God's Undertaker
Mr Jinx
Just read John Lennox's 'God's Undertaker'.
Anyone seriously interested in the debate about the origin of life
should definitely read this book. Lennox runs rings around Dawkins
and does so from a brilliantly argued mathmatical and scientific
perspective. Very throught provoking indeed.
Mr Jinx
badlands420
> Lennox runs rings around Dawkins
> and does so from a brilliantly argued mathmatical and scientific
> perspective.
The only way you can credibly make this statement is if you've read The
Blind Watchmaker, which you very clearly have not.
Why do you keep pursuing this subject? It winds up the same each time, with
you going silent and refusing to respond after your ignorance is laid bare.
marcus
Anytime I want to consider the origins of life seriously, I watch "The
Flintstones".
Ron Fowler
around and discuss evolution every day. One of them keeps recommending
that I watch a movie called "A Flock of Dodo's". No, it's not about some
80's new wave synth pop band with funny haircuts.
Mr Jinx
What do you think of Lennox's book?
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
Sounds a great place to work, Ron!
One of the interesting ideas in Lennox's book was that most atheists
dismiss the possibility of the miracles being true or the
resurrection. They do this on the basis that miracles defy the laws
of science. Nothing like this has been observed before. But he
points out that nothing like the Big Bang has been observed before and
yet atheists are prepared to believe in that.
Food for thought, that's all.
Mr Jinx
gemjack
<vernon_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But he
>points out that nothing like the Big Bang has been observed before and
>yet atheists are prepared to believe in that.
True, the BB hasn't been observed. But observation of the stars,
galaxies, background microwave radiation, etc. show a pattern of
expansion originating at a specific point. Not hard fact, but the
most likely and reasonable explanation. Especially when compared to
magic. People believe what they want to believe though, don't they?
-gj
Mr Jinx
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 05:04:14 -0800 (PST), Mr Jinx
>
> >But he
> >points out that nothing like the Big Bang has been observed before and
> >yet atheists are prepared to believe in that.
>
> True, the BB hasn't been observed. But observation of the stars,
> galaxies, background microwave radiation, etc. show a pattern of
> expansion originating at a specific point. Not hard fact, but the
> most likely and reasonable explanation. Especially when compared to
> magic. People believe what they want to believe though, don't they?
> -gj
2000 years of Christianity could be the background radiation and
pattern
of expansion originating from a specific point from the Big Bang
resurrection perhaps?
As for magic: this is a term devised to set events outside of
measurable science. Science is constantly proving itself wrong and
its limitations are many. I should imagine there is much magic in
this universe.
Mr Jinx
badlands420
> What do you think of Lennox's book?
I don't recall making any claims about him, his scientific credentials, or
his published works.
Please tell me you didn't think this was a legitimate tactic.
badlands420
One of the interesting ideas in Lennox's book was that most atheists
dismiss the possibility of the miracles being true or the
resurrection. They do this on the basis that miracles defy the laws
of science. Nothing like this has been observed before. But he
points out that nothing like the Big Bang has been observed before and
yet atheists are prepared to believe in that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good lord, I hope the entire book isn't based on such intellectual
clumsiness.
Ron Fowler
badlands420
"Ron Fowler" <lonely...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19436-4B3F...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
> Is it possible the Big Bang was God at work?
I dunno, you'd have to ask Mary.
Martin
> 2000 years of Christianity could be the background radiation and
> pattern
> of expansion originating from a specific point from the Big Bang
> resurrection perhaps?
I have an awful feeling you've suffered a breakdown over Christmas
gemjack
<vernon_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> True, the BB hasn't been observed. �But observation of the stars,
>> galaxies, �background microwave radiation, etc. show a pattern of
>> expansion originating at a specific point. �Not hard fact, but the
>> most likely and reasonable explanation. �Especially when compared to
>> magic. �People believe what they want to believe though, don't they? �
>> -gj
>
>2000 years of Christianity could be the background radiation and
>pattern
>of expansion originating from a specific point from the Big Bang
>resurrection perhaps?
>
>As for magic: this is a term devised to set events outside of
>measurable science. Science is constantly proving itself wrong and
>its limitations are many. I should imagine there is much magic in
>this universe.
A cheerful outlook no doubt. But magic has done nothing for me.
Science however allows me to live better in nearly every way everyday.
One time though I took my then-girlfriend to see David Copperfield at
the Fabulous Fox Theater in Atlanta. The dude FLEW into a glass ball
that his assistant closed up tight and rolled around the stage with
him hovering about inside. When they stopped and opened it he flew
out and over our heads, and down through the doors out to the
concession and restroom area. Was that science, magic, or majic?
-gj
marcus
A very good movie projector.
Ron Fowler
her whenever it starts?
Just Walkin'
Zing Went...
One does not "believe in" the Big Bang. One postulates it. No one
has seen it or ever will.
Just Walkin'
True, you can't believe in it. Bing Bang just happens. Especially when
Korki Buchek is around!
Janice
> A cheerful outlook no doubt. But magic has done nothing for me.
> Science however allows me to live better in nearly every way everyday.
"...disbelief in magic can force a poor soul into believing in
business and government."
-- Tom Robbins
Janice
>
Dawkins according to British journalist Melanie Phillips in an
interview: "rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the
theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing
intelligence - but one which had resided on another planet."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M. Rick
That's all "Religioso The Great" believes in.
badlands420
> Do you believe in magic in a young girls heart?
really real believes in magic in a young girl's thong.
M. Rick
The laws are based on observation and there's no credible evidence for
supernatural miracles. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself an
atheist or a Christian. Everyone is bound by natural limitations,
including the great limiter called Death.
M. Rick
Does that free her enough to "fornicate"?
Ron Fowler
you're married!
Mr Jinx
Ah, you haven't read the book then.
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
Ah, but there might be natural limitations to Death. If you only see
one white crow that is enough to confirm that white crows exist. If
you are a scientist and are fond of 'evidence' why discount the
evidence of the bible?
Mr Jinx
rwalker
Dawkins is fine when he sticks to biology. The Ancestor's Tale is a
great book. When he wanders into theology and anthropology, he's out
of his league.
gemjack
Oh, there are many other options.
-gj
M. Rick
I think you're confusing me with Tiger Woods.
M. Rick
Why discount the evidence of Mr. Ed? He's practically the
Ecclesiastes of our times.
Janice
> > clumsiness.
>
Here is an easy fix to the argument of who's read what & who knows
which... a podcast of the debate between Hawkins and Lennox on The God
Delusion which should give everyone an idea of the beliefs held by
both men:
http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate
What I found most valuable was Lennox's comment that the debate was
not really between religion & science (Hawkins had previously recanted
that in fact science had derived from religion), but between world
views -- one world view of an indifferent material universe, one world
view of a supernaturally ordered & designed universe.
We choose which universe we wish to see. It was interesting, then, to
hear Hawkins describing human morality in an indifferent universe as
"... a powerful shifting moral zeitgeist ... which suggests that there
really is a kind of 'something in the air' ... some other force... but
it certainly isn't religion."
That comment is the antithesis of scientific evidence, but it does
indicate Hawkins has a world view which is obviously anti-religion,
tho' not necessary anti-theistic -- indicated by his belief there is
'something in the air' & 'some other force' which makes humans moral
in an indifferent universe.
It was an excellent debate, and except for Hawkins occasionally
tossing labels like "nutcases" into the mix, it was a very civil &
informative debate. Worth watching... I'd say it should be required
viewing for the debate here to make any sense.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
badlands420
> Ah, you haven't read the book then.
Please show me where I made any claim to the contrary. You can't reach a
conclusion based on a straw man and then scream "Gotcha," you idiot.
Janice
> Here is an easy fix to the argument of who's read what & who knows
> which... a podcast of the debate between Hawkins and Lennox on The God
> Delusion which should give everyone an idea of the beliefs held by
> both men:
>
> http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins...
Oops, sorry, please transpose & replace all references to "Hawkins"
with "Dawkins." I've confused one scientist with another it seems :)
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
badlands420
>If you are a scientist and are fond of 'evidence' why discount the
evidence of the bible?
For the same reason The Night Before Christmas is not credible evidence of
Santa Claus' existence. Namely, because it's a far-fetched work of fiction.
Admittedly, less far-fetched than the Bible, but I digress.
Zing Went...
There is no scientific evidence in the Bible, not a jot or a tittle.
It is a collection of religious myths, nothing more or less. The
Bible does not "prove" the existence of a deity. To cause a deity to
"exist" requires Faith and faith is not rational which is why it is
referred to as a "gift". You have it or you don't. The Bible is
sacred literature, not divine revelation...unless of course you
"believe" otherwise.
Martin
> It was an excellent debate, and except for Hawkins occasionally
> tossing labels like "nutcases" into the mix, it was a very civil &
> informative debate
'Nutcase' is a perfectly acceptable term to describe...a nutcase
badlands420
>To cause a deity to "exist" requires Faith and faith is not rational which
>is why it is
referred to as a "gift".
Right, and yet many people who claim to possess this faith will still
doggedly search for quantitative evidence of their deity's existence. I've
always been confused by the dichotomy this creates, because in seeking
tangible proof of the deity's existence, they would seem to also be seeking
the destruction of the entire "faith" concept and everything that underpins
it. Put more simply, faith and proof are mutually exclusive terms.
M. Rick
If that's the case then many true believing Christians choose a
universe that allows for supernatural miracles such as walking on
water. So I suggest we test your analysis with a professed true
believer like Dylan. Dylan and I will meet at the foot of the
Brooklyn Bridge -- I'll take the scientific-Roebling route (bridge),
and Dylan will take the faith-Jesus route (water). The same offer is
open to Swaggart, Hannity, Dobson, Warren, and every true believer who
asserts "we choose which universe we wish to see." Line them up one
by one, call Geraldo, and let's get this party started.
gemjack
<jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote:
>Oops, sorry, please transpose & replace all references to "Hawkins"
>with "Dawkins." I've confused one scientist with another it seems :)
Nuts. I was hoping to see Hawkins in a spirited debate. As spirited
as it could be with that... well, you know.
-gj
gemjack
There's a built-in clause that nips your challenge in the bud:
Matthew 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees
answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to
it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.
-gj
Mr Jinx
You said:
> Good lord, I hope the entire book isn't based on such intellectual
> clumsiness.
If you had read the book you would not have to hope anything about
it. You would know.
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:16:51 -0800 (PST), "M. Rick"
>
I believe the Devil tempted Christ to do similiar 'tricks'.
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the
devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The
tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these
stones to become bread."
4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone,
but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]"
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the
highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said,
"throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]"
7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your
God to the test.'[c]"
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all
the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give
you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written:
'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Mr Jinx
badlands420
>If you had read the book you would not have to hope anything about
>it. You would know.
*FACEPALM*
tif
Surely Reb Jesus must have been inspired and lifted INTO this
teaching while studying the prophesy of Amos
" Days are coming . . . There will be a hunger in the world. But the
hunger will not be for bread, and the thirst will not be for water,
but to hear the word of the living God."
Not only Jesus. Many others too.
For example, Reb Shlomo Carlebach, of blessed memory. So much so that,
as is the Jewish custom when inspiration is at its strongest , he
brought down from the higher realms a melody to clothe this truth.
Shlomo was one to reflect often, in word and deed, upon the needy and
the hungry of this world (and not only on the occasion of the
Passover). He too was one to highlight what was now happening in the
material world, saying:
"The world is hungry. There is a prophesy. It is happening today:
'Days are coming... There will be a hunger in the world. But the
hunger will not be for bread, and the thirst will not be for water,
but to hear the word of the living G_d.'
Then he would go on and call out:
" -- Let the hungry people get together, you and I, those hungry to
teach our children One word. Let us get together and fix the world.
-- It is easy to reach people if we represent G~d in the deepest way.
If the food in a restaurant is good, people will come.
-- Everybody believes in G~d, hopefully. But do you know how much G~d
believes in us? The world still exists. That means G~d believes in us;
believes that we can fix everything."
Whenever the Tzaddikim and the Saints return
and come marching in to step up to the plate and do what is necessary,
such prophecies get reborn so that another layer of the deepest of
the deep may get revealed and strengthened. For such is the eternal
beauty and enduring power of the One Tree of Life.
tif
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:16:51 -0800 (PST), "M. Rick"
>
This is a very interesting quote.
I wonder what the sign of the prophet Jonas is?
Y'all know?
rwalker
wrote:
Three days in the belly of the fish.
M. Rick
river. Superman can't fly you over and Moses can't part the waters.
The "Jesus route" won't work, regardless of the universe the believer
pretends to believe in. The "temptation" is already there, created by
our curiosity about the physical world.
M. Rick
In that case the Jonas Brothers might want to test the waters first.
gemjack
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 3:12�pm, gemjack <geminijackso...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it's a peace sign.
-gj
gemjack
wrote:
>This is a very interesting quote.
Not to be partisan here, but it's not too unlike Bush's first term
when to question was unpatriotic. How dare we ask for proof! We
should be the sheep we're told to be and STFU!
"39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to
it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas"
Perhaps the 'sign of Jonah' was the ability to be resurrected (after
three days)? Jonah-3 days after being swallowed by the fish. Jesus-3
days. Ye shall also be 3 days perhaps. Your resurrection (in Heaven
or Hell) is the reward/penalty for your faith and also the proof of
God. Kind of a smart-ass answer if you think about it.
-gj
Janice
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:22:47 -0800 (PST), tif <pasterna...@gmail.com>
> "39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous
> generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to
> it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas"
>
> Perhaps the 'sign of Jonah' was the ability to be resurrected (after
> three days)? Jonah-3 days after being swallowed by the fish. Jesus-3
> days. Ye shall also be 3 days perhaps. Your resurrection (in Heaven
> or Hell) is the reward/penalty for your faith and also the proof of
> God. Kind of a smart-ass answer if you think about it.
This is such a great story. So, God tells Jonah to go warn the people
of Nineveh that they are behaving very badly and will suffer the
consequences after 40 days if they don't cut it out (repent, in the
vernacular). Jonah doesn't want anything to do with it. He has a
good gig at home, is well-respected as a prophet, gets lots of props &
perks. The last thing he needs is to risk his rep by attending to a
gentile problem, and most likely being labeled a false prophet (very
bad for the resume).
So he splits. Grabs a ship going in the opposite direction. Like God
can't see him (duh). So God sends a terrific storm and the ship is
tossed about in the mighty waves & wind, and the sailors decide to
draw lots to figure out whose god is at work here... and Jonah is
outed. Jonah fesses up, feeling very bad indeed that all the guys are
sick & scared and the ship is breaking apart. He tells them that if
they throw him overboard, his god (a chief god, maker of the land &
the sea) won't bother them anymore and the weather will calm down.
Note: Jonah is willing to sacrifice himself to save the ship & crew,
especially since his behavior called it all down on them in the first
place.
The sailors are in fact torn -- they don't want to kill Jonah,
especially if he's innocent, but they really want this storm to blow
over. So they toss Jonah over the side. God, of course, has a taxi
waiting in the form of a whale, who swallows Jonah up and swims
away.
Jonah is in the belly of the whale for three days... he is re-thinking
his position during this time (on his knees), and decides he was wrong
to duck out on his mission. He tells God he can change. Meanwhile,
the whale has used the three days to swim to Nineveh, where he spits
Jonah up on the sand.
Jonah proceeds to give the message to the people of Nineveh and they
promptly repent and apologize to God, much to Jonah's shock &
surprise. Jonah wanders to the outskirts of town and sits down to
wait for all hell to break loose, figuring God will smash them to
smithereens for being so bad, and because after all they were all
gentiles. Besides, the odds were some of them went right back to
sinning after he left town. But God shows all of Nineveh mercy, and
Jonah's prophecy is true, his rep is intact. Job well done.
There's more to the story... feel free to look it up :)
Here are some excerpts from Samuel Wesley's poem about Jonah, written
in 1715:
For this to Nineveh was Jonah sent,
To bid their vast unnumber'd Crowds repent:
A hopeless Task! when Israel won't believe,
How shou'd the faithless Heathen him receive?
A Tyrian Bark the wayward Prophet bore
A different Course, for the Tartessian shore.
In vain he from the Omnipresent flies,
The Winds and Waves in Arms against him rise,
And stop the Fugitive, nor Oar, nor Sail
Can stem the Storm, nor nautic Art prevail:
Their Course is lost, they lose the sight of Day,
All Hope is gone, for now the Sailors pray :
On Moloch these, and these Astarte call,
On Dagon some, and some on mighty Baal;
Deaf to their Pray'rs, and helpless Idols all.
Jonah alone did still his Cabin keep,
(O how cou'd Jonah's Guilt so calmly sleep!)
Till rouz'd, among th' affrighted Crew he goes,
At once the Danger and the Cause he knows.
Glory he gave to Heav'n, and thus he said,
---I serve the Hebrews God, from him I fled :
Cease your mistaken Pray'rs and causless Fear,
This Storm, his Messenger, arrests me here.
Me, me, devoted to the raging Seas,
An Off'ring cast, you'll soon their Wrath appease:
Unwillingly they his Request perform,
They heave him o're, and with him lose the Storm :
...Th' Almighty did a monstrous Fish prepare;
Which seiz'd him falling, whose capacious Womb,
Three dismal Days and Nights his living Tomb.
--- Vain Grecian Poets hence, of after-date,
By Tyrian Hercules the Fact relate,
And steal their Hero's Fame from Jonah 's wond'rous Fate.
...Thou hast, O God! to me thy Servant shown:
Yet still I live, and hope for happier Days,
My God in his High Temple hope to praise :
Let others fondly trust in Idols vain,
The stupid World adore the Gods they feign;
As stupid as their sensless Deities,
Leave Truth and Mercy, and believe in Lies;
To thee alone, my God! I'll sacrifice;
Admiring Crowds shall hear my joyful Songs,
Salvation only to the Lord belongs.
Jehovah hears, agen he Light shall see,
He bids his monstrous Gaoler set him free;
Who dares detain his sacred Guest no more,
But gently casts him out upon the Oozy Shore .
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.rasmusen.org/_religion/_Jonah/poems/Wesley_Samuel_Jonah.htm
frinjdwelr
"Zing Went..." <mnlu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:74a05f99-03df-4302...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
"Science focuses on reality.
Faith focuses on ego and desire."
The only reason for religion is the human's desire for immortality.
If death is the end, it doesn't matter one iota whether God exists or not.
gemjack
I agree. I think it would make a great movie. Daniel-Day-Louis would
be a good Jonah but they'll probably give it to Tom Hanks.
-gj
Janice
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:11:43 -0800 (PST), Janice
>
> >This is such a great story.
> I agree. I think it would make a great movie. Daniel-Day-Louis would
> be a good Jonah but they'll probably give it to Tom Hanks.
With a whale named Wilson.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr Jinx
Why so eager to quote a fictional figure like Superman? Everybody
knows he was just a cartoon character. Jesus' life was documented by
other humans in a historical record (a series of books). If he did
walk across the warter then you have have a substantial piece of
historical evidence that such an act is a possibility in this world.
Strange things happen sometimes.
Mr Jinx
M. Rick
I swear to God that I saw Superman fly. Prove that I'm mistaken, or
show why the supernatural stories concerning Jesus are more credible
than my own experiences and eyewitness testimony. If you can't, then
kindly retract your dismissal of Superman in favor of Jesus.
Mr Jinx
Set up a religion that lasts for 2000 years and has millions of
followers prepared to believe you saw Superman fly. Then I'll believe
you.
Mr Jinx
gemjack
Likely that millions have seen him fly. Now we just have to sit and
wait. In time the townspeople will recall the lives he saved (almost
on a weekly basis), how he was born of a mysterious, powerful father
from the stars, and was sent by his father to earth to save us.
-gj
badlands420
>other humans in a historical record (a series of books).
The New Testament is absolutely not a historical record. It doesn't even
pretend to be. If it did, the fact that the four gospel writers agree on
almost nothing would be a bit of a problem.
> If he did
>walk across the warter then you have have one piece of evidence that a
>possibility in this world.
Right, just like Superman comics give us "one piece of evidence" that a dude
in blue tights can leap tall buildings in a single bound. Do you really not
understand the parallel? I mean seriously?
badlands420
>Set up a religion that lasts for 2000 years and has millions of
>followers prepared to believe you saw Superman fly.
Jinx's tour de force of standard religious logical fallacies continues. Now
he's on "If a lot of people believe something ridiculous for a really long
time, then it's not ridiculous anymore."
I shouldn't need to point this out, but the Egyptian and Roman religions
were both around longer than 2000 years and both had millions of followers
who fully believed legends of flying men. Under the standard you've just set
forth, these religions are now more credible than your own.
Janice
> >Jesus' life was documented by
> >other humans in a historical record (a series of books).
>
> The New Testament is absolutely not a historical record. It doesn't even
> pretend to be. If it did, the fact that the four gospel writers agree on
> almost nothing would be a bit of a problem.
Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of
the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...
[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote:
"For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands,
in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy
product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the
spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth." New
Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in
understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist#Luke_as_a_Historian
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
badlands420
Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of
the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...
[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote:
"For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands,
in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy
product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the
spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth." New
Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in
understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
These quotes appear to conveniently ignore the fact that Luke was
"documenting" events that took place many decades before his own birth, as
well as the current academic consensus that his primary source was the
still-undiscovered Q Document.
Giuseppe Gazerro
"badlands420" <mike...@uranus.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:C261n.2525$YP1....@newsfe15.iad...
> >Jesus' life was documented by
>>other humans in a historical record (a series of books).
>
> The New Testament is absolutely not a historical record. It doesn't even
> pretend to be. If it did, the fact that the four gospel writers agree on
> almost nothing would be a bit of a problem.
This is not true, my friend.
The Gospel of Saint John was written many years after the three synpotic
gospels so it's kind of *different* in tone, let alone in purpose.
But the 3 synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) agree basically on
everything.
Where exactly do you think/know they disagree?
--
beppe
www.giuseppegazerro.com
http://www.youtube.com/GiuseppeGazerro
badlands420
> But the 3 synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) agree basically on
> everything.
You're kidding, right?
Janice
> "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> ha scritto nel messaggionews:C261n.2525$YP1....@newsfe15.iad...
> > The New Testament is absolutely not a historical record. It doesn't even
> > pretend to be. If it did, the fact that the four gospel writers agree on
> > almost nothing would be a bit of a problem.
>
> This is not true, my friend.
> The Gospel of Saint John was written many years after the three synpotic
> gospels so it's kind of *different* in tone, let alone in purpose.
And it is still considered a possibility that John was in fact the
eyewitness apostle John, who waited many years before writing his
version... one reason it may be why John's version is so deeply
spiritual, after many years of reflection.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Janice
> > everything.
>
> You're kidding, right?
badlands, since you have read the Bible, why don't you give him some
examples? It's not a subject to ridicule, it's a subject to
discuss.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Giuseppe Gazerro
"Janice" <jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:56087126-4617-4806-9e10-
> The Gospel of Saint John was written many years after the three synpotic
> gospels so it's kind of *different* in tone, let alone in purpose.
<And it is still considered a possibility that John was in fact the
<eyewitness apostle John, who waited many years before writing his
<version... one reason it may be why John's version is so deeply
<spiritual, after many years of reflection.
Yes, exactly.
M. Rick
Judaism is older than Christianity and still has millions of
followers. Is the tale of Jonah and the whale more historically
credible than thousands of other supernatural stories?
M. Rick
Anyone living in modern times who claims that blatantly supernatural
stories are a "trustworthy record" is either delusional or a con-
artist. 99.9% of the time it's the latter.
badlands420
>badlands, since you have read the Bible, why don't you give him some
>examples? It's not a subject to ridicule, it's a subject to
discuss.
There's no point in trying to have an objective discussion with someone who
can claim with a straight face that the New Testament is hard history,
because it requires a staggering level of ignorance to think that. Those
texts were copied, translated, re-copied, interpolated, re-translated, and
re-interpolated for several centuries before being officially codified. It's
a collection of religious folklore and myth, no different than any other.
But history? It seems to me that if this dude Jesus was cruising around the
Holy Land performing crazy miracles on a daily basis, then there would be
contemporaneous references from credible historians attesting to that fact.
However, there are none. No one bothered writing a single word about Jesus
until, at minimum, a half century after his death, and even then, the
writing was done not by reputable historians but by practitioners of
Christianity, who wrote with no pretense of objectivity whatsoever.
Ron Fowler
really real
> Dawkins according to British journalist Melanie Phillips in an
> interview: "rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the
> theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing
> intelligence - but one which had resided on another planet."
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml
Radio Free Albemuth, by Philip K Dick, takes on this very theme. It
turns out that the aliens who have created us, as some kind of chemistry
experiment, see how wrong things are going, so they set up a satellite
that beams subliminal messages to earthlings, saying things like "Love
Thy Neighbour" and "The Meek shall Inherit the Earth."
Mr Jinx
If ideas don't gain weight according to consensus then what are we to
make of scientific orthodoxy?
Mr Jinx
badlands420
> If ideas don't gain weight according to consensus then what are we to
make of scientific orthodoxy?
You're saying things become more or less true according to the number of
people who believe them? Seriously?