dogsgod
Well-Known Member
That's right. Bring your money into the churches where it can be collected and put to good use.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Historical Jesus
- Thread starter S-word
- Start date
- Status
Hey, just because you're still stinging from the whip lashes handed out by angellous_evangellous, don't take it out on me matey. Although I believe in the historical Jesus and worship his God as My God, and his Father as my Father, and his saviour, who raised him from death as my saviour. And although I believe My saviour who promised that if I truely believed his words as spoken through his obedient servant Jesus then I would never have to die, there is not a so-called christian church on this earth into which I would enter in order to worship My God, who is "Who I Am."
I am not who I was, nor who I will
For "Who I Am," is the name, that MY God gave to me.
So get behind me you charlatan priests and you shams
For I am true to my God, to MY GOD, "Who I Am."
Last edited:
So he says with tears in his eyes, while rubbing his backside which is stll stinging from the righteous spanking he received.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I agree I could have been more civil, but to pretend that one has a critical mind and then try to uncritically pass off intellectual puke as something serious is so disgusting that... well, if I were to see it in a paper I would dismiss the student from the course.
It's not even worth giving them an F.
I'd send them on their way and say simply that I can't help them. There's simply nothing useful to work with.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haha
It's not a touchy subject. It's the abject stupidity compounded with willful ignorance and complete disdain for any kind of rational thought that is offensive to me.
You don't even realize that "biblical scholar" does not equate with "Christian."
Biblical scholarship is almost 60% non-Christian and perhaps 40% or less "Christian." It has long been [for the past 200 years, at least] the practice of both Christian and non-Christian scholars to review the subjects [the Bible and early Christian literature] without theological or dogmatic bias.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
If you can't refute the view that the author of Luke/Acts borrowed from Josephus, then just say so or offer how it is wrong. But please, stop pretending like you know it all because you're not fooling anyone with such antics. The author is well known historian Richard Carrier who happens to have a Ph.D in ancient history. You on the other hand have yet to show that you're not just pretending to be able to refute him.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I think Marcion might have written some of the books in the NT, especially Paul's letters. Marcion loved Paul
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
This argument doesn't deserve a refute.
It's like seriously considering that the moon is made out of cheese. There's not even a cohesive starting point.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes. How the heck could have Luke used Josephus if Marcion's father already had Luke in Sinope in 100CE?
Jeez.
You did that which needed to be done.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Something that's more debatable, but nonetheless interesting - Erastus of Corinth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm studying Corinth.
I'm studying Corinth.
It's also symptomatic ...
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous
The idiot who thinks that the author of Luke-Acts both knew and relied on Josephus is completely pulling the argument out of his ***. Of all the lying, two-bit crappy **** that passes as research, this takes the cake.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
.
[/FONT]
Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous
The idiot who thinks that the author of Luke-Acts both knew and relied on Josephus is completely pulling the argument out of his ***. Of all the lying, two-bit crappy **** that passes as research, this takes the cake.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
.
[/FONT]
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I'm studying Corinth.
Would you mind answering a question about Corinthians for me please?
In Chap 15. as I understand it, it says our resurrection will be spiritual not physical. Did Paul intend us to understand Christs resurrection in the same way?
Apologies in advance if it's a stupid question.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
[I don't know if Jay is referring to you or me... nor do I know what diagnosis he has in mind for the symptoms... I don't think that it's an ad hominem, though...]
Really? I'd still give the cake to the "Jesus was Caesar" guy.
Apollonius
Member
What is the next topic .. the historical Santa?
- Status