21 Oct 09
Originally posted by epiphinehas"completely conceivable" is of no historic interest. My guess is as good as yours. But I rather skip the guessing. The fact is that we don't know anything for sure about the authors, if they actually were there, or if i's just stories passing from moth to mouth.
The year of Jesus' crucifixion is roughly 32 A. D., therefore it is completely conceivable that his biographies were circulated among those who had witnessed his ministry. Also consider that Paul's letters, which assume the listener's familiarity with Christ's Lordship, divinity, death, and resurrection, etc., predate Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Remember that St Paul was about to found a church at the time the gospels was written. Of course he chosed from the stories about Jesus in order to make the new cult plausible. That's my guess. Not very historic either.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSokrates teachings are not the foundation of a religion, where its prime dogam is that everything Sokrates said was the very Truth, and that Sokrates is gods son. That's the difference.
Sokrates teachings are not the foundation of a religion, where its prime dogam is that everything Sokrates said was the very Truth, and that Sokrates is gods son. That's the difference.
Whenever I hear of someone starting a war because the words of Sokrates, then I will rethink.
I don't think the gospels are read within the witnesses lifetime:
The ...[text shortened]... he told someone else while adding and subtracting facts. Therefore I call it 'hearsay'.
Whenever I hear of someone starting a war because the words of Sokrates, then I will rethink.
Like I said, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredible claims. You've concluded that the events attested to in the NT never happened because they are in your opinion impossible, so you look for evidence to support that belief. This is all well and good, the problem is you won't find much, if any, support in the NT documents themselves, as they are very strong, reliable accounts.
21 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasYes, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredible claims. But still there are quite a few fundamentalists that have the firm opinion that the whole bible is the very Truth to the letter. It's these people I'm trying to understand.
Like I said, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredible claims. You've concluded that the events attested to in the NT never happened because they are in your opinion impossible, so you look for evidence to support that belief. This is all well and good, the problem is you won't find much, if any, support in the NT documents themselves, as they are very strong, reliable accounts.
I don't know exactly what part of the gospels are true and what parts are not. As I don't believe in miracles, I find those stories impossible. But there were several groups of 'preachers' walking around with a tail of followers. Jesus was one of them, John the Babtist was another. That's probably true. We should read the gospels as they actually are.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasnever mind that, will you challenge my friend Scriabin, or will you woose out? pistols at dawn my friend! for the honour!
Yes, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredible claims. But still there are quite a few fundamentalists that have the firm opinion that the whole bible is the very Truth to the letter. It's these people I'm trying to understand.
I don't know exactly what part of the gospels are true and what parts are not. As I don't believe in miracles, I ...[text shortened]... btist was another. That's probably true. We should read the gospels as they actually are.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasHi epiphinehas.
[b]Sokrates teachings are not the foundation of a religion, where its prime dogam is that everything Sokrates said was the very Truth, and that Sokrates is gods son. That's the difference.
Whenever I hear of someone starting a war because the words of Sokrates, then I will rethink.
Like I said, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredi ...[text shortened]... , if any, support in the NT documents themselves, as they are very strong, reliable accounts.[/b]
Good to see you posting some.
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelSounds like someone's on his way to Islam!
Well the scientific part is one aspect. A pretty poor aspect too.
It is my contention that the bible has been 'fiddled' with. Possibly some parts have been omitted,(and/or addded), as well.
If the bible was not tampered with in this way I believe our world would be a better place. (Primarily the western world-which affects the whole world in the end.)
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungdude you still interested in the Najdorf Sicilian? if so i want to post some games for discussion, for i have discovered some very thematic moves, which i wish i had known about before i tried it!!
Sounds like someone's on his way to Islam!
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadPooping is so romantic.
The Bible is a diverse set of books written over a long period of time by a large number of writers with different backgrounds religions and political opinions and intentions. To make the statement that the Bible was written for a specific purpose - political or otherwise - is clearly untrue, or a claim that the Bible was written or dictated by God.
What political ends do you think the author of Song of Songs was after?
Song of Songs 4:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
😀
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasDo we question the knowledge we have of Socrates' career as it has been related to us in Plato's dialogues?
What is so significant about the fact that eyewitness accounts (hearsay, as you put it) are relied upon to piece together the ministry of Jesus Christ? Do we question the knowledge we have of Socrates' career as it has been related to us in Plato's dialogues? Rarely, if ever, that I know of.
If we consider that the most trustworthy of Alexander the ...[text shortened]... incredible claims, but certainly not based upon its reliability as an historical document.
Yes.
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNever heard of any interest from him...
never mind that, will you challenge my friend Scriabin, or will you woose out? pistols at dawn my friend! for the honour!
But this is interesting: If we play, and I win, are you prepared to lay flat on floor, and abandon your fundamnetalistic ideas? No? Well, I never thought so.
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasoh my dear Fabs i am merely an arbitrator, a messenger if you like, sent to try and gauge the interest in such a struggle. please I have goaded you, called into question your bravery, caricatured and even tried to appeal to your noble side in an effort to have this take place. If you play and win, short of offering you a few million Krona, the best i can offer at this moment, is to try to be less pedantic and occasionally revise my demeanour. what say you, shall you play?
Never heard of any interest from him...
But this is interesting: If we play, and I win, are you prepared to lay flat on floor, and abandon your fundamnetalistic ideas? No? Well, I never thought so.
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is a good sign when a poster knows that he is dead wrong. It is to try to divert the topic to something completely other thing with no obvious relevance.
oh my dear Fabs i am merely an arbitrator, a messenger if you like, sent to try and gauge the interest in such a struggle. please I have goaded you, called into question your bravery, caricatured and even tried to appeal to your noble side in an effort to have this take place. If you play and win, short of offering you a few million Krona, the bes ...[text shortened]... s to try to be less pedantic and occasionally revise my demeanour. what say you, shall you play?
You try to discuss the Najdorf variation, you try to pair two players into a game, earlier you hinted the Swedish role in WW2, you are desperately trying to do anything in order to avoid admitting that you are dead wrong.
You are dead wrong!