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.
I am glad they do. I learn so much from looking into their points - whether it's Joseph attesting to Jesus in the 'James' reference (with some interesting light on High Priestly behaviour!) or the question of Joazar, which licked and sealed the question of the date of Herod's death and the claim that Quirinus was Syrian governor around 1 BC.
I suppose, by the way that is what the Fiddling is aiming at - that Herod should have died 1 BC and there should have been the Roman census at that time so that Matthew and Luke can be reconciled (in date at least ) and on the Iconic date of (as one believer with more faith than smarts put it) "nought BC".
So what's next on the list for demolition my old sprout?
This is why A/A has restrictions on what can be posted there. What has the above to do with the topic? Other than as a metaphor for relying on Bible veracity which will certainly under pressure of question, collapse.
so, do you believe in anything, Raf? or strictly here to be a destroyer?
I believe in many things. I particularly believe that religion is divisive, primitive, dangerous and takes advantage of the weak...and if that isn't enough, it has the temerity to expect immunity from criticism for no other reason than it's someone’s "belief".
Now, do you have anything to say regarding the historical credibility of the gospels are are you just going to continue with your inane blathering?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I would guess that Raffs believes - as I do - in true beliefs (as much as we can determine) and are here to destroy false beliefs.
Ta old codpiece, and now that the Historical Jesus thread has collapsed under the weight of soggy bullcrap, I observed the usual excuses to the improbability of Luke's Jesus in the temple story. This is why, if it can beestablished as a principle that the synoptics are based on an original common text and anything by two of them (unless it pretty much totally conflicts, like the nativities and the resurrections) is another document like "Q" spirited in as an extra which is proven by Matthew having it all in one sermon, Luke spreading half of it over the trip to Perea and Mark not having it all.
Substantial single items like Luke's annunciation, Luke's assassination attempt in Nazareth and the 'strengthening angel' at Gethsemane and the Jesus in the temple episode are his own invention.
It will not do to suggest that this was a story that Luke found out about later since apologists elsewhere appeal to the disciples sharing their stories (never mind Jesus turning up after his resurrection in Luke and giving a series of lectures) to explain how they knew to write about stuff that happened when they were asleep. If oe of them knew about it, they all should.
Add to that the improbability of the story. In practical terms. There is no reason to suppose that the family either didn't bother to check that Jesus was with them or was obliged to go with the wagon train whether they had found him or not. Any excuse will do rather than admit that something in the gospels is not reliable. But the constant invention of improbable excuses does as much to weaken Gospel credibility as the points against.
There is the theological angle, too. Jesus doesn't really come into his mission until the baptism, yet here he is treading his family like dirt as he does while lecturing the lawyers on their own law. And I also mentioned that his arguments are rubbish. No Jew lerned in the scriptures would swallow his 'David and the shewbread' argument, or doing good on the sabbath. These are Paulinst - Christian arguments designed to debunk Jewish law and observances (including Sabbath observance, note) and put into Jesus' mouth to validate these arguments by turning Jesus into a Paulinist Christian.
Add to that the Josephus - history angle, yet again. Luke and only Luke - refers to things traceable to Josephus. Gamaliel's speech, the 6 AD census and, I seem to recall, the death of Herod Agrippa, though he scribes it to killing the sons of Zebedee while Josephus sees it as God's punishment for pride.
As I showed, this episode is uncannily like the passage in Josephus' autobiography where he is lecturing the wise and learned in the Law.
Ta old codpiece, and now that the Historical Jesus thread has collapsed under the weight of soggy bullcrap, I observed the usual excuses to the improbability of Luke's Jesus in the temple story. This is why, if it can beestablished as a principle that the synoptics are based on an original common text and anything by two of them (unless it pretty much totally conflicts, like the nativities and the resurrections) is another document like "Q" spirited in as an extra which is proven by Matthew having it all in one sermon, Luke spreading half of it over the trip to Perea and Mark not having it all.
Substantial single items like Luke's annunciation, Luke's assassination attempt in Nazareth and the 'strengthening angel' at Gethsemane and the Jesus in the temple episode are his own invention.
It will not do to suggest that this was a story that Luke found out about later since apologists elsewhere appeal to the disciples sharing their stories (never mind Jesus turning up after his resurrection in Luke and giving a series of lectures) to explain how they knew to write about stuff that happened when they were asleep. If oe of them knew about it, they all should.
Add to that the improbability of the story. In practical terms. There is no reason to suppose that the family either didn't bother to check that Jesus was with them or was obliged to go with the wagon train whether they had found him or not. Any excuse will do rather than admit that something in the gospels is not reliable. But the constant invention of improbable excuses does as much to weaken Gospel credibility as the points against.
There is the theological angle, too. Jesus doesn't really come into his mission until the baptism, yet here he is treading his family like dirt as he does while lecturing the lawyers on their own law. And I also mentioned that his arguments are rubbish. No Jew lerned in the scriptures would swallow his 'David and the shewbread' argument, or doing good on the sabbath. These are Paulinst - Christian arguments designed to debunk Jewish law and observances (including Sabbath observance, note) and put into Jesus' mouth to validate these arguments by turning Jesus into a Paulinist Christian.
Add to that the Josephus - history angle, yet again. Luke and only Luke - refers to things traceable to Josephus. Gamaliel's speech, the 6 AD census and, I seem to recall, the death of Herod Agrippa, though he scribes it to killing the sons of Zebedee while Josephus sees it as God's punishment for pride.
As I showed, this episode is uncannily like the passage in Josephus' autobiography where he is lecturing the wise and learned in the Law.
I would guess that Raffs believes - as I do - in true beliefs (as much as we can determine) and are here to destroy false beliefs.
ah, yes, after all, science (she blinded me). I believe Raf and i are having a chat about that right now--such as it is, or will be--on another thread, in Christianity, i think. He might need some help there (or if pc is to be believed, i might)(lol). You need to touch it, for it to be real, yes? none o' that pesky double-slit crap for you, roight? what is that, even? witchcraft, i guess.
you know, if you were shrunk down to the size of an atom's nucleus, and placed in a mass of, say, gold, that the rest of the mass would appear to you to be like outer space? that all of humanity could fit in a teaspoon, if the voids were extracted? so then, what are you actually gathering from this "science," then? how to fail at opening up portals to other dimensions, Trillion-dollar-style? how to go to Mars, now?
please, tell me some more, about what you can touch.
It is an illusion, but it is a predictably repeatable one. That is the basis of Reality, the materialist default (if you can make a case for Something More, you will do better than the best apologists we have here) and the findings of science which, let me assure you, range from those that are proven to a level of reliability that the religious believer can only envy, to those which seem to be the most probable explanation, such as Abiogensis and speculative such as the Holographic universe and the unknown such as Dark matter/energy.
The very common misunderstanding of theists about Science being treated as Holy Writ because it is in a science Book, is merely projecting their own faith -based thinking on us.
"You need to touch it, for it to be real, yes?"
Hardly. Are the stars an illusion because I can't touch them? And can I touch a molecule or the Romans or the moon or not? I can touch a material and it is made of molecules. I can handle pottery and coins made by Romans. I can get nearer to a bit of the Moon (in the Science museum) than the best thinkers thre ever were before the 20th c. It is validated evidence, not what I can touch, that counts, old son. Or whatever.
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.
I learn so much from looking into their points - whether it's Joseph attesting to Jesus in the 'James' reference (with some interesting light on High Priestly behaviour!) or the question of Joazar, which licked and sealed the question of the date of Herod's death and the claim that Quirinus was Syrian governor around 1 BC.
) and on the Iconic date of (as one believer with more faith than smarts put it) "nought BC".
