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.
library at Alexandra would have been cool resource.
Yeah, its destruction is one of mankind's great tragedies.
On a par with the cultures, languages, and lore of aboriginal peoples across the planet disappearing forever over the past mere couple of centuries - an eye-blink in time.
Yeah, its destruction is one of mankind's great tragedies.
On a par with the cultures, languages, and lore of aboriginal peoples across the planet disappearing forever over the past mere couple of centuries - an eye-blink in time.
next will be a gamma ray buster wiping all of our drives. the big black out.
Nah. Worst varmint I'm likely to run into is a black bear. More often than not, they steer clear of humanoids, or can be discouraged with some hollerin' and making large.
I'd hate to do it, but if survival required it, I'd use the .22 on grouse, rabbits, turkeys and other small game.
Nah. Worst varmint I'm likely to run into is a black bear. More often than not, they steer clear of humanoids, or can be discouraged with some hollerin' and making large.
I'd hate to do it, but if survival required it, I'd use the .22 on grouse, rabbits, turkeys and other small game.
Well, actually I was referring to proselytizing Chris......oh never mind.
Your demand is unreasonable bigotry but you refuse to see it. They are independent writings culled from a whole lot more independent writings. Their selection and inclusion in the Bible does not change their status except to those who are bigoted against the Bible.
Oh Mystic, seriously - you can't be bigoted against a book. Sorry, but that's ridiculous and I think you know that's ridiculous.
Saying you don't believe what a book says is not in any way defined as bigotry - unless you're bigoted against Harry Potter, Romeo and Juliett, 1984, the collective works of Danielle Steel and Stephen King, some books by Tom Clancy, and every other book that you, yourself, do not believe is true.
The Bible doesn't get some kind of special dispensation just because it's the Bible.
I know you're better than this. You know what "indepedent" means, and that's important. Because the Bible's historicity is extremely tenuous at best - made up from whole cloth at worst.
I have to wonder if the history in the Bible isn't decribing the history of some other planet because it certainly didn't happen here on earth.
Which is why people want independent sources - otherwise you just have another case of using the Bible to prove the Bible, which is like ... first on the list of things not to do during a religious debate.
Surely you're not going to resort to that by claiming that, because parts of the Bible were written independently of each other, the Bible can be used to prove itself?
C'mon, Mystic ... I usually leave you alone because most of what you say makes at least a modicum of sense to me. But this? Things must have gone completely awry since I was last here. Because, while I know you incorporated some elements of Christianity into your ideas of agape love (to my horror, I might add) you're now going to defend the Bible?
I'd need a hand the size of Jupiter for the facepalm required for that.
gLuke described it as a city. It wasn't. Nor was it a town or even a large village. Despite your waffling the archaeological evidence so far is that Nazareth at the time of the Christian man-god was a a few poor hovels and a farm or two. Sorry about that.
You should be. I keep seeing this tack employed on the forum. "The evidence so far is that I'm right" being used interchangeably with "We don't have any evidence that you're right". But that doesn't follow. If the blog is correct and there is still a great deal of research to be done there, how do we conclude that the research confirms you're right when they've already found something (which some definitions allow to be called a village or town). Even if they had found no settlement there, the conclusion that therefore there wasn't a town there is questionable (mostly because, as I said, there's a lot more to explore).
Quote:
Im sure there are many things that are historical, just like there are in War and Peace.
Well that's all that's needed. I'm not arguing that the bible is inerrant (obviously). And Ehrman himself repeatedly calls the gospels "problematic".
Quote:
...and the straw manning because I and as far as I know, nobody else is saying that a 'place' didn't exist. We are saying that there was no Nazareth as described in the NT.
That is not what I've been told, typically. And you yourself, in the post I originally quoted which started this conversation, said plainly "...and yet there was no 'city'/town' of Nazareth at the alleged time of the Jesus man-god". Evidently, there was something that at least some dictionaries can call a town. I can grant that we've no evidence of a synagogue or of a large city. But that's not what "Nazareth didn't exist" typically implies, any more than "Jesus didn't exist" implies "Oh, I just meant that if there was a Jesus he didn't perform miracles" or some such.
Quote:
First you have to prove a Jesus before you can prove where he lived.
And we've plenty of evidence for concluding that Jesus existed. Not that proving where he lived is necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Attesting to the same things is evidence those passages (Josephus, Tacitus) were later written by Christians. Goldberg, Olson and Hopper have demonstrated the passages in Josephus were most likely not written by Josephus.
That's like me saying Ehrman, Feldman, and Bauckham have demonstrated otherwise. Proves nothing.
Quote:
Earliest gospel ca 70 AD to ca 120 AD (if not later).
Even the Wikipedia page dates Mark to no later than 70 AD. If you know something that the majority of scholars don't (which seems to be a trendy claim among mythicists these days), then present it. I was asked about how these were dated. I took that to mean "typically", so I answered. I'm sure, if you want to get technical, some nutcase out there dates the gospel of Mark to 30 AD. Should I have answered, "30-2019", just to be safe?
Quote:
The desolation of the temple makes more sense if it was written at the time of Hadrian.
And there are arguments against the passages in Josephus being Christian interpolations, such as how the author referred to James. We could go in circles all day over these details.
Quote:
The pre Markan narrative you have no evidence for.
Well there are reasons so many (I keep hearing most) scholars agree there was some sort of narrative Mark pulled from (and some claim it was quite early, even to late 30s). One was that the high priest isn't mentioned by name. So they reason that it must be referring to Caiaphas since Christians would not have explicitly mentioned him due to fear of the religious leaders. Since Matthew and Luke were later, they do not have to fear mentioning Caiaphas by name.
Gerd Theissen and Richard Bauckham later added that prominent members of the church were also left unnamed for their protection because they would have been open to prosecution or violence from the authorities. And then the other gospels identify these people because they were later, after they didn't have these concerns.
Oh Mystic, seriously - you can't be bigoted against a book. Sorry, but that's ridiculous and I think you know that's ridiculous.
Saying you don't believe what a book says is not in any way defined as bigotry - unless you're bigoted against Harry Potter, Romeo and Juliett, 1984, the collective works of Danielle Steel and Stephen King, some books by Tom Clancy, and every other book that you, yourself, do not believe is true.
The Bible doesn't get some kind of special dispensation just because it's the Bible.
I know you're better than this. You know what "indepedent" means, and that's important. Because the Bible's historicity is extremely tenuous at best - made up from whole cloth at worst.
I have to wonder if the history in the Bible isn't decribing the history of some other planet because it certainly didn't happen here on earth.
Which is why people want independent sources - otherwise you just have another case of using the Bible to prove the Bible, which is like ... first on the list of things not to do during a religious debate.
Surely you're not going to resort to that by claiming that, because parts of the Bible were written independently of each other, the Bible can be used to prove itself?
C'mon, Mystic ... I usually leave you alone because most of what you say makes at least a modicum of sense to me. But this? Things must have gone completely awry since I was last here. Because, while I know you incorporated some elements of Christianity into your ideas of agape love (to my horror, I might add) you're now going to defend the Bible?
I'd need a hand the size of Jupiter for the facepalm required for that.
It is NOT a matter of defending the Bible, it is about not artificially rejecting as independent writings those that we selected from an abundant number of writings around that time that suited the purposes of the men who compiled the set of writings in the Bible. It is a fallacious distinction based on denigration of the purpose the Bible was compiled, ie. to support a religion. You are essentially saying you want writings from the era that do NOT support what is in the existing compilation known as the Bible. It is understandable why you would demand that, but it is unreasonable.
I reject all the barbarity and OT ignorance that is in the mainstream Christian "precepts and doctrines of men." But my experience of the consciousness in deep meditation matches the descriptions of God's Holy Spirit in the Jesus narrative. It fits the Savior template in the spiritual fossil record, and is compatible with my scientific Synthesis of why we exist and how we fit into the Cosmic Orchestra. I would hate to see you add to your pain by a facepalm because of me, Shirina
Ok, I can't help it I would like to repeat what I said on maybe the 1st or 2nd page here...
No, it is worse than an abusive husband...it is the abuse of a Dictator or a King, a bad King ...as
described in the Old Testament...how is this portrayal of God any different than Stalin.
(Who killed 10s of millions compared to Hitler.)
And people put me down for being a cherry picker of the Bible. Anyone with a brain can see
the portrayal comes from fearful minds projecting their thoughts onto 'Him'.
It's the worst Greek play ever....the dysfunctional family;
the children blaming their Father for every bad thing ever.
And people buy every word! And are proud of their loyalty to it. Oy vey.
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.
