Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Any site that tries to make Scripture a lie by insinuations, innuendos, slander, and leaping to conclusions for no real reason.
So not the sties that @sooda used.
Why don't you like her sites?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Any site that tries to make Scripture a lie by insinuations, innuendos, slander, and leaping to conclusions for no real reason.
Now you know that is a false claim on your part. You lost the debate about Luke's census a long time ago. We can go over that again. Of course you are also ignoring Rule Number One. Since you deny evidence without ever refuting it you are unable to demand any. Sort of sucks doesn't it? You know the way to fix that. All you have to do is to learn what is and what is not evidence. Your constant fear of learning this simple concept is obvious to all of the lurkers that you appeal to. If there are any they must wonder why you don't at least try to learn.Except you cannot post the relevant quotes or defend them or link to them.
Feel free to lift points from the site and debate them. I already destroyed all the points raised in 'her' posts.
I won. Cry me a river.Now you know that is a false claim on your part. You lost the debate about Luke's census a long time ago. We can go over that again..
Feel free to lift points from the site and debate them. I already destroyed all the points raised in 'her' posts.
You know that is not true. And that is somewhat a pity.I won. Cry me a river.
I won. Cry me a river.
dad, if you can't be honest what is the point of debating? You used a site that lies for Jesus. You did not use a valid historical site. They relied on old papers the most recent being from the early 1960's. That alone tells us that they are relying on papers that have been largely refuted. And the most recent one tried to use the excuse that "Maybe Darius the Mede was Cyrus?" That is pretty weak tea. That itself is using an error to excuse an error, you can read his "defense" here:Feel free to lift points from the site and debate them. I already destroyed all the points raised in 'her' posts.
Ridiculous gossip and slander with no basis in reality. You might as well say they used knives so that they probably stabbed people to death.
"A major assumption of negative higher criticism has been that the Book of Daniel was authored by an unknown writer of the Maccabean age (c. 164 b.c.) who mistakenly thought that an independent Median kingdom ruled by Darius the Mede followed the fall of Babylon and preceded the rise of Persia under Cyrus. Darius the Mede, however, is not depicted in the book as a universal monarch. His subordinate position (under Cyrus) is clearly implied in the statement that he “was made king (Heb. passive, homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans” (9:1 KJV). Also, the fact that Belshazzar’s kingdom was “given to the Medes and Persians” (5:28) and that Darius found himself incapable of altering the “law of the Medes and Persians” (6:15) renders the critical view untenable."Darius the Mede is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as king of Babylon between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great, but he is not known to history, and no additional king can be placed between the known figures of Belshazzar and Cyrus. Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, but some have tried to harmonise the Book of Daniel with history by identifying him with various known figures, notably Cyrus or Gobryas, the general who was first to enter Babylon when it fell to the Persians in 539 BCE.
Sure, you could say they hated the Romans or Jews. You can make up whatever you like. Just because some people had education in the days of Jesus does not mean that they were con artists and deceivers and liars.Not at all. Having a knife does not give one a motive. The equivalent of your knife scenario would be to claim they lied because they owned a pen.
When you have to use non-historic sources you hurt your own claims. Why not do the extra work and see if you can find the sources that they quoted from?"A major assumption of negative higher criticism has been that the Book of Daniel was authored by an unknown writer of the Maccabean age (c. 164 b.c.) who mistakenly thought that an independent Median kingdom ruled by Darius the Mede followed the fall of Babylon and preceded the rise of Persia under Cyrus. Darius the Mede, however, is not depicted in the book as a universal monarch. His subordinate position (under Cyrus) is clearly implied in the statement that he “was made king (Heb. passive, homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans” (9:1 KJV). Also, the fact that Belshazzar’s kingdom was “given to the Medes and Persians” (5:28) and that Darius found himself incapable of altering the “law of the Medes and Persians” (6:15) renders the critical view untenable."
Darius the Mede - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway
Whoever you thought Darius was seems to be wrong.
But as we know with the case of the Nativity of Luke there was some con artistry going on.Sure, you could say they hated the Romans or Jews. You can make up whatever you like. Just because some people had education in the days of Jesus does not mean that they were con artists and deceivers and liars.
I am sorry but did you just imply that Jesus new the new testament?Did it occur to you that they should have, as Jesus did?
I know. And that is somewhat a pity.
I will make a deal. If you promise to be honest. If you promise to at least try to reason logically and rationally we can discuss how Luke screwed the pooch when he wrote his Nativity myth. That means no denying of evidence when presented. That means no denying logical arguments when given. And that means no sites that only lie for Jesus. Real historical sites are needed for evidence.
What does that make Him, dishonest? He knew the OT. He also sent His Spirit to people as promised to write the NT, so I suspect He knew it also!I am sorry but did you just imply that Jesus new the new testament?