You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
didn't know dawkins knew him, learn something new every dayEven Richard Dawkins says he was well ahead of his time. I don’t think you can call the founder of the largest religion in history unremarkable, especially when you research how remarkably poor Jesus was and the fact he came from a town considered a hilly billy, back water area, even for the day, where nobody could read or write. I’d also say Muhammad was pretty remarkable.
shame his comptempories didn't, hey!
You genuinely don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and have consistently shown this for the last few days. You’ve just googled it to get the word “hypothetical”, I can tell.give over, the gospels hardly agree except when matthew and luke copy mark verbatim
and you just can't assert "q" it is just hypothetical and you know that
Q is widely accepted within scholarly, Matthew and Luke copied from both Mark and Q, as they have verbatim elements that aren’t present in Mark.
The gospels have several inconsistencies to one another but to say they “hardly agree” says to me you haven’t even read them.
Dawkins was obviously talking about the figure from the gospels being ahead of his time with what was supposedly preached.didn't know dawkins knew him, learn something new every day
shame his comptempories didn't, hey!
Kippaxpete
Well-Known Member
He did precisely the same with me Tone. In fact, Simpson's standard response to any request for evidence in support of his crackpot theories is to distort and misrepresent his opponent's words i.e. a straw man argument. In short, it's science in reverse in that he starts with unbending belief in the conclusion - a literal interpretation of the scriptures - and works backwards in a ludicrous attempt to make his version of the 'truth' fit. Agnostic atheism is not a belief system but simply a view held to the effect that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. Consequently, I am not required to justify my position. Conversely, Simpson most certainly is but has consistently failed to do so instead, choosing to quote from the Bible on the grounds that its text is an irrefutable historical document. I'll just leave you with this. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and resting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6) and that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26).where have i said nothing created matter, don't put words into my mouth
yet you write another paragraph of nonsense without answering the question that you are replying to
remarkable!!!
Last edited:
no it is not, and do not tell me what i have and have not done you arrogant..... i haven't googled it, i read enough on it to know(i wont use the word as it upsets you) its guesswork on the part of bibilcal scholars to plug a problematic gap for themYou genuinely don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and have consistently shown this for the last few days. You’ve just googled it to get the word “hypothetical”, I can tell.
Q is widely accepted within scholarly, Matthew and Luke copied from both Mark and Q, as they have verbatim elements that aren’t present in Mark.
The gospels have several inconsistencies to one another but to say they “hardly agree” says to me you haven’t even read them.
you are the worst type of debater you just shut down anything you don't like
stop saying widely accepted (mainly by Christian scholars as it suitably fills a gap), if you can show me one iota of evidence then your a better man than me
john has a completely different crucifixion day to the others
mark doesnt even have the resurrected jesus until it was added at later date
john jesus should have be stoned from day one as he's constantly saying is god where as the others do not
the ministry are different in length
all the jesus's have different characteristics from each other
john has no parables
matthew corrects all marks mistakes as seems to not know the jewish landscape
luke copies from josephus
no sermon on the mount from john
that's off the top of my head in a couple of minutes, no google
Last edited:
I haven’t tried to shut anything down, I’ve calmly pointed out where you’re wrong for several days and you’re carrying on being wrong whilst acting with such confidence that you’re an expert. In between this you’ve replied with citing the likes of Carrier over Ehrman, which is like listening to Solskjaer’s football philosophy over Pep’s. Now I’ve lost a little patience.no it is not, and do not tell me what i have and have not done you arrogant.....
you are the worst type of debater you just shut down anything you don't like
stop saying widely accepted, if you can show me one iota of evidence then your a better man than me
john has a completely different crucifixion day to the others
mark doesnt even have the resurrected jesus until it was added at later date
john jesus should have be stoned from day one as he's constantly saying is god where as the others do not
the ministry are different in length
that's off the top of my head in a couple of minutes, no google
The scholarly community is similar to the scientific one. Theories are banded about and when they’re generally accepted across the board, we can be confident to run with them. Q was presented as a theory not so long ago and the theory was analysed by highly respected secular scholars, who mostly agreed it was a good theory. Matthew and Luke have copied Mark but there are parts of both that are verbatim that aren’t in Mark, so either they’ve got the same source verbally or written, the latter being far more likely as it’s verbatim and this is what we call “Q”.
Mark ends abruptly and there’s obviously some of it missing at the end, I am sceptical about the scripture found years later that conveniently neatly ties in with Matthew and Luke but the story ends pointing towards the resurrection being about to take place or taking place. If you had to fill the blanks as a what-happens-next?, he’d appear out of the tomb. John is far heavier on “Jesus is God” than Mark and Matthew and Luke, surprise surprise sharing sources, are somewhere in between.
Where all agree is that Jesus is the Messiah, started his ministry, performed miracles to prove it, died for humanity’s sins and was the only begotten Son of God. Matthew, Luke and John all have the resurrection and Mark ends abruptly as the story seemingly is about to get to that. I’d say they agree mostly but there are a minority but significant differences.
It is the line of argument that is “if you don’t believe in ghosts, prove they don’t exist” - it’s impossible to do and that’s why it’s used as a tactic. Those making the claim of something existing need to prove it.He did precisely the same with me Tone. In fact, Simpson's standard response to any request for evidence in support of his crackpot theories is to distort and misrepresent his opponent's words i.e. a straw man argument. In short, it's science in reverse in that he starts with unbending belief in the conclusion - a literal interpretation of the scriptures - and works backwards in a ludicrous attempt to make his version of the 'truth' fit. Agnostic atheism is not a belief system but simply a view held to the effect that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. Consequently, I am not required to justify my position. Conversely, Simpson most certainly is but has consistently failed to do so instead, choosing to quote from the Bible on the grounds that its text is an irrefutable historical document. I'll just leave you with this. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and resting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6) and that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26).
ha ha i've lost a little patience, your arrogance has no boundsI haven’t tried to shut anything down, I’ve calmly pointed out where you’re wrong for several days and you’re carrying on being wrong whilst acting with such confidence that you’re an expert. In between this you’ve replied with citing the likes of Carrier over Ehrman, which is like listening to Solskjaer’s football philosophy over Pep’s. Now I’ve lost a little patience.
The scholarly community is similar to the scientific one. Theories are banded about and when they’re generally accepted across the board, we can be confident to run with them. Q was presented as a theory not so long ago and the theory was analysed by highly respected secular scholars, who mostly agreed it was a good theory. Matthew and Luke have copied Mark but there are parts of both that are verbatim that aren’t in Mark, so either they’ve got the same source verbally or written, the latter being far more likely as it’s verbatim and this is what we call “Q”.
Mark ends abruptly and there’s obviously some of it missing at the end, I am sceptical about the scripture found years later that conveniently neatly ties in with Matthew and Luke but the story ends pointing towards the resurrection being about to take place or taking place. If you had to fill the blanks as a what-happens-next?, he’d appear out of the tomb. John is far heavier on “Jesus is God” than Mark and Matthew and Luke, surprise surprise sharing sources, are somewhere in between.
Where all agree is that Jesus is the Messiah, started his ministry, performed miracles to prove it, died for humanity’s sins and was the only begotten Son of God. Matthew, Luke and John all have the resurrection and Mark ends abruptly as the story seemingly is about to get to that. I’d say they agree mostly but there are a minority but significant differences.
erhman himself has stated previously carrier is one of few to have sufficient qualifications to argue the non historicity of a jesus, he may not agree with his methods but he obviously thinks hes of sufficient knowledge to do so
i get the conclusion for "q" but that doesn't make it as fact and to do so is as arrogant as you
in your last 3 paragrahs the only thing i agree with is the gospels say he's the messiah(don't make it true though)
you should try it with jesusIt is the line of argument that is “if you don’t believe in ghosts, prove they don’t exist” - it’s impossible to do and that’s why it’s used as a tactic. Those making the claim of something existing need to prove it.