they all wrote the same thing at the same time, then fine.
That’s not what we have.
What is jesus right genealogy? matthew or Luke?
where did the women encounter the angels at the tomb?
how many angels were there at the tomb?
where was the first place that Joseph and Mary and jesus went after his birth?
where did birds come from? water or earth?
what day did jesus die? passover or the day after?
was babylon destroyed by the medes like jeremiah says, or was babylon taken without destruction by the persians?
getting details wrong and having 40 authors take 1500 years to complete the compiled works is not miraculous.
…but, I may not watch as much tv as you, so take the above for what’s it worth.
LikeLike
Isn’t that the thing about religion, though Ruth? It turns gullibility into a virtue.
LikeLike
“I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest. It’s a waste of
time.” – kathy
that busy work schedule?
does this mean you’re leaving? promise?
LikeLike
Ruth, you’re playing games. You were the last person I had hope for on this site.
I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest. It’s a waste of
time.
Had hope for what?
I had high hopes for you, too, but if you can’t be objective it’s a waste of time. Here’s a link to Oxford Biblical Studies about oral tradition and it’s role in the creation of the Bible:
http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/print/opr/t94/e1382
LikeLike
Isn’t that the thing about religion, though Ruth? It turns gullibility into a virtue.
Yes ma’am.
LikeLike
I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest.
I would also add that you’ve been playing games this entire time. On several occasions you said you wanted ‘debate’ so that you could learn. In this one phrase you have let on that you were here to teach – never to learn.
LikeLike
I didn’t say I believed they were Greeks.
What I said was that Ruth was probably correct in her assumption because the website said the dining rooms were in the temples of Asclepius (the Greek god of medicine) and Demeter (the Greek goddess of harvest).
It does not, however, in any way, validate what they ate, whether they were Greek Christians, or whether Paul was there.
As I’ve repeatedly said, which you seem to have a problem grasping, is that the archaeological evidence of dining rooms in the temples is not evidence of anything.
LikeLike
William,
All of those questions have been addressed, you can find the possible answers with a simple google search.
A lot of the questions like these have
very reasonable explanations.. that you’ve obviously chosen to reject..
and I would question your decision to reject them..
where did the women encounter the angels at the tomb?
how many angels were there at the tomb?
When you have different witnesses you are not going to get identical accounts.
This is simple common sense. If all the accounts were identical while coming from
numerous people, then that WOULD be questionable.
LikeLike
This is exactly why apologists are a joke.
LikeLike
Nan, dinning rooms in the temples.. “PROBABLY” means that they were eating the meat sacrifices.
LikeLike
“When you have different witnesses you are not going to get identical accounts.
This is simple common sense. If all the accounts were identical while coming from
numerous people, then that WOULD be questionable.” – kathy
but you’re claiming they were all divinely inspired. and we know the gospels aren’t eye witness testimony, even the believer cant say they were completely as they write about events they slept through, etc…
and when witnesses get details wrong, like details we have in the bible, it’s a sign of collusion, as in they agreed or had knowledge of broad and generic details, but when they tried adding specifics, they were all wrong. In you court room tv dramas, it’s details like these that end up damning the criminal.
cop: were there angels?
guy 1: yes
guy 2: yes
cop: how many?
guy 1: 2
guy 2: 3
cop: where did you see them?
guy 1: inside
guy 2″ outside
cop: yep, this is exactly the same event. I mean, if they had answered all the questions exactly the same, i’d think they were lying. but now we can be certain that there were maybe 1 or 2 angels, that were encountered either inside or outside.
how much of this tv do you really watch?
LikeLike
and for your google searched answers to those questions, yes, I think they’re all rubbish. You wouldnt accept crap like that if trying to explain away errors with the koran or anything else.
“maybe it could mean…”
“it doesnt really mean what it says, it means this…”
solid.
LikeLike
“maybe it could mean…”
“it doesnt really mean what it says, it means this…”
Ambiguity is evidence of divine inspiration.
LikeLike
kathy,
why arent there any other accounts of the sun standing still? there were several groups at the time that recorded solar events and phenomenon.
why arent there any other accounts of the sun moving backward? there were several groups at the time that recorded solar events and phenomenon.
why arent there any supporting accounts of dead people walking in the streets when jesus died? was that just a common occurrence back then?
the fact that you reject the obvious tells me a lot about you.
LikeLike
Or it could mean that God chose not to intervene in these testimonies.
Moses wasn’t testifying to anything.. because as you pointed out he couldn’t
have been there.
Discernment people.. not that complicated.
LikeLike
No, Kathy. It doesn’t mean probably, possibly, maybe, by chance, in all likelihood they were eating meat sacrifices. Geez!!! I can’t understand how you can be so dense. It means exactly what it says. There were dining rooms in two of the Greek temples. Period.
You can assume all you want about this discovery to justify your personal bias about what Paul wrote related to meat sacrifices. But that’s all it is. An assumption.
If you can produce some sort of evidence that confirms there were people sitting at these tables eating meat sacrificed to idols (pictures, maybe?), then I stand by my original statement.
LikeLike
Or it could mean that God chose not to intervene in these testimonies.
Moses wasn’t testifying to anything.. because as you pointed out he couldn’t
have been there.
So it wasn’t all divine revelation or inspiration? God chose not to intervene in the most important testimonies of all?
And the fact that you have to come up with “what it could mean” is a problem in itself. Are you being divinely inspired?
LikeLike
William, those are all valid questions.. there are possible explanations.
First, you make an assumption that nothing was ever recorded.. that’s an impossible assumption to make.. the most that can be claimed is that we have nothing.
And when you look at the length of time that has gone by, it’s very understandable that
not everything survived. This is one possible explanation.
What this should say about me William is that I have weighed ALL the evidence.. and these
few questions are not enough to discount the supportive evidence.
LikeLike