If you could ask Jesus one question?
12 January 2017, 01:37 PM
#92
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on that definition I think the evidence suggest an historical person called Jesus did exist and so did at least some events as portrayed in the bible – The King Herod census etc
and if you take an opposing view - you have to demonstrate why the evidence is flawed and also (in the realms of science) put forward an opposing position that explains ALL the evidence
and if you take an opposing view - you have to demonstrate why the evidence is flawed and also (in the realms of science) put forward an opposing position that explains ALL the evidence
Except that Herod died in 4CE and the census took place in 6CE. One of many problems with the gospels and bible in general.
Claiming it is true because it contains real events in real places is like claiming Dracula is true because it takes place in Whitby and London.
On a less serious note, thanks to the original poster, as I now follow Satan on FB, some of his posts are truly comedic, brightens my day
12 January 2017, 01:53 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except that Herod died in 4CE and the census took place in 6CE. One of many problems with the gospels and bible in general.
Claiming it is true because it contains real events in real places is like claiming Dracula is true because it takes place in Whitby and London.
On a less serious note, thanks to the original poster, as I now follow Satan on FB, some of his posts are truly comedic, brightens my day
Claiming it is true because it contains real events in real places is like claiming Dracula is true because it takes place in Whitby and London.
On a less serious note, thanks to the original poster, as I now follow Satan on FB, some of his posts are truly comedic, brightens my day
12 January 2017, 02:05 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pinching one out
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 January 2017, 02:29 PM
#96
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on, are you questioning the historicity of Herod, or the census? The census of quirinus took place in 6CE, that is not disputed. Herod died in 4CE, again, I don't believe that is disputed.
If you are saying that the census is not that one, then which one is it?
Christian apologists cite that there may have been many census taken, without any real evidence of this.
As for the population being asked to return to their place of birth, that is simply preposterous. If it was a an empire wide census demanded by Caesar, then imagine how long it would take everyone to get back to their place of birth, and what would be the point? If it's only in Judea, then it's likely to have been a local census for taxation purposes, which were not uncommon, but were recorded locally, like today's, in fact.
It would make no sense for the Romans to record you tax affairs at your place of birth.
Does this prove that Jesus did not exist? Of course not, but it does highlight some serious issues with the story, the lack of any contemporary information. If this was offered up in court as evidence, it would be dismissed out of hand.
Edited to add: Oh, and good afternoon to you to!
If you are saying that the census is not that one, then which one is it?
Christian apologists cite that there may have been many census taken, without any real evidence of this.
As for the population being asked to return to their place of birth, that is simply preposterous. If it was a an empire wide census demanded by Caesar, then imagine how long it would take everyone to get back to their place of birth, and what would be the point? If it's only in Judea, then it's likely to have been a local census for taxation purposes, which were not uncommon, but were recorded locally, like today's, in fact.
It would make no sense for the Romans to record you tax affairs at your place of birth.
Does this prove that Jesus did not exist? Of course not, but it does highlight some serious issues with the story, the lack of any contemporary information. If this was offered up in court as evidence, it would be dismissed out of hand.
Edited to add: Oh, and good afternoon to you to!
Last edited by Geezer; 12 January 2017 at 02:31 PM.
12 January 2017, 02:31 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on, are you questioning the historicity of Herod, or the census? The census of quirinus took place in 6CE, that is not disputed. Herod died in 4CE, again, I don't believe that is disputed.
If you are saying that the census is not that one, then which one is it?
Christian apologists cite that there may have been many census taken, without any real evidence of this.
As for the population being asked to return to their place of birth, that is simply preposterous. If it was a an empire wide census demanded by Caesar, then imagine how long it would take everyone to get back to their place of birth, and what would be the point? If it's only in Judea, then it's likely to have been a local census for taxation purposes, which were not uncommon, but were recorded locally, like today's, in fact.
It would make no sense for the Romans to record you tax affairs at your place of birth.
Does this prove that Jesus did not exist? Of course not, but it does highlight some serious issues with the story, the lack of any contemporary information. If this was offered up in court as evidence, it would be dismissed out of hand.
If you are saying that the census is not that one, then which one is it?
Christian apologists cite that there may have been many census taken, without any real evidence of this.
As for the population being asked to return to their place of birth, that is simply preposterous. If it was a an empire wide census demanded by Caesar, then imagine how long it would take everyone to get back to their place of birth, and what would be the point? If it's only in Judea, then it's likely to have been a local census for taxation purposes, which were not uncommon, but were recorded locally, like today's, in fact.
It would make no sense for the Romans to record you tax affairs at your place of birth.
Does this prove that Jesus did not exist? Of course not, but it does highlight some serious issues with the story, the lack of any contemporary information. If this was offered up in court as evidence, it would be dismissed out of hand.
12 January 2017, 02:34 PM
#98
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 January 2017, 02:37 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 January 2017, 03:20 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pinching one out
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 January 2017, 04:00 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Except that Herod died in 4CE and the census took place in 6CE. One of many problems with the gospels and bible in general.
Claiming it is true because it contains real events in real places is like claiming Dracula is true because it takes place in Whitby and London.
On a less serious note, thanks to the original poster, as I now follow Satan on FB, some of his posts are truly comedic, brightens my day
Claiming it is true because it contains real events in real places is like claiming Dracula is true because it takes place in Whitby and London.
On a less serious note, thanks to the original poster, as I now follow Satan on FB, some of his posts are truly comedic, brightens my day
The Dracula reference is interesting, because he was supposedly based on Vlad the Impaler, otherwise known as Vlad Dracula - who definitely did exist
12 January 2017, 04:24 PM
#104
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I obviously take your point (I didn't claim any specific "thing" was true btw - other than there was evidence for the events being actual events)
The Dracula reference is interesting, because he was supposedly based on Vlad the Impaler, otherwise known as Vlad Dracula - who definitely did exist
The Dracula reference is interesting, because he was supposedly based on Vlad the Impaler, otherwise known as Vlad Dracula - who definitely did exist
Indeed, a good analogy, as it's probable that Jesus is based on one or more figures around that time, but it's unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth, as the bible describes him, walked the Earth.
12 January 2017, 04:35 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except that Herod died in 4CE and the census took place in 6CE. One of many problems with the gospels and bible in general.
12 January 2017, 04:36 PM
#108
I would ask Jesus just how cruel were the Romans, but I suspect his answer would be somewhat biased.
And this brings us to the crux of the matter: historical documents (primary sources) are not objective records; rather they are a product of a person/institution and are written with a specific purpose in mind. A good example is 6th-century Gildas, best known for his de Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (The Ruin of Britain), in which he castigates the British rulers, one of whom may well have been Arthur.
Moreover, historians (who produce secondary sources) are not objective, but are shaped by their society and culture and may have certain agendas to push, e.g. Marxist historians.
Trying to work out the historical truth of events that happened centuries ago, never mind millennia, is very difficult, if not nigh on impossible, especially when they are concerned with issues as emotive as the origins of Christianity.
And this brings us to the crux of the matter: historical documents (primary sources) are not objective records; rather they are a product of a person/institution and are written with a specific purpose in mind. A good example is 6th-century Gildas, best known for his de Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (The Ruin of Britain), in which he castigates the British rulers, one of whom may well have been Arthur.
Moreover, historians (who produce secondary sources) are not objective, but are shaped by their society and culture and may have certain agendas to push, e.g. Marxist historians.
Trying to work out the historical truth of events that happened centuries ago, never mind millennia, is very difficult, if not nigh on impossible, especially when they are concerned with issues as emotive as the origins of Christianity.
12 January 2017, 04:40 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAO Mr. D. Lock:
David, I also took the notice of the obscene contents of the joke in the opening post, and thought: why do the non-believers have to mock the Christ (and his believers) in such low level ways?? Then I became mindful of the type of crowd that inundates this place. The best option was not to object but let them play among themselves; with the kind of play they like.
IMO your questions about wireless Sky, Netflix etc. are all very reasonable, and as far as I remember, you indeed have posted some spontaneous light-hearted material here. The quality of your light-hearted material undeniably differs from the material in the opening post. I also know that your purpose to post on Scoobynet isn't just to clown about and post the gutter level humour.
You're a worthy poster.
Easy.
David, I also took the notice of the obscene contents of the joke in the opening post, and thought: why do the non-believers have to mock the Christ (and his believers) in such low level ways?? Then I became mindful of the type of crowd that inundates this place. The best option was not to object but let them play among themselves; with the kind of play they like.
IMO your questions about wireless Sky, Netflix etc. are all very reasonable, and as far as I remember, you indeed have posted some spontaneous light-hearted material here. The quality of your light-hearted material undeniably differs from the material in the opening post. I also know that your purpose to post on Scoobynet isn't just to clown about and post the gutter level humour.
You're a worthy poster.
Easy. Thanks TH
To any sensible grown up the original joke simply wasn't funny. But my main objection was that it would upset millions of people if they ever read it and that fact didn't seem to matter anything to the poster.
Coupled with the sheer arrogance of those who knock religion.
Just ignore JGlanzaV as his only retort is to childishly insult people. Hard to fathom why a top intellectual like him has the time to trawl through my posts and make inane comments. But he usually digs his own grave, much to my amusement with comments like this "Your grammar is apalling"
And TH I do believe we should aim for a decent standard on this board and I am not always prepared to let the uneducated morons take over. IMHO the mods should have vaped the OP as obscene gutter speak.
Onwards and upwards eh
David
12 January 2017, 05:02 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks TH
To any sensible grown up the original joke simply wasn't funny. But my main objection was that it would upset millions of people if they ever read it and that fact didn't seem to matter anything to the poster.
Coupled with the sheer arrogance of those who knock religion.
Just ignore JGlanzaV as his only retort is to childishly insult people. Hard to fathom why a top intellectual like him has the time to trawl through my posts and make inane comments. But he usually digs his own grave, much to my amusement with comments like this "Your grammar is apalling"
And TH I do believe we should aim for a decent standard on this board and I am not always prepared to let the uneducated morons take over. IMHO the mods should have vaped the OP as obscene gutter speak.
Onwards and upwards eh
David
To any sensible grown up the original joke simply wasn't funny. But my main objection was that it would upset millions of people if they ever read it and that fact didn't seem to matter anything to the poster.
Coupled with the sheer arrogance of those who knock religion.
Just ignore JGlanzaV as his only retort is to childishly insult people. Hard to fathom why a top intellectual like him has the time to trawl through my posts and make inane comments. But he usually digs his own grave, much to my amusement with comments like this "Your grammar is apalling"
And TH I do believe we should aim for a decent standard on this board and I am not always prepared to let the uneducated morons take over. IMHO the mods should have vaped the OP as obscene gutter speak.
Onwards and upwards eh
David
12 January 2017, 05:03 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would ask Jesus just how cruel were the Romans, but I suspect his answer would be somewhat biased.
And this brings us to the crux of the matter: historical documents (primary sources) are not objective records; rather they are a product of a person/institution and are written with a specific purpose in mind. A good example is 6th-century Gildas, best known for his de Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (The Ruin of Britain), in which he castigates the British rulers, one of whom may well have been Arthur.
Moreover, historians (who produce secondary sources) are not objective, but are shaped by their society and culture and may have certain agendas to push, e.g. Marxist historians.
Trying to work out the historical truth of events that happened centuries ago, never mind millennia, is very difficult, if not nigh on impossible, especially when they are concerned with issues as emotive as the origins of Christianity.
And this brings us to the crux of the matter: historical documents (primary sources) are not objective records; rather they are a product of a person/institution and are written with a specific purpose in mind. A good example is 6th-century Gildas, best known for his de Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (The Ruin of Britain), in which he castigates the British rulers, one of whom may well have been Arthur.
Moreover, historians (who produce secondary sources) are not objective, but are shaped by their society and culture and may have certain agendas to push, e.g. Marxist historians.
Trying to work out the historical truth of events that happened centuries ago, never mind millennia, is very difficult, if not nigh on impossible, especially when they are concerned with issues as emotive as the origins of Christianity.
12 January 2017, 05:08 PM
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onwards and upwards eh
David
David
12 January 2017, 05:15 PM
#113
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get your point. Censoring means vanishing someone's specific 'qualities' that they end up displaying on the board, for the whole world to see. They need to remain on the board. Forever and ever.
Don't delete foul posts but the posters of such can get a slap on their wrist, can't they. Infraction or something, I suppose.
Then again, 'same hymn sheet' business may not encourage that to happen? To my understanding, anti-religion is a very strong religion; not to be messed about with.
Don't delete foul posts but the posters of such can get a slap on their wrist, can't they. Infraction or something, I suppose.
Then again, 'same hymn sheet' business may not encourage that to happen? To my understanding, anti-religion is a very strong religion; not to be messed about with.
12 January 2017, 05:19 PM
#114
Scooby Regular
Don't blame the mods, they are probably getting entertained as are the rest of us reading all the DIFFRENT opinions and squabbling although it's not as HOT as the pothole thread yet...still entertaining though keeping SN going
Peace and happiness to all believers and non believers
I LOVE ALL OF YOU REGARDLESS OF COLOUR SEX RELIGION
Peace and happiness to all believers and non believers
I LOVE ALL OF YOU REGARDLESS OF COLOUR SEX RELIGION
12 January 2017, 05:22 PM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't blame the mods, they are probably getting entertained as are the rest of us reading all the DIFFRENT opinions and squabbling although it's not as HOT as the pothole thread yet...still entertaining though keeping SN going
Peace and happiness to all believers and non believers
I LOVE ALL OF YOU REGARDLESS OF COLOUR SEX RELIGION
Peace and happiness to all believers and non believers
I LOVE ALL OF YOU REGARDLESS OF COLOUR SEX RELIGION
12 January 2017, 10:07 PM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never fully understood why the 7 day believers find the concept of this just being a story to introduce the actual Darwinian development of the universe and our world in particular. It's a bit like me saying "This will take me years to fix" - just an easy to understand expression to describe a minor problem that will actually take a few minutes to sort out.
Of much more interest to me is the true definition of when man evolved from his ape/other ancestry and especially when early man understood the concept of right and wrong which is possibly what sets us apart from all other living beings. In the 7 day story this might be the Adam and Eve bit?
Any thoughts?
David
Of much more interest to me is the true definition of when man evolved from his ape/other ancestry and especially when early man understood the concept of right and wrong which is possibly what sets us apart from all other living beings. In the 7 day story this might be the Adam and Eve bit?
Any thoughts?
David
12 January 2017, 10:09 PM
#118
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer stated this:
Now, if this exchange is to be equitable, I expect Geezer to apply the same rigorous conditions of validity to his assertions as he does to that of the writers of the Gospels. I just want the guy to share with us his source. He knows that I know why he refuses.
Now, if this exchange is to be equitable, I expect Geezer to apply the same rigorous conditions of validity to his assertions as he does to that of the writers of the Gospels. I just want the guy to share with us his source. He knows that I know why he refuses.
I'm not sure what you really want though. The Romans appointed Herod as ruler of Judea, Qurinius was not governor of Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus, he couldn't have ordered a census. If you are asking me to show you the actual contremporary documents that would reference this, then of course, I cannot, as I do not have access to them.
But, the historicity of Herod and Quirinius is not actually useful to Christians anyway. If they are real, then they pose issues as already highlighted. If they are not real, they cannot prove that Jesus existed anymore than a bowl of popcorn can.
If you argue that there are errors in the accounts of Herod and Quirinius, then fair enough, that is your right, but I am not aware that anyone contests that Herod, whether real or not, died in 4CE. Same for Quirinius as governor of Judea (or rather Syria). Contrast that to the 4 Gospels, which disagree on plenty of things about the life of Jesus.
Also, there is noting to gain for them being made up. There is no cult of Herod, or cult of Quirinius. No one gains from their existence, they are just characters in history, no more. Like Socrates, we would only know of them through others, but that is not the point.
Christianity hinges on there being a real, historical Jesus, who walked the earth, died and was resurrected, but there is no evidence of that. Outside of the Gospels, what evidence is there of the slaughter of the innocents? His trial? His execution?
Any archaeological evidence?
12 January 2017, 10:56 PM
#119
Have to say,didn't think the satan chap's post was funny at all.Maybe just me.As long as he made himself smile
Funny how these threads get out of hand though.Always more passion from non-believers than believers.lol.Always,for some reason.....?
Funny how these threads get out of hand though.Always more passion from non-believers than believers.lol.Always,for some reason.....?
12 January 2017, 11:38 PM
#120
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not refusing, but I do have other things to do than post on here all day
I'm not sure what you really want though. The Romans appointed Herod as ruler of Judea, Qurinius was not governor of Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus, he couldn't have ordered a census. If you are asking me to show you the actual contremporary documents that would reference this, then of course, I cannot, as I do not have access to them.
But, the historicity of Herod and Quirinius is not actually useful to Christians anyway. If they are real, then they pose issues as already highlighted. If they are not real, they cannot prove that Jesus existed anymore than a bowl of popcorn can.
If you argue that there are errors in the accounts of Herod and Quirinius, then fair enough, that is your right, but I am not aware that anyone contests that Herod, whether real or not, died in 4CE. Same for Quirinius as governor of Judea (or rather Syria). Contrast that to the 4 Gospels, which disagree on plenty of things about the life of Jesus.
Also, there is noting to gain for them being made up. There is no cult of Herod, or cult of Quirinius. No one gains from their existence, they are just characters in history, no more. Like Socrates, we would only know of them through others, but that is not the point.
Christianity hinges on there being a real, historical Jesus, who walked the earth, died and was resurrected, but there is no evidence of that. Outside of the Gospels, what evidence is there of the slaughter of the innocents? His trial? His execution?
Any archaeological evidence?
I'm not sure what you really want though. The Romans appointed Herod as ruler of Judea, Qurinius was not governor of Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus, he couldn't have ordered a census. If you are asking me to show you the actual contremporary documents that would reference this, then of course, I cannot, as I do not have access to them.
But, the historicity of Herod and Quirinius is not actually useful to Christians anyway. If they are real, then they pose issues as already highlighted. If they are not real, they cannot prove that Jesus existed anymore than a bowl of popcorn can.
If you argue that there are errors in the accounts of Herod and Quirinius, then fair enough, that is your right, but I am not aware that anyone contests that Herod, whether real or not, died in 4CE. Same for Quirinius as governor of Judea (or rather Syria). Contrast that to the 4 Gospels, which disagree on plenty of things about the life of Jesus.
Also, there is noting to gain for them being made up. There is no cult of Herod, or cult of Quirinius. No one gains from their existence, they are just characters in history, no more. Like Socrates, we would only know of them through others, but that is not the point.
Christianity hinges on there being a real, historical Jesus, who walked the earth, died and was resurrected, but there is no evidence of that. Outside of the Gospels, what evidence is there of the slaughter of the innocents? His trial? His execution?
Any archaeological evidence?