Wow, the internet was down at work, this thread has blown up in the last 12 hours.
I see some new comers already talking shit, I see the regulars having a theological tit for tat sesoion, and I see the usual pot stirers doing a great job at what they do best, mixing it up, so as always my two cents.....
#1. I read all electrics posts, and unless I'm totally wrong, he never said he believed in the muesuems theme, just asked the usual haters to see other views than they're own, he did'nt say you had to believe them.
#2. This thread has turned into the usual us against them theme and of course the
typical has happened, both sides have painted themselves into a corner. Lets all agree to disagree and be done with this. As usual weve gotten no where with this.
#3. As a Christian, I believe what My heart tells me is true, I keep it to myself unless asked or if attacked for my beliefs. The Bible is a guidline to follow examples of right and wrong based on Christs life and the love, pain, joys, and sorrow he experienced while he lived his short life before going to the cross. I still cant see why some of you really think your so smart, it must be because you have it all figured out and us dumb bible belt morons are dumb as rocks, now I wish I stayed in college, so I could be as smart as you all.
#4. as stated by PRU, true Christians will not back down, but we must be open minded as well, our religion if taken literally, is as violent and condemning as Islam, remember the crusades. I have been trained to do some very heinous things to people by the Military, I have been told these things were ok in the name of God and country, my heart told me different, I guess since they proved to me these people were my enemies, it is o.k. and I should be o.k. with it, but gosh darn it, that old Christianity thing keeps getting in the way I believe in science, I use it everyday, I believe God gave us intelligence to invent and use the processes to better our lives and the way we live them. I don't believe the dinosaur thing, I believe that I don't know all the answerse and some of the questions, but when time is right, God will reveal them to me, untill then, I'm happy with what I have now.
#5. I dislike most professed Christians more than the non-believers.
they tend to make the rest of us look bad, as is evident in the posts on here by the non-believers in this thread. Most believers do not have a solid understanding of Christianity before they run off judging non believers or whomever and then they cant understand why they are seen as arrogant or condescending, Jesus said spread the word, not beat people down with it. I'll end here, have realised I'm rambling, but as always my two cents
Adam and Eve hunted dinosaurs!
I am really glad I didn't get the god gene. To have to believe in something else to make me feel whole, to make the world make sense, to account for everything bad, and make live worth living is just weird. The complicated mythologies, what parts of the bible to believe and not to believe, which biblical scholars to listen to, for that matter, which religion to even start looking at; it is all more contrived than our accepted climbing rules.
The theory of evolution is just as stupid as the theories of gravity and electromagnetism.
You make living a good life and believing in something sound so hard,Saxman wrote:I am really glad I didn't get the god gene. To have to believe in something else to make me feel whole, to make the world make sense, to account for everything bad, and make live worth living is just weird. The complicated mythologies, what parts of the bible to believe and not to believe, which biblical scholars to listen to, for that matter, which religion to even start looking at; it is all more contrived than our accepted climbing rules.
possible that it is just beyond your understanding and cant deal???
or do you always sound so condescending when talkiing about stuff you dont really know about but have a small grasp....
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....
For those who love Scientific American:
"15 answers to Creationist Nonsense"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... st_popular
"15 answers to Creationist Nonsense"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... st_popular
The theory of evolution is just as stupid as the theories of gravity and electromagnetism.
Jesus was likely not here. If he was here, he has been mythologized beyond reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMiAwe6TAYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP0x81L3vmk
for the other scholarly opinion see the link below.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rical.html
Here is an exempt from the above. By the way if you think Dec 25 is solid as Jesus birthday this is certainly a myth. Have a look at the Roman holidays and Dec 25.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_festivals#Ianuarius
from a conference on the historicity of Jesus.
Now we'll be talking just for the last few minutes here about how the gospels originated and developed a little bit, as a way of understanding this process. I would suggest the process works like this. We know something about the actual dates of the birth and death of Jesus. And let me say, I think there's really no historical doubt much any more that Jesus was a real historical figure, really was born, really did die. And we know more or less when those dates were. He had to have been born some time before 4 BCE if, as the gospel tradition suggests, he was born during the reign of Herod the Great. We know when Herod died. That was in 4 BCE. He has to have been born before that. How much before that, we're not absolutely sure. Three, maybe four years is quite possible. But the usual dates assigned to the birth of Jesus are about 7 to 4 BCE.
He died probably between 27 and 29 CE. At least, that's about where I would date it. It might go as late as 30 to 33. Our dates for the death of Jesus are also determined, though, by other historical information from the time. We know the dates during which Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea: 26 to 36. And that gives us the dating parameters within which we can place the actual death of Jesus. But in all probability, especially if Jesus was about 30 (as Luke's gospel says), if Jesus was about 30 when he started his ministry, and he was born before 4, he died somewhere around 27, 29 maybe. My own gut instinct is probably earlier rather than later, and I would say, as early as 27, within a year after the arrival of Pilate. But again, that's an instinct. That's not a provable fact.
But here's what's really interesting historically in the development, because the first gospel, Mark, is not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Historically what we can see from the analysis is that the gospels are written roughly in this chronological sequence, and at this time period: 70 to 75 for Mark; 80 to 90 for Matthew; 85 to about 95 are the usual dates assigned for Luke (I would say maybe as late as 100; again my own view is a little different than other scholars'); 95 is the usual date assigned to John, but John's gospel may not be completed until as late as 125, in the form that we now have it in the New Testament. If these are the dates, though, what I want you to notice is this. Notice we are a full century after the death of Jesus, within a year or two. We are a century after the death of Jesus before John is completed. More than that, though, notice that the gap between Jesus' death and Mark's gospel. We have a full generation in the development of Christianity before the first written gospel is put down. And we know there is a major important political event, a traumatic political event that occurs before that, and is a stimulus to that process.
The question for the historical scholarship, the question that really lies behind all the historical Jesus discussions for lo these many years is: How do you fill in that gap? . . .
[ clip]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMiAwe6TAYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP0x81L3vmk
for the other scholarly opinion see the link below.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rical.html
Here is an exempt from the above. By the way if you think Dec 25 is solid as Jesus birthday this is certainly a myth. Have a look at the Roman holidays and Dec 25.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_festivals#Ianuarius
from a conference on the historicity of Jesus.
Now we'll be talking just for the last few minutes here about how the gospels originated and developed a little bit, as a way of understanding this process. I would suggest the process works like this. We know something about the actual dates of the birth and death of Jesus. And let me say, I think there's really no historical doubt much any more that Jesus was a real historical figure, really was born, really did die. And we know more or less when those dates were. He had to have been born some time before 4 BCE if, as the gospel tradition suggests, he was born during the reign of Herod the Great. We know when Herod died. That was in 4 BCE. He has to have been born before that. How much before that, we're not absolutely sure. Three, maybe four years is quite possible. But the usual dates assigned to the birth of Jesus are about 7 to 4 BCE.
He died probably between 27 and 29 CE. At least, that's about where I would date it. It might go as late as 30 to 33. Our dates for the death of Jesus are also determined, though, by other historical information from the time. We know the dates during which Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea: 26 to 36. And that gives us the dating parameters within which we can place the actual death of Jesus. But in all probability, especially if Jesus was about 30 (as Luke's gospel says), if Jesus was about 30 when he started his ministry, and he was born before 4, he died somewhere around 27, 29 maybe. My own gut instinct is probably earlier rather than later, and I would say, as early as 27, within a year after the arrival of Pilate. But again, that's an instinct. That's not a provable fact.
But here's what's really interesting historically in the development, because the first gospel, Mark, is not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Historically what we can see from the analysis is that the gospels are written roughly in this chronological sequence, and at this time period: 70 to 75 for Mark; 80 to 90 for Matthew; 85 to about 95 are the usual dates assigned for Luke (I would say maybe as late as 100; again my own view is a little different than other scholars'); 95 is the usual date assigned to John, but John's gospel may not be completed until as late as 125, in the form that we now have it in the New Testament. If these are the dates, though, what I want you to notice is this. Notice we are a full century after the death of Jesus, within a year or two. We are a century after the death of Jesus before John is completed. More than that, though, notice that the gap between Jesus' death and Mark's gospel. We have a full generation in the development of Christianity before the first written gospel is put down. And we know there is a major important political event, a traumatic political event that occurs before that, and is a stimulus to that process.
The question for the historical scholarship, the question that really lies behind all the historical Jesus discussions for lo these many years is: How do you fill in that gap? . . .
[ clip]
Last edited by caribe on Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"I am downgrading this thing even though I don't send on TR." Blake while on TR
-
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 2:07 pm