I am confused, what exactly are you trying to say with the last three post? I don't have time to google and understand what point you are trying to make here.
yeah, the sea org is nutso all right. pretty sure that they are much more strict than being a regular scientologist though. not to say that scientology in general isn't nutso.
i totally want to do the e-meter test though. i think i've got high levels of thetans in me!
Okay, show me the non biblical historical documentation of water into wine, fish and loaves expanding to feed the many, blind and lepers spontaneously being cured.
Did JC live? Sure.. but that's hardly a big deal really. Right now, Pope John Paul II is either through, or being put through the stages of sainthood.... I was alive a good portion of his run, and I don't recall any "miracles" (you know, the main criteria)?
Revisionism, changing the rules for what ends as little better than a publicity stunt, and just plain stubbornness of the followers to see the screaming light of day... it's like arguing with leaf fans.
Well, when the books in the New Testament were written, many of the authors (specifically the Gospels) met the "author", too. What's your point?
Many scholars believe the Gospels were not written by people who met Jesus....that they were written by others many years after the fact. Considering they're full of differences...those scholars are probably correct.
And if you're interested in looking it up: "the God who wasn't there"
Many scholars believe the Gospels were not written by people who met Jesus....that they were written by others many years after the fact. Considering they're full of differences...those scholars are probably correct.
And if you're interested in looking it up: "the God who wasn't there"
The minor differences in the Gospels has already been dealt with earlier. Keep trying.
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [34]) view as follows:
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles and who, according to the ecclesiastical tradition transmitted by Eusebius, was put to death by the Romans shortly before AD 68,[38] nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64–65 that had such impact on the early church.[39]
Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
The minor differences in the Gospels has already been dealt with earlier. Keep trying.
Your minor is other people's major. And has already been mentioned...this doesn't answer the meat of the matter. Scholars do not believe the Gospels were written by people who met Jesus. They were all written 40 years after his death. (the average life expectancy was less than 40, closer to 30). If you're not going to look at the evidence provided (dismiss it without having actually watched it) then why are you posting in the thread? Because Christianity requires faith that even the religious admit cannot be backed up with evidence. If you take the bible as evidence then Bilbo has more sources proving his existence.
Your minor is other people's major. And has already been mentioned...this doesn't answer the meat of the matter. Scholars do not believe the Gospels were written by people who met Jesus. They were all written 40 years after his death. (the average life expectancy was less than 40, closer to 30). If you're not going to look at the evidence provided (dismiss it without having actually watched it) then why are you posting in the thread? Because Christianity requires faith that even the religious admit cannot be backed up with evidence. If you take the bible as evidence then Bilbo has more source proving his existence.
I think I am the one getting sucked in here, as the reality is there isn't a clear case/argument to made for the reality of everything we see and know to be true for the existence of everything. Only a case that pokes holes at the Bible.
Okay, show me the non biblical historical documentation of water into wine, fish and loaves expanding to feed the many, blind and lepers spontaneously being cured.
Did JC live? Sure.. but that's hardly a big deal really.
Really? Think about that for a minute. It's not the miracles that were performed that is the problem. It is the message that is the problem. There were miracle workers in the day. Moses threw his rod down and it became a serpent and so did Pharaohs sorcerers do the same thing. There will always be a counterfeiter of miracles. Answer this? Why was Jesus crucified? The answer is because He forgave sins. And the religious leaders of the day said it was blasphemy for only God can forgive sin.
Right now, Pope John Paul II is either through, or being put through the stages of sainthood.... I was alive a good portion of his run, and I don't recall any "miracles" (you know, the main criteria)?
Revisionism, changing the rules for what ends as little better than a publicity stunt, and just plain stubbornness of the followers to see the screaming light of day... it's like arguing with leaf fans.
Mark
Why should Christianity give up the New Testament and Bible as a whole as source material in understanding the history of the time period. You may not like the theological ideas that come from them but there is no need to throw the history that they provide. However, help put the NT into context try: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, and Josephus to name a few.
Many scholars believe the Gospels were not written by people who met Jesus....that they were written by others many years after the fact. Considering they're full of differences...those scholars are probably correct.
And if you're interested in looking it up: "the God who wasn't there"
What scholars are you referring too? Karen King, Bart Ehrman, or Dan Brown author of the Da Vinci Code? For every author you have that says the apostle Paul didn't write the 13 books of the NT attrribute to him, I could probably give you three that say other wise if we just stick to people with PhD's. And that goes for the rest of the NT as well.
Which books were written by people who never met Jesus? I will give you Hebrews as the author has not been identified.
The truth is one wants to throw out material written within decades of the accession, as having no historical value, yet will take as historical fact from historians whom we have copies of copies of copies some 400 - 1500 years later sometimes. Let's throw out everything from 650 bc - 1500 ad. No Alexander the Great, no Julius Caesar, no Nero, no Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, no Roman Empire, Egyptian and all that history.
The fact is you accept by faith, what historians have recorded about the people above and a host of others and like I said, we don't have their original copies. We only have copies of copies of copies some 400 - 1500 years after the events. In some cases only 2 or 3 copies of the works written.
The documentary God wasn't there?
I will watch it, but can tell you right now it is foolishness. Even one of the most celebrated agnostic/atheists of our day Dr Bart Erhman has written a book called: Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Again, not a proactive argument, only reactive argument. Which is your right.
Why should Christianity give up the New Testament and Bible as a whole as source material in understanding the history of the time period. You may not like the theological ideas that come from them but there is no need to throw the history that they provide. However, help put the NT into context try: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, and Josephus to name a few.
Or... to overly simplify the question in this thread..
So, JC is tried, punished, tortured and killed for going against what the most popular regional belief system was.... wonder if anything like that happens today?
As a race, we're really bad at this whole "learn from your mistakes" thing. Remember, gay is the new black.
Again, not a proactive argument, only reactive argument. Which is your right.
Why should Christianity give up the New Testament and Bible as a whole as source material in understanding the history of the time period. You may not like the theological ideas that come from them but there is no need to throw the history that they provide. However, help put the NT into context try: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, and Josephus to name a few.
What scholars are you referring too? Karen King, Bart Ehrman, or Dan Brown author of the Da Vinci Code? For every author you have that says the apostle Paul didn't write the 13 books of the NT attrribute to him, I could probably give you three that say other wise if we just stick to people with PhD's. And that goes for the rest of the NT as well.
Which books were written by people who never met Jesus? I will give you Hebrews as the author has not been identified.
The truth is one wants to throw out material written within decades of the accession, as having no historical value, yet will take as historical fact from historians whom we have copies of copies of copies some 400 - 1500 years later sometimes. Let's throw out everything from 650 bc - 1500 ad. No Alexander the Great, no Julius Caesar, no Nero, no Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, no Roman Empire, Egyptian and all that history.
The fact is you accept by faith, what historians have recorded about the people above and a host of others and like I said, we don't have their original copies. We only have copies of copies of copies some 400 - 1500 years after the events. In some cases only 2 or 3 copies of the works written.
The documentary God wasn't there?
I will watch it, but can tell you right now it is foolishness.
So much more that could be said!
Saying something is foolish before you watch it sounds pretty foolish wouldn't you say?(apparently not)
Saying that something written at a certain time has historical value is true....saying that the contents of the story within are "History" is something completely different. Homer's Iliad is historical. But no one would argue that it is "history".
The bible was written and parsed and edited over 100 years. To say that it represents a a factual account of history is a falsehood.
As for which authors....you coming up with some authors who write fiction simply means you didn't do your own checking. I encourage you to.
The fact that the Bible is full of fiction does not make it less important...it just means that people recognize it for what it is for. It is a document intended to teach....and teach morals that are not current. It is a valuable historical document....but it is not history.
Saying something is foolish before you watch it sounds pretty foolish wouldn't you say?(apparently not)
The bible was written and parsed and edited over 100 years. To say that it represents a a factual account of history is a falsehood. Wrong and uninformed.
As for which authors....you coming up with some authors who write fiction simply means you didn't do your own checking. I encourage you to. Wrong and uninformed. Doing the work that you said wasn't true about written by people who never met Christ. I'd still like you to provide me with a scholar saying otherwise on my response down below.
The fact that the Bible is full of fiction does not make it less important...it just means that people recognize it for what it is for. It is a document intended to teach....and teach morals that are not current. It is a valuable historical document....but it is not history. Again, wrong and uninformed.
A simple explanation/intention for the Bible is for man to know about God and how to have a personal relationship with Him. Period.
As for as the other stuff in bold, I think you are misinformed. I know you are a very harsh critic and that is ok, but saying things are fiction does not make it so. Earlier you said the NT was written by people who never met Christ. Paul wrote 14 of the 27 books of the NT met Christ, Peter 2 books, John 5 books, James his half brother 1 book, Matthew, 1 of the 12 disciple, 1 book, (although there is some who may dispute this) Luke was a Doctor and a historian, 2 books, while he wasn't one of the 12 he was there, that leaves Mark, who was a companion of Paul and Hebrews which I already stated.
I really hate getting sucked into this thread which is one of the reason why I was away for a month. Then I am told I it is foolishness that I write about the so called "myth of Jesus documentary". Yesterday I heard an interview with the main atheist himself Richard Dawkins and even he admits that Jesus Christ was a verifiable historical person.
I am all about providing people with a reasonable explanation to the tough question, but I think I am done with this thread for awhile. If you want alternative information other than that of the new atheist or free thinkers so me a pm and include an email with your question and I will be have to provide you with information as I have down for others
Personally I think Hobby Lobby's position was fucktarded . . . The Pill is fine, but "morning after" pills violate their beliefs? WTF?!?
I also found it ironic that one of the articles I read on the decision had a photo of a woman holding a sign that read, "Bosses do NOT belong in the bedroom".
But their wallets do, right? Lots of silliness on BOTH sides of this case.
So a group comprised of 66% males and 33% females were asked to decide on a woman's right to prevent reproduction.
NO!!! they were asked to decide if an Employer could be forced to include contraceptive options as part of their healthcare benefits package. Read the fucking article for Chrissakes.
5/6 of the men said "no, you don't have to accommodate those women"
ALL of the women said "of course you should accommodate those women".
And the men win. Reminiscent of another thread on here... again, this is where the democratic vote approach doesn't quite work.
Mark
See bolded and try again . . . the case is about which Constitutional Right takes precedence when they conflict with each other. The fucked up part comes when you read the articles about this and discover that Hobby Lobby is "fine" with "the pill", but that their so-called beliefs do not allow them to tolerate the "morning after" pill.
Comments
the answer to feynmans parodox is that they are here
I am confused, what exactly are you trying to say with the last three post? I don't have time to google and understand what point you are trying to make here.
5 Disturbing Things I Learned in Scientology's 'Space Navy' | Cracked.com
Strong case for atheism.
Mark
yeah, the sea org is nutso all right. pretty sure that they are much more strict than being a regular scientologist though. not to say that scientology in general isn't nutso.
i totally want to do the e-meter test though. i think i've got high levels of thetans in me!
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigghhtt.
Actually this one has an advantage as some people alive today have actually met the author of the religion.
Sometimes all of the words are important in sentences Milo. Also, reliable recorded history and whatnot
Mark
And are you saying there is no documented historical record for Jesus of Nazareth? Pretty certain that there is.
Okay, show me the non biblical historical documentation of water into wine, fish and loaves expanding to feed the many, blind and lepers spontaneously being cured.
Did JC live? Sure.. but that's hardly a big deal really. Right now, Pope John Paul II is either through, or being put through the stages of sainthood.... I was alive a good portion of his run, and I don't recall any "miracles" (you know, the main criteria)?
Revisionism, changing the rules for what ends as little better than a publicity stunt, and just plain stubbornness of the followers to see the screaming light of day... it's like arguing with leaf fans.
Mark
Many scholars believe the Gospels were not written by people who met Jesus....that they were written by others many years after the fact. Considering they're full of differences...those scholars are probably correct.
And if you're interested in looking it up: "the God who wasn't there"
Your minor is other people's major. And has already been mentioned...this doesn't answer the meat of the matter. Scholars do not believe the Gospels were written by people who met Jesus. They were all written 40 years after his death. (the average life expectancy was less than 40, closer to 30). If you're not going to look at the evidence provided (dismiss it without having actually watched it) then why are you posting in the thread? Because Christianity requires faith that even the religious admit cannot be backed up with evidence. If you take the bible as evidence then Bilbo has more sources proving his existence.
And a catchier tune...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU
Mark
Again, not a proactive argument, only reactive argument. Which is your right.
Why should Christianity give up the New Testament and Bible as a whole as source material in understanding the history of the time period. You may not like the theological ideas that come from them but there is no need to throw the history that they provide. However, help put the NT into context try: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, and Josephus to name a few.
What scholars are you referring too? Karen King, Bart Ehrman, or Dan Brown author of the Da Vinci Code? For every author you have that says the apostle Paul didn't write the 13 books of the NT attrribute to him, I could probably give you three that say other wise if we just stick to people with PhD's. And that goes for the rest of the NT as well.
Which books were written by people who never met Jesus? I will give you Hebrews as the author has not been identified.
The truth is one wants to throw out material written within decades of the accession, as having no historical value, yet will take as historical fact from historians whom we have copies of copies of copies some 400 - 1500 years later sometimes. Let's throw out everything from 650 bc - 1500 ad. No Alexander the Great, no Julius Caesar, no Nero, no Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, no Roman Empire, Egyptian and all that history.
The fact is you accept by faith, what historians have recorded about the people above and a host of others and like I said, we don't have their original copies. We only have copies of copies of copies some 400 - 1500 years after the events. In some cases only 2 or 3 copies of the works written.
The documentary God wasn't there?
I will watch it, but can tell you right now it is foolishness. Even one of the most celebrated agnostic/atheists of our day Dr Bart Erhman has written a book called: Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth.
So much more that could be said!
Or... to overly simplify the question in this thread..
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mark
I think the "official reason" for JC's crucifixion was Blasphemy (saying things that were against the dogma of the day) and Insulting the head of state. There was even a legal expert that wasted a lot of their life on this....
Jesus' trial and crucifixion were legal, according to 300-page study - NY Daily News
So, JC is tried, punished, tortured and killed for going against what the most popular regional belief system was.... wonder if anything like that happens today?
As a race, we're really bad at this whole "learn from your mistakes" thing. Remember, gay is the new black.
Mark
Saying something is foolish before you watch it sounds pretty foolish wouldn't you say?(apparently not)
Saying that something written at a certain time has historical value is true....saying that the contents of the story within are "History" is something completely different. Homer's Iliad is historical. But no one would argue that it is "history".
The bible was written and parsed and edited over 100 years. To say that it represents a a factual account of history is a falsehood.
As for which authors....you coming up with some authors who write fiction simply means you didn't do your own checking. I encourage you to.
The fact that the Bible is full of fiction does not make it less important...it just means that people recognize it for what it is for. It is a document intended to teach....and teach morals that are not current. It is a valuable historical document....but it is not history.
A simple explanation/intention for the Bible is for man to know about God and how to have a personal relationship with Him. Period.
As for as the other stuff in bold, I think you are misinformed. I know you are a very harsh critic and that is ok, but saying things are fiction does not make it so. Earlier you said the NT was written by people who never met Christ. Paul wrote 14 of the 27 books of the NT met Christ, Peter 2 books, John 5 books, James his half brother 1 book, Matthew, 1 of the 12 disciple, 1 book, (although there is some who may dispute this) Luke was a Doctor and a historian, 2 books, while he wasn't one of the 12 he was there, that leaves Mark, who was a companion of Paul and Hebrews which I already stated.
I really hate getting sucked into this thread which is one of the reason why I was away for a month. Then I am told I it is foolishness that I write about the so called "myth of Jesus documentary". Yesterday I heard an interview with the main atheist himself Richard Dawkins and even he admits that Jesus Christ was a verifiable historical person.
I am all about providing people with a reasonable explanation to the tough question, but I think I am done with this thread for awhile. If you want alternative information other than that of the new atheist or free thinkers so me a pm and include an email with your question and I will be have to provide you with information as I have down for others
Brent
\endthread.
separation of church and state though.
Personally I think Hobby Lobby's position was fucktarded . . . The Pill is fine, but "morning after" pills violate their beliefs? WTF?!?
I also found it ironic that one of the articles I read on the decision had a photo of a woman holding a sign that read, "Bosses do NOT belong in the bedroom".
But their wallets do, right? Lots of silliness on BOTH sides of this case.
5/6 of the men said "no, you don't have to accommodate those women"
ALL of the women said "of course you should accommodate those women".
And the men win. Reminiscent of another thread on here... again, this is where the democratic vote approach doesn't quite work.
Mark
See bolded and try again . . . the case is about which Constitutional Right takes precedence when they conflict with each other. The fucked up part comes when you read the articles about this and discover that Hobby Lobby is "fine" with "the pill", but that their so-called beliefs do not allow them to tolerate the "morning after" pill.
Jesus, Mark, how could you whiff on this one?
One: 7:43 a.m.
Two: Admitted preoccupation of planned parenting
My bad. In this case, to answer 800over's question? I'll stick to my earlier statement of "time to put the fairytale away". Problem solved.
Mark