Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now you are just making crap up. There have been many claims of extra biblical references of jesus yet they have all been proven forgeries or they simply refer to followers calling themselves xians. Most of these anyway are long after the alleged time of jesus.
In the year 00 CE, we already had writing. You really need to educate yourself on when and where recording using alphabets originated. It was in the 1500s that the printing press came about and made mass reproduction possible by mechanical means.
Your comments had nothing to do with my point. Neanderthals existed and they produced no writings.
Lack of written records about Jesus does not disprove his existence. Pretty simple concept.
Quote:
Correct. A single pair would only be able to produce one generation of healthy offspring, thereafter, sibling copulations would cause deterioration in the genetics and it just gets progressively worse after that.
That is not what the genome project was about. You think that science is trying to replace a mythical A&E? You are still thinking like a creationist.
Nothing to do with my point. The atheist believes in the myth all life on earth originates from a single primitive cell that did not carry the code for the human genome.
It's far more credible to suggest humanity originates from two first parents, let us call them Adam and Eve, due in large part to the principles of organization and cellular specialization/differentiation. Which comes from human genetic inheritance (like you atheists claim homosexuality does) for humans--which every parent of every human has, and which I would rather subscribe to the first two human parents, let us call them Adam and Eve, rather than to some primitive single that out of itself propagated the genome of every species of life on earth through chance and algorithms.
Jesus did not exist as his ancestry traces back through a myriad of myths.
There was no literal Adam and Eve yet Jesus is traced back to the single Adam in the bible.
Jesus existed and I believe in the first parents of humanity, let us call them Adam and Eve, and perhaps we can place them in Africa.
Quote:
There was no global flood nor even a hint of a localised flood as reported and Jesus is traced back through Noah.
Neither here nor there.
Quote:
Exodus never happened. Ignoring the lack of any archaeological evidence, the simple math refutes the plausibility of 2-6M folk surviving desert conditions on 2 litres of water a day per person, do the math. You end up with a convoy of 20kl trucks parked nose to tail approx 8.5km long. They had no water trucks.
Neither here nor there.
Quote:
King David is a legend that probably did not exist and here too the lineage goes through.
Neither here nor there.
Quote:
See, in the days of yore when folk were ignorant, it was possible to sell this snake oil. Now with modern science and archaeology, these claims are all refuted.
The history of science is full of selling the figurative snake oil. The strength of science is that it's wrong so often. Science grew from being wrong about germs, phrenology, and eugenics. Eventually, it will grow from being wrong about life on earth resulting from chance and algorithmic processes.
Quote:
I still would like to see any proofs you have to offer. I do not believe in made up crap BTW. Do not underestimate my biblical and church history knowledge.
What has this to do with the discussion? You are very good at building strawmen.
I subscribe to truth and so far no theist has been able to provide any.
As I stated I do not subscribe to scientism, you do, irrespective if you don't understand that you do. I do not need "proofs" in the sense of observable science locating hell, purgatory, and heaven. I would need that if I subscribed to scientism. I do not.
But as GldnRule suggested... the thread can return back to the original question the OP was asking about the physiological capacity--or any difficulties--in Jesus yelling a sentence from the cross while crucified.
As I stated I do not subscribe to scientism, you do, irrespective if you don't understand that you do. I do not need "proofs" in the sense of observable science locating hell, purgatory, and heaven. I would need that if I subscribed to scientism. I do not.
But as GldnRule suggested... the thread can return back to the original question the OP was asking about the physiological capacity--or any difficulties--in Jesus yelling a sentence from the cross while crucified.
In other words, "The Bible says it, and I believe it. No proof required. So don't bother asking me any more questions."
First, as background, he is a devout Catholic and feels the Holy Spirit inspred him writing
this book.
The reason I'm posting is bec he is not the first one that has said, "Jesus never
said, Abba Abba, why have You forsaken me?"
I mean haven't you thought how could God have abandoned him?
It never computed to me.
Mr. O'Riley doesn't care what was added to the Bible....he is very clear....the
Romans wanted Jesus to die fast bec of the crowd...they did not give him the usual
"butt rest"...as you may know ...you die of suffication.
As I have heard before...no one would have been close enough to ever
hear him....even if he could have whispered it...which that alone is doubtful...
because of the horrible crush of his lungs, etc.
Comments. What do ya think of Bill, that's ok, too.
I don't recognize O'Riley's credentials as a theologian. Ironically, he is, as you mention, a Catholic. I'm not aware that a Catholic layperson has the authority to determine what is or is not inspired or true in the Gospels.
My view of O'Riley doing textual criticism of the NT is the same I'll take regarding a guy like Richard Dawkins trying to do theology--it's not their field of expertise and they'll just look bad trying.
I don't recognize O'Riley's credentials as a theologian. Ironically, he is, as you mention, a Catholic. I'm not aware that a Catholic layperson has the authority to determine what is or is not inspired or true in the Gospels.
You know I haven't read Mr. O'Reilly's book yet but is that we he's doing in 'Killing Jesus?' I think he knows he's no theologian and holds no candle to Augustine et al but I think he's good say as a 'reporter' I assume of facts and his writing is devoid of complication. Kind of straight and to the point. With him, one doesn't get ribbons and ribbons of words stuck in wandering forays into metaphysics....;-)....I think that's why he's successful. It's his straightforward writing style.
You know I haven't read Mr. O'Reilly's book yet but is that we he's doing in 'Killing Jesus?' I think he knows he's no theologian and holds no candle to Augustine et al but I think he's good say as a 'reporter' I assume of facts and his writing is devoid of complication. Kind of straight and to the point. With him, one doesn't get ribbons and ribbons of words stuck in wandering forays into metaphysics....;-)....I think that's why he's successful. It's his straightforward writing style.
I will likely read it--but it does bug me when a guy like him decides he wants to go and decide what actually happened and he thinks he knows better than the guys that actually saw the events.
Well you knowit's obvious (well to me) that Mr. O'Reilly has the gift of the gab and he throws quite a bit of his ego into it. But I figure he has to watch for the 'blarney'. I'll probably get his book and try to see what's what. But I have to say if he perhaps strayed into that area of 'theological' analysis well you know he'd be under analysis 24/7. The broadsides and attacks would surely descend down for intense debate. As it is, if his goal in the book was to tell a 'striaghforward factual account of how Christ was killed well it still doesn't matter because he's still taken to task for that by some scholars. But I'd think O'Reilly was in wait for that too.....And just wondring if Jimmy Bishop got off that easily...;-)....
I will likely read it--but it does bug me when a guy like him decides he wants to go and decide what actually happened and he thinks he knows better than the guys that actually saw the events.
His sources are the same as anyone else's, hearsay and ancient second or third person text. He has just as much right to his opinion as to what happened, as you or any theologian.
I will likely read it--but it does bug me when a guy like him decides he wants to go and decide what actually happened and he thinks he knows better than the guys that actually saw the events.
His sources are the same as anyone else's, hearsay and ancient text. He has just as much right to his opinion as to what happened, as you or any theologian.
The Guy (Bill O'Riley) has just found a way to make some money.
I do not begrudge him for that. While I personally think of making money through religions or religious topics is on a level of con-artistry, we must remember that the bottom line here is MONEY ♪ THE GREEN GREEN ALMIGHTY DOLLAR!!!! ♫
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
