|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 38 OF 237 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-15-16 | | Big Pawn: <Yes it has been addressed in so far as those who were addressing it were claiming 'historical' evidence while 'shunning' the Bible.> No one here is shunning the bible at all, and you know this, but you are a dishonest, deceiving, evil person. Natural theology is not mutually exclusive from revealed theology, only the methodology is. Natural theology is an intellectual discipline that seeks to find evidence for theism from nature, reason, logic and history. Exploring this approach does not equate to shunning the bible. It just established parameters that must be followed; natural parameters. <Which is strange because they were invoking the 'historical' from the Bible itself.> The NT is historical. In natural theology we examine the texts as we would examine any ancient text and not as inspired texts, because that would be outside the parameters of natural theology. |
|
| Jun-15-16 | | Big Pawn: <I do have a problem with 'historians' who believe the Bible in pursuance of documenting history.> Which of the four historical facts that I listed do you think are not true? You haven't said that. You just resort to dismissing the historical evidence in general terms. You've got to be specific if you want to argue your points. I am being specific. I've listed the four facts that most historians (all kinds) agree to. What makes you think that you are right and they are wrong? What are your sources for this unique insight you have? Again, if I keep challenging you and you keep running away by way of being generally dismissive, then it proves my case. |
|
| Jun-15-16 | | Colonel Mortimer: <big pawn> <The NT is historical.> There you go again, you're invoking the Bible to substantiate only the supernatural events you want to believe in, while discarding large tracts of the Bible because you invoke science to explain that they are false. You can't have your cake and eat it - you have to apply the same methodology or none. Otherwise you're just auditing the Holy Bible according to whim. |
|
| Jun-15-16 | | Big Pawn: < Colonel Mortimer: <big pawn> <The NT is historical.> There you go again, you're invoking the Bible to substantiate only the supernatural events you want to believe in,> Which of the four historical facts that I listed are supernatural? The NT is a collection of the best sources. Why wouldn't you use those to investigate the origin of Christianity? |
|
| Jun-15-16 | | Big Pawn: Also, I noticed you didn't answer my question <Which of the four historical facts that I listed do you think are not true?> You need to answer the questions I'm asking you lest you have no counter argument at all. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <optimal play: He goes on to say, "Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter." Well, as per my previous post, Luke's independent source doesn't mention Joseph of Arimathea (Acts 2 & 13).> This is where we left off. I am going to dig back into this now, since the interruptions are over. I won't allow those two guys to interrupt our important discussion anymore, since our discussions with them have run their course. No sense in filling in interrupting our very interesting and important discussion with their hubris. I just wanted to go back and dig up the points you were making so we could get back on track. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Colonel Mortimer: Get back to all us once you find proof of the ressurection. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <no reason at all> to deny the resurrection - so says <mort>. You NEVER contested the four historical facts I listed even once. Unless you come here to do that, you are done here. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Colonel Mortimer: The 4 'facts' that you presented if taken as serious historically documented events, would point to a man that didn't die.. Occam's Razor - as pointed out by <Clemens Scheitz> in his posts which you are still loath to address. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | TheFocus: <Jim Bartle> is a coward. SMH. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <Colonel Mortimer: The 4 'facts' that you presented if taken as serious historically documented events, would point to a man that didn't die.. Occam's Razor - as pointed out by <Clemens Scheitz> in his posts which you are still loath to address.> You don't understand how to use Occam's Razor.
You didn't take up any of the four historical facts, which historians of all stripes agree with (though not every historian), and which are accepted by the mainstream. <mort>! You need to debate one of those facts or you are finished here. If your next post does not do that, it goes in the garbage - so either come here and debate me on these four facts and their historicity or save your time. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <focus> he's not only a coward; there is NO TRUTH in him because he rejects the truth out and out. I mean it when I say there is no truth in him. Watch, in a few days he'll back up something you say on the forum to try to come across as honest again - don't be a sucker! His main aim is like that of <mort>; to cause strife among Christians. <jim> is of his father the devil and is anti everything Christian. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | User not found: Tyson vs Ali https://youtu.be/RIa7GmD540Y
Between 85 and 88 Tyson would have beat Ali.. Those aren't my words, they're the words of some boxing expert but I still agree. However.. Ali was the greatest heavyweight of all time. There, I've said it. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <unf: Between 85 and 88 Tyson would have beat Ali.. > I used to think that when I was in high school, but now I think Ali would have won. If James Smith could go 10 rounds with Tyson during that time then surely Ali could have. Plus, Tyson wasn't so dangerous after a few rounds. |
|
Jun-16-16
 | | chancho: When George Foreman came back into the fight game in 1987, he did it because he wanted to fight Tyson. Wonder why Tyson never took the fight... |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | User not found: I loved the Bull and the matador anaolgy! Sometimes the bull beats the matador. But in all seriousness I've fallen in love with Ali over the last week. I love his footwork and fast punches, I've seen his fights before but never really looked and analyzed them over and over until he passed away. I still say this.. A 21 year old Tyson would have KO'd any boxer in history bar none. Ali had the strongest chin I've ever seen so a 22-23 year old Ali (although those historians say he peaked at 26ish before the draft) vs a 21 year old Tyson would have been the greatest fight in the history of heavyweight boxing. But I really do agree with you... Ali is the 👑. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <I still say this.. A 21 year old Tyson would have KO'd any boxer in history bar none.> UNF, he *didn't ko* James "Bonecrusher" Smith!
Go and check out that fight, then come back and tell me what you think. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <Chancho>, just think. Foreman comes back and continues fighting in his 40's. Evander Holyfield loses to Michael Moore and Moore becomes heavyweight champion of the world. Then Foreman, at 44 years old, KO's Moore to win the title. A few years later, after Holyfield started going down hill, he fought Tyson and kicked his butt all over the ring! Just think about what a 44 year old Foreman did to the heavyweight division and imagine him back at 25 years old - like when Ali whooped him. Tyson only looks devastating against tomato cans. I love his fights and he was my favorite boxer for a while, but knowing what I know now I would have to say that Ali would win 8 out of 10 fights with Tyson. |
|
Jun-16-16
| | chancho: Let's not forget the Buster Douglas fight...
He was a poor man's version of Ali, and he knocked out Tyson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt8...
Sure, Tyson did not take the fight seriously and so did not train properly, but imagine a prime Ali in there instead of Douglas. No contest. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: Agreed.
Also, notice that Tyson was not like Joe Frazier who could keep coming for 15 rounds. As soon as Tyson started taking punches he backed off right away. He even looked confused, like you could read him easily in the ring. He just looked confused. When Douglass hit him back and Holyfield hit him back, he looked confused. When he landed a few good shots and the other guy didn't fold and hit back, Tyson would back way off and just start dropping rounds, getting worse as he went. Joe Frazier was nothing like that. He was a beast! Ali vs Frazier 1 - first seven rounds Ali hit Joe Frazier A LOT! I mean Frazier took a terrible beating. Ali hit him with all the punches in the book and Joe didn't slow down at all. Amazing. The black Marciano for sure. Tyson fought at a slow pace after the third round. Frazier fought like a raging bull the whole time. For Tyson to beat someone like Ali, he would have to be able to do what Joe did and go the whole 15 rounds like each round was the first. He was never able to do that. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | User not found: BP.. You just like arguing. With who it doesn't matter, you just like arguing. I've never <once> seen you admit when you're wrong, and don't say you're never wrong because if you do you're as delusional as Abdel! I just said Ali's a better fighter than Tyson after 15 years of thinking otherwise. Maybe you should just admit you're wrong and convert to Islam?? Lool. Chancho.. The football's on so for now I'll agree with you... But I'll be back after the Euro's ... to argue ;) |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <Maybe you should just admit you're wrong and convert to Islam?? Lool. > Oh brother!
<BP.. You just like arguing. With who it doesn't matter, you just like arguing.> That's true, but I'm just saying go watch the Bonecrusher Smith fight and think about it some more. Hey, I think Ali would beat Tyson at age 21 - that's what I think. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | User not found: BP.. For a man who's roughly my age I have to admire your endurance. You're the Ali of ceegee, I'll take the Tyson tag but only 4 years ago when I was in my argumentative prime, lol. <Tyson only looks devastating against tomato cans.> BP.. You're a smart guy but <stop it!> Ali never fought chumps??? <I love his fights and he was my favorite boxer for a while, but knowing what I know now I would have to say that Ali would win 8 out of 10 fights with Tyson.> I'm not going to disagree with that. BUT... You put a 21-22 year old Tyson, with Cus D'amato, Rooney, and (the skinny guy with the tash? What's his name??) in Tyson's corner and he'd beat Frazier, he'd destroy Liston, and he'd probably struggle against Foreman. I'm agreeing with you. Ali is the GOAT and he's now 50/50 with Tyson as my favorite ever fighter <to watch>. |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | Big Pawn: <and he'd probably struggle against Foreman. > Want to see a great action packed Foreman fight? Watch Foreman vs Jimmy Young! Also, watch Foreman vs Lyle.
Insanity! |
|
| Jun-16-16 | | User not found: I'll check them out now mate. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 38 OF 237 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
