4
   

Even some scientists give lip service to fairy tales.

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 11:07 pm
@BillRM,
No, I highlighted earlier where the meaning can change and you still have the same words. Read back...
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 11:23 pm
@Ionus,
Because we are scared of dying.
-----------------------------------------
Kind of silly fear as the universe had exist for many billions of years before we was born/exist and will go on from many billions of years after are short life spans.

What reason is there to fear the non-existed state we all had already shared for all those billions of years since the big bang?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 11:27 pm
@Ionus,
No, I highlighted earlier where the meaning can change and you still have the same words. Read back...
----------------------------------------------------------------
That is your claimed that I do not accept and as most of the readers here are not at all likely to accept either, in my opinion.

Once you grant you grant yourself the power to change the meanings of words there is no limit to how must you can re-edit stories at your whim.

All you are doing is finding a clever way of rewriting the bible to fit your world view better and little else.

What other fairy tales are you planning on rewriting next? The stories of the Greek or Roman gods or are you going to go further back into the past.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 11:50 pm
@Ionus,
Thomas Jefferson deal with the supernatural nonsense contain in the bible not by trying to cleverly edit if by changing the meaning of the words contain in the bible but to me a far more honest method of editing such nonsense completely out of the bible.

He did not try to defend those silly stories/fairy tales by your methods of redefining words that I question any one else here will buy into.

How many hundreds of words by the way do you figure you are you going to have to redefine to deal with all the silliness contains in this book?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 12:33 am
@Ionus,
Because we are scared of dying.
------------------------------------------------------------
You know the universe is a wonderful place Ionus that we all get to enjoy for our life span and to me we should all be grateful for that time without the need to created fairy tales about an after life or gods ETC.

For me there is no need for a belief in some unlikely supernatural being or a life after this one to make the universe a wonderful place to be in and be a part of.

Below are a few examples of events that had made me happy to be part of this universe with or more likely without a god or an afterlife.

1) Seeing Saturn rings in a telescope in my parent’s back yard as a child or the mountains and craters on the moon for the first time. I can still feel both the wonder and the cold as this was in the middle of winter in Pennsylvania.

2) Hanging four thousand feet above the ground under a parachute as a young man or feeling the moment the plane I was piloting by myself for the first time became part of the air instead of the ground.

3) The first time I got to make love to the woman that I was truly in love with and every time since.

4) Having a kitten who life I had save laying on my lap purring at me tonight.

Guess in a way I should not begrudge those who for whatever reason need a supernatural being to be happy but it still seem a very silly need to me.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 04:45 am
@Intrepid,
There are several scholars whove attempted to addd other dimensions to the Biblical stories by looking at traditions of the day in a context. Ruse is another of these , and most of them arrive at a point that (I think) that they were really amazed at how much of extra scripture was excised by Liturgical Cabals.

Its gotten so that the questioning of Christs existence has been a point of scholarly discussion.
Thieing has attempted to add some context of tradition to the Scriptures based upon a sense of historical evidence , not faith.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 05:05 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Its gotten so that the questioning of Christs existence has been a point of scholarly discussion.
A point of discussion it always was, but it was never scholarly. Jesus existence is proven historically.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 05:42 am
@farmerman,
addd other dimensions to the Biblical stories by looking at traditions of the day in a context. Ruse is another of these , and most of them arrive at a point that (I think) that they were really amazed at how much of extra scripture was excised by Liturgical Cabals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farmerman that is all fine and good however it prove nothing at all and at the very best is an intellect guessing game of the first order.

Without the used of a time machine that all it can be and of course questioning the existence of the Christ figure that had not one bit of evident dating back to his life time is normal.

A cult writing sis just a cult writings and trying to read in to it more then what is there without any reason to think that there is more is a waste of time.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 05:45 am
@Ionus,
Jesus existence is proven historically.
---------------------------------------------------
LOL and more LOL that is a silly and completely unsupported statement and just show how silly your position is.

No writings had been shown to exist anywhere near his claim 'lifetime" or within fifty/hundred years or more of it.

Seem like another fine example of lying for Jesus as a matter of fact.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 05:50 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Jesus existence is proven historically
Outside of a few "insider" txts, the only real discussion of the existence opf Jesus is Josephus. His "historical existence" has never been established as a forensic fact. Ill be willing to trade literature with you. Let it be known that I am neither in support or in denial of the literature behind the argument .
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 05:53 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Jesus existence is proven historically.


There is absolutely no plausible basis for this statement--none.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 05:54 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Without the used of a time machine that all it can be and of course questioning the existence of the Christ figure that had not one bit of evident dating back to his life time is normal.

A cult writing sis just a cult writings and trying to read in to it more then what is there without any reason to think that there is more is a waste of time.

In one hand you are stating n opinion and in the next you seem to dismiss it.
"Cult writing" is about all that is available isnt it. The Dead Sea scrolls give us an entire set of Essenes literature that seems to alter, severaly question, and in one case, deny the historical context of Jesus and even those that stipulate to his existence, deny his "mission"

What is one persons "cult writing" is anothers documentation.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:04 am
@Setanta,

Quote:
There is absolutely no plausible basis for this statement--none.
Jesus is mentioned in "A History of the Jewish People" by Josephus.
Care to retract your statement ?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:06 am
@farmerman,
Currently to prove a figure as Historical you need one other piece of collaborating evidence. We have the earliest known gospels and Josephus.
QED.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:06 am
@Ionus,
Jesus existence is proven historically.
---------------------------------------------------------
Below is the kind of PROOF offer that a cult leader by the name of Jesus exist in any form at that time period.

To me it fall far far short of any proof at all and this is even more true given the known history of the church in faking documents.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


Greco-Roman sources
There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries " Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and possibly also Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus (see below). Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions popular opinion about Christus, without historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (circa AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[88] [4] Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome." (Acts of the Apostles 18:1-2) has been conjectured[89][90] to refer to the expulsion at the times of these "persistent disturbances".[citation needed]

[edit] Josephus
Main article: Josephus on Jesus
Flavius Josephus (c. 37"c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[91]

Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."[92] Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.[93] However, there has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree.

In the second, very brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[94] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[95] although a minority has raised doubts.[96]

In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ,[97] as it seems to suggest in the quote above. Dr. L. Michael White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from Josephus's Antiquities, do not mention this passage.[98] However, Alice Whealey has shown that it is far from clear that any third century Christians other than Origen quoted from or even directly knew Antiquities.[99] While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,[100] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,[101] since some portions are written in his style.[102]

The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James. Arguably the main reason to accept that Josephus also wrote a version of the Testimonium Flavianum is the fact that Jerome and Michael the Syrian quote literal translations of the text in a form reading, more skeptically than the textus receptus, that "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." The identical wording of Jerome and Michael the Syrian proves the existence of an originally Greek Testimonium reading this, since Latin Christian scholars and Syriac scholars did not read each others' works, but both commonly translated Greek Christian works.

Shlomo Pines and a few other scholars have argued that the version of the Testimonium written by the 10th century Arab historian named Agapius of Manbij is closer to what one would expect Josephus to have written, and the similarities between the two passages imply a Christian author later removed Josephus' conservative tone and added interpolations.[103] Pines cites Josephus as having written:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not desert his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.[104]

However, it has been argued that Agapius' text is almost surely a paraphrase of the Testimonium from the Syriac translation of Eusebius of Caesarea's Historia Ecclesiastica, and that it is Michael the Syrian's Syriac Testimonium, which also derives from the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica,along with the Latin translation of Jerome that are the most important witnesses to Josephus' original passage on Jesus.[105]

[edit] Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ " none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do " these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.[106]

Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the first century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence: "Only the most robust credulity could reckon this assertion as admissible evidence for the historicity of Jesus"[107]

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:12 am
@farmerman,
What is one persons "cult writing" is anothers documentation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry we had far more solid proof of the existence of men born far far earlier then Jesus.

My favorite example in that regard is Alexander the Great but there are many more such examples.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:15 am
@BillRM,
Of course, we all know that Wikepedia is the definitive authority on all things. Laughing

A very common criticism of Wikipedia is its inconsistent and unauthoritative submission model. The encyclopedia allows anybody to edit its pages, even anonymously. To address this issue, and to ensure quality, accurate content, all submissions and edits are moderated and regulated by a staff of regular volunteers. However, all information learned from Wikipedia should be independently verified by interested parties, and citing Wikipedia as a reference work is usually frowned upon in most academic circles. It should be noted that in 2005 the scientific publication Nature performed a comparison of the accuracy of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, the leading print encyclopedia. It found that while the amount of errors per article in Wikipedia and Britannica were the same, the severity of errors in Wikipedia were worse. Encyclopedia Britannica suffered mostly from fact omission, whereas Wikipedia suffered from inaccurate information.



Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:15 am
@Ionus,
The passage alleged to appear in Flavius Josephus (it appears in Antiquities of the Jewish People--you just make yourself look a fool when you cannot even get a basic fact like that out) is almost certainly an interpolation. Your boy Jesus, according to the alleged scripture, slams the Pharisees all the time--and Josephus was a life-long Pharisee. The Josephus passage refers to "Christians," and was written in the first century CE--a time during which even the Jesus cultists did not call themselves Christians, let alone anyone else. Nowhere else in any of his writing does Josephus mention "Christians," and for the good and sufficient reason that the term had not been invented in his lifetime. As a practicing Pharisee in the first century, there is no way that Josephus would have ever subscribed to a claim that a messiah had arrived.

Origen (and if you know anything about the history of Christian scripture, that name will be significant to you) does not mention this passage at all in his comments on the writings of Josephus. The first mention of this alleged passage in Josephus appears in the writing of Eusebius, early in the fourth century CE.

Care to retract your bullshit?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:19 am
@Ionus,
Currently to prove a figure as Historical you need one other piece of collaborating evidence. We have the earliest known gospels and Josephus.
QED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A more then likely after the fact fake add on is not proof of anything. A fast google search will give more details of why this is widely consider to be a fake.

Also see the church long history of creating known fakes.

Sorry no solid proof of this man exist less along details of his life.

QED indeed.............
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:22 am
@Intrepid,
Of course, we all know that Wikepedia is the definitive authority on all things
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a beginning point and there is far more information that back it up.

No we should accept nonsense claims of a cult without question but not a wikipedia article!
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 01:14:36