Semmelweis Reflex

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

I don't need an apology for calling me an ignorant fuck if you think I'm an ignorant fuck. Stick to your accusation if you believe it to be true. I don't even recall it, nor do I remember calling you a liar. I may have but it doesn't sound like me. Disagreement isn't such an accusation, you know. Do you have a link to me saying that? I'm up to my ass in alligators here. 

 

I will address your flood post later.  

 

Just focus on the alligators for now. You'll need a couple of days to read all the posts and form replies. Unless you want to give a half assed reply. And I think at this point you probably don't want to give half assed replies.

[SemmelweisReflex]

On 6/10/2021 at 9:27 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

You didn't watch the video, but you disagree with it's content? 

 

That's not what I said. I said I couldn't see the charts they showed and that I had heard all of that before. It doesn't impress me because I know better. I mentioned that. Myths and truths intertwine over time. These can be fairly easily traced. I gave some examples. 

 

On 6/10/2021 at 9:27 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

It's only about basic knowledge coming from academic biblical research and archaeological findings. My comments about jesus have nothing to do with the video. I was just saying that jesus is extremely mythologized and influence by the near eastern pagan mythologies. If you want to go through citation and study the Horus - Jesus connection for yourself then get a copy of this book: 

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004LGTOCY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

You can read through the specific issue of December 25th. It may help you understand the situation better.

 

Like I said. This isn't new to me. I don't have time to read every study, book and watch every video that everyone throws at me. You've given a reference for anyone to check out if they are so inclined. I'm here to talk to you. I'm not going to give you a reading list. 

 

On 6/10/2021 at 9:27 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

It's not about 'real people or real birthdays', spoiler alert! It's about the Sun. And the Sun, mythologically, was considered born anew on the day after the winter solstice when it comes out of the three day visual stand still. Both the Horus and jesus myth's were playing around with the ancient solar mysteries. That's why the many citations that can be found link the two myths together under the common theme of "solar mythology." Jesus and John's birthdays are placed at the summer and winter solstice for mythological, not biological reasons....

 

You are not listening to me. Jesus' birth was placed there much later. He was born, most likely, in the first week of October. Nowhere near the winter solstice. People fabricate and manipulate these similarities later. 

 

On 6/10/2021 at 9:27 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

As to the "pagan" issue, that was quite an aside you took off on. 

 

But if you didn't watch the video then you probably have no idea why your response was such an aside. Granted. 

 

Whatever. I have a lot of posts to respond to. I hope we can talk again, maybe clarify some of this. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

On 6/10/2021 at 9:47 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

At least you do understand the format and have already broken it into these 6 periods.

 

The first three days set up environments for things to exist within. The next three days place inhabitants into the first three environments in lock step order. The luminaries to heavens and light / darkness division. They are inhabitants of that region to inhabit the day and night. Then fish and birds to inhabit the water and skies. Then land animals and man to inhabit the dry land. 

 

The point being that this is creation mythology. There's no literal periods involved.

 

How do you derive creation mythology by breaking down the format? 

 

Quote

Or do you suppose that billions of years were going by between period 1 and period 4 with no sun, moon, or stars yet made.

 

The sun, moon and stars - the heavens - were complete in Genesis 1:1. The time taken is indeterminate. Your guess is as good as mine, but, like the post said, it likely was a great deal of time. The light had to travel a great distance. The debris had to clear. 

 

Quote

Billions of years of day and night with no luminaries? If you think the luminaries already existed, but were not seen from earth, do you then suppose that vegetation arose with no visible light source. Especially billions of years of growing vegetation with the sun not visible from the earth? 

 

You have read the post? The light was visible, but not the source. The luminaries were there. 

 

Quote

What that does is breaks the flow of the myth. It says that the luminaries are made on day 4 in order to begin the process of creating the sets of inhabitants to inhabit the first three environments. To try and claim that the luminaries already exists prior breaks the flow and starts you down a path of digging a deeper hole for yourself while trying to get out of the hole you start out in. 

 

I think that what you need to do is reread the post? And instead of trying to fit it within your interpretive narrative, read what it says. 

 

Quote

A ) Period 1 Heavens (environment) > Period 4 Luminaries (inhabitants of the environment)

 

B ) Period 2 Sea and Air (environment) > Period 5 Fish and Birds (inhabitants of the environment) 

 

C ) Period 3 Dry land with vegetation (environment) > Period 6 Land Animals and Man (inhabitants of the environment) 

 

This is another situation where you haven't gone over it thoroughly enough yet to see what's going on. Like the last situation. You've figured out so much but then that's it. And people who are aware of what goes beyond your current stance can see where you're stuck at the moment. 

 

You say you enjoy debates. Well, these are the debate forums. Welcome aboard!

 

There's very little that comes through here which we haven't seen or heard before. Including your approach to Genesis 1. 

 

Do you care to try and reason your way through the logic that follows????

 

You think this is my first time hearing this? 

 

You are taking a modern mythological approach to an ancient text. Your environment and placement of inhabitants seems like an affront to Ockham's Razor to me. A vague and insignificant one, but nevertheless. 

 

All you are really saying is that a place was made and inhabitants appeared. What did you expect? Some variation of this? It is moot. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

On 6/10/2021 at 10:26 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Contrary to being ignored here, instead you're on center stage with a big, big spot light. For all to see and consider. 

 

The only one who's subject to quietly step away will be you. Because I've already seen the extent of your knowledge and experience in these matters reading through the discussion. It's not possible for you to win or get the upper hand on any of this from where you're currently standing. You're starting from a faulty premise and it won't magically get better as you try and pile more on top of it. 

 

But you're welcome to keep trying.....

 

Well, thank you Josh, I appreciate it. At least you aren't foaming at the mouth and, aside from a predilection towards the mythologically obtuse, reasonably coherent.  

 

Immediately, though, my curiosity was triggered by your nomenclature. Pantera is a boys name. Italian for panther, and a Metal band from Texas I was never really into. Also Precision Attack Navigation and Targeting with Extended Range Acquisition.

 

Do you mind my asking about the meaning of your moniker?

[SemmelweisReflex]

On 6/14/2021 at 9:28 AM, Krowb said:

 

According to @Brothermario & @SemmelweisReflex there is a "correct" way to pray apart from your sincerity.

 

 

Yeah, so, I would never pray to God not to be sick or die. Since that is his will why would I ask for him to go against his will? 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Well, thank you Josh, I appreciate it. At least you aren't foaming at the mouth and, aside from a predilection towards the mythologically obtuse, reasonably coherent.  

 

Immediately, though, my curiosity was triggered by your nomenclature. Pantera is a boys name. Italian for panther, and a Metal band from Texas I was never really into. Also Precision Attack Navigation and Targeting with Extended Range Acquisition.

 

Do you mind my asking about the meaning of your moniker?

 

Yeshua Ben Pantera.....

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

You are not listening to me. Jesus' birth was placed there much later. He was born, most likely, in the first week of October. Nowhere near the winter solstice. People fabricate and manipulate these similarities later. 

 

You have no historical jesus, just this mythology. You have to try and base whatever historical jesus that you may reach for on what is offered from these myths and traditions based upon the myths. You have no contemporary, let alone any credible evidence for a literal birth date of jesus. 

 

To say first of October relies upon what as your foundation for suggesting that? A gospel? Several gospels?

 

None of which are contemporary information to begin with. They are assumed to be written around the end of the first century but don't appear into the historical record until after Marcion's gospel, appearing around the mid 2nd century. With claims going back to the early 1st century. Heavily mythologized already upon appearing into the historical record no doubt. 

 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Just focus on the alligators for now. You'll need a couple of days to read all the posts and form replies. Unless you want to give a half assed reply. And I think at this point you probably don't want to give half assed replies.

 

Incidentally, even when definitely in attendance I can't follow all of the threads without missing any posts that aren't directly, uh . . . directed at me either by quoting me or using the @SemmelweisReflex tag so in the likely event that I don't get to those undirected posts I recommend bringing those to my attention in whatever way you see fit. 

 

 Also, I think I'm going to start working on my website. I'm not certain, but if so I may not have the time to respond as I've had since my arrival. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You have no historical jesus, just this mythology. 

 

You have both. Think of it like a parent driving their child one last time to the mall to see Santa Claus, passing a few Santa's on the street corners ringing bells trying to introduce the kid the idea that Santa doesn't exist. 

 

There is definitely an historical Jesus but that is insignificant and irrelevant. If there are a handful of authentic historical references what does that establish? Not much, especially if there are also a handful of spurious references. History is a set of agreed upon lies. History is written by the victor. 

 

Think about the shit they taught you in school. George Washington was the first US president, never told a lie, chopped down a cherry tree and had wooden teeth. 

 

Paul Revere rode his horse valiantly through town shouting the British (or the Red Coats, depending upon the source) is coming. They were all British. They lived in a British colony. Did they wear red coats? 

 

If you want to get to the truth you have to dig through a lot of shit. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You have no historical jesus, just this mythology. You have to try and base whatever historical jesus that you may reach for on what is offered from these myths and traditions based upon the myths. You have no contemporary, let alone any credible evidence for a literal birth date of jesus. 

 

To say first of October relies upon what as your foundation for suggesting that? A gospel? Several gospels?

 

None of which are contemporary information to begin with. They are assumed to be written around the end of the first century but don't appear into the historical record until after Marcion's gospel, appearing around the mid 2nd century. With claims going back to the early 1st century. Heavily mythologized already upon appearing into the historical record no doubt. 

 

 

Again, you don't seem to be listening to me. It's an interesting aside at best. Maybe something you read in a book and gave little thought to other than 'Yeah. I like that. It sounds reasonable. I can say that at parties or to Christians on forums.' 

 

If you like I can go over this yet again with another science minded fundamentalist atheist, (posting as guest with my all time favorite atheist, Rambo) but first, perhaps more interesting let's try something else. In fact the link is my favorite discussion of all time with any atheist. It explains, in great detail, my understanding of the historicity of Jesus. 

 

Anyway. You seem to be suggesting Jesus was just a myth based upon the fact that, what? he became a myth. Or legend? That it was based upon earlier myth? 

 

And what about evolution? Is that the same? What about the Greek philosophers who taught evolution before Jesus' time? Empedocles, for example? Aristotle. Anaximander. Anaxagoras. Do you think these validate the theory? Or invalidate it? 

 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yeshua Ben Pantera.....

 

Ah . . . Isis. Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. A Zionist?

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

There is definitely an historical Jesus but that is insignificant and irrelevant. If there are a handful of authentic historical references what does that establish?

 

There is not definitely something which remains entirely uncertain. The jesus of nazareth myth is not a certainty. So you get off on the wrong foot by stepping forward with a "definitely" claim. You are not able to establish it as definite. So an intellectually honest claim would be to simply say, "I don't know." 

 

10 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

If you want to get to the truth you have to dig through a lot of shit. 

 

The core of which boils down to, once again, the honest statement of, "I don't know." 

 

9 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Anyway. You seem to be suggesting Jesus was just a myth based upon the fact that, what? he became a myth. Or legend? That it was based upon earlier myth? 

 

I spent years as moderator for author DM Murdock and ran with the mythicist writers for a number of years debating christian apologist's and atheist's both about the historicity of jesus. I am aware of every angle involved in the debates - whether towards theists or atheist's who disagree with the myth theories. So I have depth of back ground involved in my responses. 

 

There's no core to the onion where the jesus of nazareth myth is concerned. The story can be traced back to bits and pieces of other people named jesus' sewn together. There are some 20 jesus's mention in Josephus. And you'll notice that some of them have parts or aspects of the jesus of nazareth myth, but not in full. And testimonium flavium is a rank forgery. Probably in full. It looks like people who were looking for something to craft together the gospel tales after the time of Josephus, used bits and pieces of his work to produce what looks like an amalgamation of many different people. 

 

One of them is the Talmudic "Yeshua Ben Pantera." Who lived a hundred years previous to the time in question. But who's story appears to have been used in this effort. 

 

Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier have put forward the idea that the jesus myth started out as midrashing the old testament scriptures. They pull clues from the book of Enoch to looks at what beliefs were circulating in the early christian churches. And how placing Paul where he historically belongs ahead of the gospels reveals how a mythological tale could have later been reworked and historicized by orthodox efforts later on during the 2nd century, which, is when these gospels appear into the historical record. At a time where people could use the Talmud or Josephus to pull together various references to different people mentioned with the name of jesus in order to present a pseudo historical fable. 

 

There are no hard certainties involved with any of this. No home run that settles the issue, "definitely." 

 

And it leaves an informed mind with the intellectually honest evaluation of "I don't know," when it comes to the question of the historicity of the jesus of nazareth fables.....

[SemmelweisReflex]

On 6/10/2021 at 4:39 PM, DarkBishop said:

That is not even close to what you are.

 

Doctrine doesn't matter. It's a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group. I don't represent any groups nor allow any groups to represent me. 

 

Quote

Earlier I provided you with one article and a pdf document concerning the flood of Noah. The article was from the Smithsonian Institute and the PDF was written by a secular geologist refuting the claims of the Flood Geologists that are only trying to find evidence to support the Bible. Kinda like Ron Wyatt was from an archeological standpoint. He only looked for proof of the Bible. He didn't give any credence to proof he may have found that would have contradicted the Bible. There have been many scientists, archeologists, and scholars that started out trying to prove the Bible, but as evidence came in, found the Bible to be inaccurate and eventually ceased to believe themselves. One such person is Bart Ehrman. Its for this reason that I respect his research as should you. I would also like to find a Joe Rogan podcast I watched, where he interviewed a geologist that studied core samples from the ice shelf. His findings were very enlightening when it comes to Flood myths and how they possibly came about. 

 

My responses are to you, not the Smithsonian, geologists, or Ron Wyatt. I don't even know who that is. Archeology is the most interpretive based "science." Ehrman is a duality. In my opinion he is a scholarly fraud on a perpetual book tour. Like a television evangelist. He knows the true doctrine but supplies the unbelieving market with sloppy alternatives. But, again, I'm not responding to Ehrman. Scientists who abandon doctrinal traditions, in my opinion, are two steps behind. They shouldn't have been doing that in the first place. The same with Ex-Christians and actually, myself as an unbeliever. I had no real reason to disbelieve. I had no data. 

 

Quote

If you cared enough to study the information I gave you. Which is evidence that there was no world wide flood. You would have found that coastal regions extended 150 to 400 miles farther out into what is now ocean. According to where one was located around the world. Let me ask you this. In ancient times where did people live? Near water is the answer. It would have always been near a source of fresh water. But for costal peoples they would have used the ocean for food and trade. Therefore their towns would have been close to the ocean as well.

 

Conjecture. Speculation. Insubstantial. You are making the claim that science disproves the global deluge. Problem with that is:

 

a) science doesn't establish non existence of events very well.

b) Science is always correcting itself which means it is usually wrong and therefor merely subjective. 

c) You aren't representing what the Bible is saying. It says the whole world was deluged with water that had been created much earlier and surrounded the earth in a massive canopy which was spent during that deluge. It wasn't talking about local floods. It was talking about God deciding to destroy all living things except what was on an ark which took about 50 years to build. Mountains being covered. Geologically things would have changed much. Your assumptions are predicated upon the geology having not changed and you aren't taking into consideration the possible results of those dramatic changes due to your stagnant observations. Beliefs. 

d) You can misinterpret any geologic anomaly either way. 

 

The argument is moot. It requires a great deal more than they said he said. 

 

Quote

As the ocean rose. Sometimes quickly, from massive water flows from glacial lakes breaking their ice dams and flowing into the ocean. Whole civilizations would have ended up under water. Sometimes rather slowly, like a high tide that never stopped until it took the village, and other times violently, like when water from the ocean spilled into the area we now know as the black sea. It is very probable that in all these areas there were people. Actually its not only probable it is fact. They have discovered whole cities all around the world now claimed by the ocean.

 

Interpretation as fact. How do you know the oceans rose. How do you know there was glacial lakes? How do you know the climate on earth wasn't much more moderate? Like if there were a canopy surrounding the earth. Or that there was only one primary earth mass? Are those possible? What would the effects of a canopy be? Moderate global climate? No ice caps? Few mountains and those much smaller in scale? Mastodons in the arctic eating grass suddenly frozen? Seashells on mountains? The things you bring up like river canyons in the ocean floor etc. 

 

Quote

Here is another article explaining how a massive glacial lake pouring into the ocean caused this flooding. Everywhere. This would have been a very traumatic event for people around the world. And much of the then populated world would have been in upheaval. 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180322112713.htm

 

How do you know this is an accurate interpretation. That it actually took place and that it is what the Bible's writers referred to. 

 

Quote

Now, truthfully, I have given you references for my claims that the biblical flood myth, as well as the epic of gilgamesh, were probably inspired by tales of these events passed down through the years.

 

Based upon heresy without considering possible alternatives. 

 

Quote

Genesis would have been written approximately 6000 years after the events in the above article.

 

What is the basis for this? Specifically when do you think Genesis was written and why do you think it was written then and secondly how do you date the alleged events themselves?

 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There is not definitely something which remains entirely uncertain. The jesus of nazareth myth is not a certainty. So you get off on the wrong foot by stepping forward with a "definitely" claim. You are not able to establish it as definite. So an intellectually honest claim would be to simply say, "I don't know." 

 

The core of which boils down to, once again, the honest statement of, "I don't know." 

 

Correct. I don't know. That has been my position from the very beginning of my studies. Now, you say it. Say "I don't know." I think that when unbelievers do this they are projecting. 

 

Quote

I spent years as moderator for author DM Murdock and ran with the mythicist writers for a number of years debating christian apologist's and atheist's both about the historicity of jesus. I am aware of every angle involved in the debates - whether towards theists or atheist's who disagree with the myth theories. So I have depth of back ground involved in my responses. 

 

There's no core to the onion where the jesus of nazareth myth is concerned. The story can be traced back to bits and pieces of other people named jesus' sewn together. There are some 20 jesus's mention in Josephus. And you'll notice that some of them have parts or aspects of the jesus of nazareth myth, but not in full. And testimonium flavium is a rank forgery. Probably in full. It looks like people who were looking for something to craft together the gospel tales after the time of Josephus, used bits and pieces of his work to produce what looks like an amalgamation of many different people. 

 

One of them is the Talmudic "Yeshua Ben Pantera." Who lived a hundred years previous to the time in question. But who's story appears to have been used in this effort. 

 

Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier have put forward the idea that the jesus myth started out as midrashing the old testament scriptures. They pull clues from the book of Enoch to looks at what beliefs were circulating in the early christian churches. And how placing Paul where he historically belongs ahead of the gospels reveals how a mythological tale could have later been reworked and historicized by orthodox efforts later on during the 2nd century, which, is when these gospels appear into the historical record. At a time where people could use the Talmud or Josephus to pull together various references to different people mentioned with the name of jesus in order to present a pseudo historical fable. 

 

There are no hard certainties involved with any of this. No home run that settles the issue, "definitely." 

 

And it leaves an informed mind with the intellectually honest evaluation of "I don't know," when it comes to the question of the historicity of the jesus of nazareth fables.....

 

Oh. Okay.

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Scientists who abandon doctrinal traditions, in my opinion, are two steps behind. They shouldn't have been doing that in the first place.

Here is the thing SF. If you will read or listen to the testimony of these people you'll find that is exactly what they were doing when they initially set out. This was a Christian country. They were the winners  and they were the ones that wrote history. Most the world was still very religious. So when they initially set out the were actually doing so expecting to find proof of their beliefs. But ended up finding out otherwise. Watch a YouTube video. Or something. You'll hear it yourself. What you hear as far as their findings. Yes at first it pisses ya off. Been there done that. Remember I'm DE converted. With a capital D. Meaning I was also a believer at one point in time. It was the evidence that lead them to leave the church. 

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

and actually, myself as an unbeliever. I had no real reason to disbelieve. I had no data. 

 

I get it. That's exactly what I figured. Thats why I've linked you the info. Which all through this whole post its still evident you haven't even clicked the links let alone read anything. 

 

I'm just an average joe doing an average everyday bullshit job. I get up, I work, I pay my bills and perfect my trade so that I can make a living. But ya know what. I'm not a HVAC specialist. There are other people that go to school for that. So I call them. Because I don't want to risk fucking up my AC. 

     So I know there are people that go to college to study the Bible. When I listen to someone like Bart Ehrman. With a resume like this. 

 

"Title: James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

Education: Princeton Theological Seminary (1985), Moody Bible Institute, Princeton Theological Seminary, and More."

 

Then guess what. I listen. Because he is the professional. Not me. If you can prove to me that what I've given you to read is wrong. Then by all means show me. But first you have to read it. 

 

I've offered to read any religious study of the JWs that you agree with. And I will read it. I just ask you to do likewise

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

a) science doesn't establish non existence of events very well.

 

The earth its has history written into the very soil. Guess who the professionals for that is. Geologists. 

 

That's who I listen to. 

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Science is always correcting itself which means it is usually wrong and therefor merely subjective. 

 

Please just read the information. Some things have been agreed upon for a long time as the evidence hasn't changed. These are all very educated people. 

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

You aren't representing what the Bible is saying. It says the whole world was deluged with water that had been created much earlier and surrounded the earth in a massive canopy which was spent during that deluge. It wasn't talking about local floods.

 

I'm not representing anything. Again I'm not a geologist. You tell me why they are wrong and tell me why you have the background to be an authority on that? 

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

You can misinterpret any geologic anomaly either way. 

Again. Who are you to say that. What have you studied. I do my homework.  I know they went to college to be able to tell me what they have found. Your a screen name on the internet and could be some 12 year old kid from Wisconsin for all I know.

 

You say you can quote book chapter verse. Actions speak louder than words. I can remember my favorite verses to support my beliefs I held. 

 

I believed one could lose their salvation. One of my favorite scriptures was in Ezekiel 18:24.

 

"But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness. And committed iniquity. And doeth according to all the abominations the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he has trespassed, and in his sin he hath sinned, in them he shall die."

 

Then I'd back it up saying how other churches say once saved always saved. But the lord changes not. And give the scripture. In Malachi 3:6.

 

6. For I am the lord I change not. Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. 

 

I would focus on that "change not" aspect for awhile. Pointing out that Jesus was with God from the beginning. Then I'd go to. 

 

 

Hebrews 13:8

 

Jesus christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. 

 

Going on to Jesus' words:

 

Matthew 7:22,23

 

Many will say to me in that day. Lord lord have we not prophesied in your name, and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works. 

    Then will I profess to them. I never knew you. Depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 

 

Capping it off by telling them that those were once men of God able to do great works just like Jesus. But Jesus didn't even mention their good works. Only they did. He said he never knew them because their iniquities had blotted them out to him. 

 

That's the kind of bullshit I preached. And I had scripture to back it up. Any one of these ladies and gentlemen in here can give you book, chapter, verse. For what we once believed. So if you in fact were converted by reading the JW Bible. Give me book chapter verse. I will go to Amazon and buy the book. And I will read it for myself. I will read what was so profound that made you pray that day and believe.

 

Actions speak louder than words. Do it. I just did. Now you Do it. 

 

I went to your website but you never gave any references to how you were an authority on the matter. Could you point me to some jehovas witness studies you've read please? 

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

How do you know the oceans rose. How do you know there was glacial lakes? How do you know the climate on earth wasn't much more moderate?

 

Bc I listen to people that went to college to tell me that. 

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Like if there were a canopy surrounding the earth. Or that there was only one primary earth mass? Are those possible? What would the effects of a canopy be? Moderate global climate? No ice caps? Few mountains and those much smaller in scale? Mastodons in the arctic eating grass suddenly frozen? Seashells on mountains? The things you bring up like river canyons in the ocean floor etc. 

 

You do know the bible depicts a flat earth creation right? That was popular in all religions in ancient history. They all had their own versions. Hindu believe the world is on the back of a turtle. I guess that explains the ocean waves. The turtle must be swimming. Do you believe that? I bet ya don't do ya. 

 

Did you not read what I told you about there being 400 more miles of inland from the coast? Which means rivers would have winded 400 more miles and are now covered by ocean from the melted ice? They can see now where the water flowed into the ocean from. It was massive. I'm talking beyond your imagination big. And it left a mark. The earth has its own provable history written in the crust. And I listen to those who have been educated in the matter.

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Based upon heresy without considering possible alternatives. 

 

Please remember I was once an assistant pastor and ordained bishop. I've actually legally married people. My license was honored by the state. In the name of the Chuch of God of the Gospel assembly. Branch of the Church of God of the Union Assembly INC. I not only considered but lived the alternative. 

 

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

What is the basis for this? Specifically when do you think Genesis was written and why do you think it was written then and secondly how do you date the alleged events themselves?

 

The genealogies in the Bible.

 

If you trace them back. From Moses who supposedly wrote the Bible. To Jesus. It's like 1200 - 1500 years or so. I was wrong in an earlier post. Our oldest biblical document is only from around roughly 1000 years ago. Feel free to look it up. I'm not giving ya many more links if your not gonna look at em.

 

It's roughly around the same time Egypt had Akhenaten as a Pharoah during the 18th Egyptian dynasty. Here is a link.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

 

During that same time I've read that canaan and isreal were under the control of the Egyptian Empire. So you see. During that time they resented Egypt as they were ruled by them. Yet they were influence by their beliefs. Pharoh akhenaten was monotheistic and ordered all of Egypt to worship the one God. The sun God RA.

 

Before this time period the early canaanite believed in a polytheistic belief just as the other religions had. Their Zeus was the God El. 

 

I've read that in the Ugarit tablets. Predating our earliest biblical texts by 300-400 years. There are almost identical verses written with minor differences in wording to reflect the pantheon of EL. 

 

On the cross Jesus says:

 

Matthew 15:34

 

Eloi Eloi la ma sabachthani. Interpreted. "My God, My God why has thou forsaken me"

 

Notice:

Eloi - My God

El oi- My God

El is the root word El in Jesus own words is God. Not Jehovah. EL

 

So something happened between 1400 to 1000 BC that changed the canaanites form polytheistic to Monotheistic.

 

Considering they were directly ruled by Akhenaten during the same time. I believe the canaanites changed their religion likewise and created the myth of Moses, coming out of Egypt, and worshipping the one true God. Ten commandments blah blah blah. You know the rest.

 

You've only read what came after that time. Not what was before. But there are people who have. I'll send you links for all this if you will actually start reading it. 

 

Now I've spent 2 and a half hours writing this. I would likewise request you take a couple hours to reply. I did not copy and paste my Bible verus. I dusted off my old Bible. Looked them up myself and typed them out. It was kinda fun cracking her open again knowing what I now know. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

@DarkBishop Thanks for your response. 

 

The 20-30 guests are spiders and bots. Not real people. There are few, if any, lurkers on forums. It's a common illusion of grandeur. I personally checked the forum out for about 20 minutes, if that, and most of that after registering while waiting for confirmation. By the way, this morning I decided not to talk about me anymore. The subject bores me and it's a distraction, but since you posted this prior to that I will tolerate it for now. 

 

Rather than use the term atheist I would prefer to use the term unbeliever. The term atheist is, by definition, moronic. Anything and anyone can be a god and no specific gods are included in the ideology. Often the unbeliever and believer alike don't even have a cursory knowledge of the simple concept of gods. Scholars are simply regurgitating tradition or criticism of tradition. I believe in the Bible not traditions of men. 

 

Recently the nonsensical supposition of atheists that we are all born atheists has been popularized. I've had people say that to me. It's stupid. You can't have a belief or lack of belief on a subject which you know nothing of. Your conversion either way, whether informed or not is based upon at least a cursory knowledge. Usually not more in both cases. 

 

My mother didn't instill much of anything in be regarding critical thinking, science, religion or anything else other than a sort of apathetic adherence to conformity which I vehemently rejected, naturally. 

 

I agree that hypocrisy isn't a good reason for being a believer or unbeliever.  The JWs got their doctrine from someone else who got their doctrine from someone else ad infinitum.  

 

 Regarding my prayer, I realized, even at the time, that it very possibly could have been a coincidence. It prompted me only to proceed with caution which I do to this day. It wasn't an emotional experience. To me it was an anomaly, but I followed through with it. Like I said. With caution. 

 

Your prayer operates on the possible presupposition that the apostate church you attended and it's representative belonged to God. My prayer intended to establish the possibility that the producers of the literature I had saved had the truth. By truth I meant as best as was available. It didn't require God to speak through anyone because, as Paul said, all of that would be done away with. The JWs could have had this truth without being guided by Jehovah. Unlike your church there wasn't any connection to apostate beliefs, idols or practices. God doesn't speak to his servants through religious idolaters. 

 

Personal interpretation doesn't imply original interpretation. There are no original interpretations. At least not coherent ones, but coherent is a subjective term. The JWs, like I said, got their stuff from someone else who got it from someone et cetera. 

 

I don't consider myself special in any way and allow for the possibility, even the likelihood of the prayer being coincidental. Nor do I think the JWs are Jehovah's earthly organization as they claim. They have the closes thing to the truth for two simple reasons. 1) they removed the well documented pagan influence and 2) they have an army of volunteer researchers who produce their literature. 

 

 As for the expectations of the early Christians read my post on the end of the world. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

42 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Your prayer operates on the possible presupposition that the apostate church you attended and it's representative belonged to God. My prayer intended to establish the possibility that the producers of the literature I had saved had the truth. By truth I meant as best as was available. It didn't require God to speak through anyone because, as Paul said, all of that would be done away with. The JWs could have had this truth without being guided by Jehovah. Unlike your church there wasn't any connection to apostate beliefs, idols or practices. God doesn't speak to his servants through religious idolaters. 

 

Personal interpretation doesn't imply original interpretation. There are no original interpretations. At least not coherent ones, but coherent is a subjective term. The JWs, like I said, got their stuff from someone else who got it from someone et cetera. 

 

I don't consider myself special in any way and allow for the possibility, even the likelihood of the prayer being coincidental. Nor do I think the JWs are Jehovah's earthly organization as they claim. They have the closes thing to the truth for two simple reasons. 1) they removed the well documented pagan influence and 2) they have an army of volunteer researchers who produce their literature. 

 

 As for the expectations of the early Christians read my post on the end of the world. 

 

Apostate church? Please SF. You blindly think JW have the closest truth when their researchers are only showing you their biased research. I have offered for you to give me links. I will more than gladly go read what the JW researchers you speak of have shown you. But I need the links. I'm not using your earlier post as an authoritive opinion as you have no education to support your assertions. Let me read a thesis a JW researcher has written. I am begging you to give me some valid research as I have given you. I've referred you to my experts. Now refer me to yours. You are not an expert on Jehovas Witness belief just as I am not an expert on geology or interpreting ancient biblical languages. Refer me to you JW scholars. I will read what you refer me to while you read what I've referred you to. 

 

Only then can we make progress in any direction with this conversation. 

 

Most of the Christian world consider Jehovas Witness a Modern CULT. Show me that is wrong and why it's not. I don't think you can. Defend them sir.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Out of curiosity, would anybody like to have a little mano y mano with Semi-Wise?  If so, please respond here with the topic/question you'd like to debate with him, so that I, or another member of the moderation team, can set it up for you.  We'll set it up on a first come, first to be served basis.

[SemmelweisReflex]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Out of curiosity, would anybody like to have a little mano y mano with Semi-Wise?  If so, please respond here with the topic/question you'd like to debate with him, so that I, or another member of the moderation team, can set it up for you.  We'll set it up on a first come, first to be served basis.

 

Honestly, I don't think that is what they want. They want a scapegoat. You remember the scapegoat from the Bible? I don't mind a one on one debate but like I said I debate, if you want to call it that, using the term very loosely, somewhat reluctantly. Especially formal debate. That bores me. I can't do that. I don't care much for arbitrary rules. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

31 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Apostate church?

 

Meaning a departure from the true teachings. A rejection of God. Traditions of men. 

 

Quote

Please SF. You blindly think JW have the closest truth when their researchers are only showing you their biased research.

 

Everyone is biased. You, me, them. 

 

Quote

I have offered for you to give me links. I will more than gladly go read what the JW researchers you speak of have shown you. But I need the links.

 

I don't see the sense of it. Why not just have a conversation? I can give you a link if you want. I just downloaded the JW Library on this stupid laptop I got recently which I hate. You can have a look but I don't expect you to acquaint yourself with what I believe overnight. Nor do I expect you to say, oh, hey, yeah, that makes sense. 

 

Download Watchtower Library

 

If you don't want the download you can look around their website, but I find it almost impossible to find anything easily on there. I usually don't bother. And by the way, I'm critical of the Watchtower as I am of any other paradigm. 

 

Quote

I'm not using your earlier post as an authoritive opinion as you have no education to support your assertions.

 

You don't expect me to use your posts as an authoritative opinion (contradiction in terms?) do you, other than that of what you yourself believe? 

 

Quote

Let me read a thesis a JW researcher has written. I am begging you to give me some valid research as I have given you. I've referred you to my experts. Now refer me to yours.

 

I don't use expert testimony as an authoritative either. 

 

Quote

You are not an expert on Jehovas Witness belief just as I am not an expert on geology or interpreting ancient biblical languages. Refer me to you JW scholars. I will read what you refer me to while you read what I've referred you to. 

 

Only then can we make progress in any direction with this conversation. 

 

When I studied with them they would come to me or I would correct them about their own doctrines. They couldn't remember the 1971 encyclopedia the organization printed. Or they mistook the Greek hades as the same as gehenna. They aren't experts though, that is why I respect them over all others. Well, that and that they have the closest thing to the truth. The data is what I like, not them or their organization. 

 

The only way you are going to make any progress is if we listen to one another, not exchange expert links on tradition. 

 

Quote

Most of the Christian world consider Jehovas Witness a Modern CULT. Show me that is wrong and why it's not. I don't think you can. Defend them sir.

 

I'm not in the position nor do I care to defend them. People misuse and misapply cult in a derogatory sense like people on forums do terms like troll and spam. Everyone has a grigri. 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@TheRedneckProfessor I wouldn't mind debating him. But I won't commit to it unless he agrees to read the references I give him to support my conclusions. In return I will read whatever official source other than his own 1 in 7 billion view of religion. I can't debate if he doesn't have anything other than his own words to back it up. It would be a waste of time for us both.

[SemmelweisReflex]

12 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

@TheRedneckProfessor I wouldn't mind debating him. But I won't commit to it unless he agrees to read the references I give him to support my conclusions. In return I will read whatever official source other than his own 1 in 7 billion view of religion. I can't debate if he doesn't have anything other than his own words to back it up. It would be a waste of time for us both.

 

Earlier I was questioned regarding my weird personal interpretation of hell. So I had to paste the references from traditional Christian and secular encyclopedia explanations of the same thing I was saying which had been included to the link I had already provided and had written the article years ago myself. 

 

People say they read and care about references but they don't. I once had an atheist leave some link to reference material and I had to point out to him the reference said nothing even remotely similar to what he was positing. His answer? He thought that they might do that in the future. People are idiots. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Just now, SemmelweisReflex said:

Meaning a departure from the true teachings. A rejection of God. Traditions of men. 

Not the point. JW are cultist. If anyone is "apostate" it's them.

 

2 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

don't see the sense of it. Why not just have a conversation? I can give you a link if you want. I just downloaded the JW Library on this stupid laptop I got recently which I hate. You can have a look but I don't expect you to acquaint yourself with what I believe overnight. Nor do I expect you to say, oh, hey, yeah, that makes sense. 

 

Download Watchtower Library

 

If you don't want the download you can look around their website, but I find it almost impossible to find anything easily on there. I usually don't bother. And by the way, I'm critical of the Watchtower as I am of any other paradigm. 

 

I can download the watchtower library. But I won't be able to read the whole library. You will need to give me specifics. The equivalent of "book chapter verse" 

 

If your even critical of that then all your assertions are baseless. You have shown no true education even in your own beliefs.

You have yet to refer me to a specific study on any point you have tried to make thus far.

 

5 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

I don't use expert testimony as an authoritative either.

 

But I do. Thats a Big Big deference for those out there reading this. 

 

SemmelweisReflex = no proof, no experts. No evidence, no references, only blind assertions from his own imagination. 

 

DarkBishop = scriptural references, scholarly references, links to accredited and nationally recognized studies, and referrals written by researchers with extensive educations in their fields of study.

 

Why would anyone want to listen to you ramble SF? It's just tinkling brass in the wind without anything else to support your words.

 

12 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

The only way you are going to make any progress is if we listen to one another, not exchange expert links on tradition

 

Your not listening to me. The result of years of study that other people have made are the basis for my arguments. I can't converse with you if you won't atleast read what I give you. This has been a very single sided exchange. 

 

14 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

I'm not in the position nor do I care to defend them. People misuse and misapply cult in a derogatory sense like people on forums do terms like troll and spam.

 

You mean kinda like you use the word "apostate". I think "cult" and "apostate church" could be used interchangeably when talking about how the two different denominations feel of each other. 

 

You believe other so called Christians left gods way for pagan ways. They believe you followed a false prophet. Tomatoe tomato. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

So I had to paste the references from traditional Christian and secular encyclopedia explanations of the same thing I was saying which had been included to the link I had already provided and had written the article years ago myself. 

 

I read your website. It wasn't hard. I will read it again if you wish. But as you said you wrote it yourself. With minimal reference to support what you were saying. ....... 

4 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

People say they read and care about references but they don't. I once had an atheist leave some link to reference material and I had to point out to him the reference said nothing even remotely similar to what he was positing.

 

Fine. I've asked for you to provide support for you imaginings and you won't. I'll just do my own research. Pick apart the JW religion. And get back with you after I do. 

 

I do this slowly. So don't expect me to tag you in my findings tomorrow. I like reading into how religions came to be. At this point I've got my bets hedged that you don't even know the history of the JW. 

 

Thank you for wasting my day sir. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

53 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

@TheRedneckProfessor I wouldn't mind debating him. But I won't commit to it unless he agrees to read the references I give him to support my conclusions. In return I will read whatever official source other than his own 1 in 7 billion view of religion. I can't debate if he doesn't have anything other than his own words to back it up. It would be a waste of time for us both.

What?  You're not just going to let him keep bludgeoning you upside the head with the same unfounded assertions over and over and total disregard for anything you have to say?  Come on, man, be a sport!