raoul Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 You people aren't taking this tutorial seriously.I stand guilty as charged. However, in my defense I present the following to explain my apathy regarding this entire episode: 1. Argument 'a' is pure bullshit and is obvious by its smell 2. Argument 'b' is wrapped in nice paper with a big bow attached 3. Upon unwrapping Argument 'b', it is discovered that it smells as bad as Argument 'a'. therefore b=a=bullshit thank you for your time regarding this urgent matter... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Methodology for dating? If the alleged ancient document is pure fabrication then it doesn't matter what date it is. The book of Acts was created for political reasons regarding the church. The rift between Paul and the original alleged followers of a historical Jesus were well known (see Galatians for examples of Paul's harsh language regarding the followers such as James, Peter, et.al.) So Acts was concocted in order to gloss over the differences - it was an attempt to depict the differences as just some minor disagreements of some kind which, in reality, was definitely NOT the case. In addition, after studying the Greek word style/usage throughout the book, it is evident that most of the 'facts' cited in the book were fabricated out of thin air. Examples abound such as the speech Peter allegedly made in the beginning of the book. Compare that with the one Paul allegedly made near the end - the stories and language style were identical pointing to the SAME person saying/writing the 'individual' speeches. Or, the supernatural incident at Peter's incarceration - almost identical to what occurred with Paul in his situation in jail. The trips Paul made - incredibly vague in nature regarding specifics of the routes of travel but yet incredibly similar to Greek stories by some such as Homer regarding ship wrecks, persecution, etc. This was just a very quick expose of Acts based on numerous studies I've done regarding it. I also produced a video comparing Acts with Caesar's writings to show what real history (Caesar) looks like compared to fiction (Acts)... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 10, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2014 Just off the cuff here, but I'm beginning to realize that if I had used the proper method for dating, I might not have ended up married to the wrong person. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SteveBennett Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The literal environment (number of people present, geographic location) in which everything Jesus said and did is at the heart of Christianity's (and Judaism's) credibility. If gospel of Luke said to me, "everything in this book took place in a land far, far away," then it would have no basis in history. If you asked, "how can I understand what Jesus did in his own historical context? How can I know the narrative provided to me in the Gospels is accurate?" Then your right but ----------------------- If you asked, "what folks can I ask someone about something that happened 2000 years after the fact in regards to something that happened 2000 years ago?" . . . I'm not sure your strategy for seeking truth will turn up anything credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falemon Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The literal environment (number of people present, geographic location) in which everything Jesus said and did is at the heart of Christianity's (and Judaism's) credibility. If gospel of Luke said to me, "everything in this book took place in a land far, far away," then it would have no basis in history. If you asked, "how can I understand what Jesus did in his own historical context? How can I know the narrative provided to me in the Gospels is accurate?" Then your right but ----------------------- If you asked, "what folks can I ask someone about something that happened 2000 years after the fact in regards to something that happened 2000 years ago?" . . . I'm not sure your strategy for seeking truth will turn up anything credible. So what is your truth strategy then? What steps do you think leads to Jesus only, and no other religions? Give me your ultimate process and we'll see how many other religions it returns. What about Prophet Mohamed? or Sun Myung Moon? Examine the 100 miracles of Prophet Mohamed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If you asked, "what folks can I ask someone about something that happened 2000 years after the fact in regards to something that happened 2000 years ago?" Well then, bring those people forth. Let us first question them to determine their credibility, then question them further to determine what they did and didn't see. Let lawyers cross-examine them and researchers test the validity of the evidence they present. Let magicians like James Randi and Penn and Teller see if they can non-magically reproduce the so-called miracles. Let the fact-checking begin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2014 If gospel of Luke said to me, "everything in this book took place in a land far, far away," then it would have no basis in history. The gospel of luke says to me that jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. The problem is that Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinius didn't accept governorship until 6CE. So, yeah, pretty much "Once upon a time, in a far away country." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The literal environment (number of people present, geographic location) in which everything Jesus said and did is at the heart of Christianity's (and Judaism's) credibility. If gospel of Luke said to me, "everything in this book took place in a land far, far away," then it would have no basis in history. If you asked, "how can I understand what Jesus did in his own historical context? How can I know the narrative provided to me in the Gospels is accurate?" The historical context of Luke is after 6 AD and before 4 BC when people were filled with things that do not exist, when magic turns water into wine, when limbs grow back, when the blind see, when the dead live, when people could stand on a tall mountain and look at the entire flat Earth . . . It's myth. It didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Don't you folks get tired of having to repeat the same arguments ad nauseum to them? I know I do. They think they'll win the war of words by simply repeating their myths and legends over and over. Maybe they think they'll wear us down. That's the trick they tried in the early centuries. They may have been successful for about 1800 years but once people learned how to read their book of legends by themselves, things started getting interesting. And now, with internet where there are thousands of fact check sites showing the incredible bullshit their book really is, they really are on the retreat. Hurrah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milesaway Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 ^Yep. The internet will be their undoing, and surely they know it deep down. Otherwise why else would they be so desperately trying their crap here with us, knowing a lot of us have been down that road before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 ^Yep. The internet will be their undoing, and surely they know it deep down. Otherwise why else would they be so desperately trying their crap here with us, knowing a lot of us have been down that road before? Was it the RedneckProfessor who noted that being here is a "cheap" form of witnessing? Christians get to come here and feel they've fulfilled their duty to tell the world without having to go through all the embarrassment of going door-to-door, nagging their friends, or standing on street corners with pamphlets. I agree they're getting desperate and the 'Net is crushing them (and hooray for that). But in both real life and online, I've noticed that the most aggressive proselytizers don't actually seem to understand that they're just repeating the same-old same-old to people who've already heard it. They honestly appear to believe that others haven't "heard the good news" -- or at least haven't heard the "right" presentation of it. And they continue not to believe that, yes, we've heard it and rejected it, no matter what we say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Yes, the net is definitely exposing and destroying all of their lame arguments to such a degree that they are now resorting to dredging up the old, refuted arguments such as trying to use Josephus as a source for anything. I've over on Youtube and recently, Google+ which the Atheists take no prisoners. We've got a few presuppositionalists now trying to pull that crap on us. They keep repeating the same mantra over and over as though they're in some kind of drug induced state. Every time they upload a video with their garbage, dozens of non-theists immediately pounce on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts