The Historical Jesus

[fallingblood]

Matey, the whole bible to you mob of disbelieving godless people, is thought to be nothing more than a bogus attempt to fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Son of Man who is to establish his throne on earth and rule the whole world with justice.

Please refrain from these unfounded insults. One, they are not true (as I personally believe in a god and thus am not godless) and two, it is a logical fallacy that has no place in a rational discussion.

Isaiah 9: 6; in referrence to the land of Galilee; "A child is born to us! And he will be our ruler. He will be called , "Wonderful Councelor." "Eternal Fater." "Prince of peace" etc.

And isn't it possible that this prophecy was already fulfilled? There certainly could be an argument that it was fulfilled before the Maccabean revolt in which brought the Jewish homeland back under Jewish authority.

Matey, you have no evidence apart from what has been said by Josephus the historian that Jesus even existed, and you take the words of the bible, which is the only evidence you have of his existence, words that you do not believe, to attack the very existence of Jesus in who you do not believe. How idiotic and senseless is that?

The only suggestion of where Jesus was born is in the Bible and that terms the location to be Bethlehem in Judea. However, is that even logical based on historical events?

Why did Mary and Joseph have to go to Bethlehem? Because of a census which actually did not happen until 6 C.E. (Luke 2:2). So that doesn't work as we know that the census was in 6 C.E. (as that is the time that Judea went under direct Roman control. Before that, during the reign of Herod (who was a client-king), there would have been no reason for a census. It was not direct Roman control.

And they, the Old Testament Jews, are still awaiting their saviour; and this will be fulfilled at the close of the sixth day, or the sixth period of one thousand years from the first day in which Adam ate of the forbidden tree and died in that day at the age of 930, when the Lord returns as promised to establish his rule on earth and binds Satan for the seventh period of one thousand years, which is “The Day of the Lord,” or the Sabbath.

What Old Testament Jews? There are some Jews today who believe the Jesus was the messiah. So are they not the ones you are talking about? Or are you aware that modern day Judaism is different from the so called "Old Testament Judaism?"

Basically, you have no idea about Judaism, and thus, should not be speaking about it. That pretty much sums it up though. You have no actual background on this subject and are simply projecting unfounded ideas onto the discussion.

Then all the godless people of this world, and all those, who in their cathedrals, of stone, marble or crystal, who sing and dance with their eyes and hands raised to the heavens in worship of a god they neither know or understand, will bow down and worship my God, who commands that I do not enter into senseless debates with the godless, and to not throw my precious pearls before the feet of Swine. Have a good one matey, I’m finished in this thread.

And again, you show why so many people hate Christians. It is that ignorance and arrogance that fuels so much hatred for Christians.

 

[gnostic]

YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING MY BL@#DY QUESTIONS, CORRECTLY, S-WORD!

I don't want to know what happen in Luke. I know what happen in Luke, but my questions are with regards of what happened in Matthew's gospel.

I assume you have heard of literary criticism and literary analysis before?

When you read the text, you only concentrate on that text, and that text only.

If I was to study the text about The Iliad, by Homer, as an example, then I will only concentrate on the text, which is THE ILIAD, by HOMER. Which will mean, I will leave out other sources, such as those found in the Epic Cycle, texts by Sophocles or Euripides. I will not write about film called Troy with Brad Pitt, or any other movies about the Trojan War. Just The Iliad and Homer.

Here, I only want to concentrate on just one text, the gospel of Matthew, between 1:13 to the end of chapter 1, and the whole of chapter 2. My questions to you from the last several posts, are about the events and narrative of only gospel of Matthew. And only Matthew's.

I don't want to know about the genealogy (of either Luke or Matthew), the census, the manger, the shepherd, and the whole gala of angels. I don't want to know about Jesus' circumcision, or Jesus at the temple at 12. I don't want to know about Mary and her cousin Elizabeth's conception in Luke 1.

If I want to ask you about frigging Gospel of Luke, then I will ask you. But until then, forget about whatever Luke say in his gospel.

Can you get that, through your thick head?????



The thing you are forgetting is that Herod told the magi to go to Bethlehem, in Judaea, find the one (the child Jesus) who supposedly will be king one day. Which the magi did. There are no mention anywhere between 2:1 and 2:12 that suggest the magi went anywhere, but the home of Joseph in Bethlehem (and again no mention of manger, no Nazareth, and definitely no Galilee).

1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magia]" class="footnote">[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." 3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christc]" class="footnote">[c] was to be born. 5"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:
6" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'d]" class="footnote">[d]"
7Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."
9After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the easte]" class="footnote">[e] went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 12And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

Do you find Nazareth or Galilee anywhere here, between Matthew 2:1 and 2:13?

And before you go on about bl@#dy Luke, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF BL@#DY LUKE!!!

Read my question instead going off the tangent from my question. I've ask you countless time, the same bl@#dy questions over and over again.

• Where is the mention of Joseph living in Nazareth, IN MATTHEW?
• Where is the mention of magi ever been in Nazareth, IN MATTHEW?

The ONLY BL@#DY TIME that Matthew even mention FRICKING, BL@#DY Nazareth or Galilee, is when Joseph and Mary were in Egypt, in MATTHEW BL@#DY 2:19-23.

THE ONLY FRIGGING TIME!!!

SO DON'T GO ON ABOUT LUKE, BECAUSE I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LUKE'S BL@#DY LUKE!!!

The only thing I am interested in, is you answering my questions about the narrative in Matthew's, and only Matthew's. Do you get it?

 

[James Humphreys]

The only suggestion of where Jesus was born is in the Bible and that terms the location to be Bethlehem in Judea. However, is that even logical based on historical events?

Why did Mary and Joseph have to go to Bethlehem? Because of a census which actually did not happen until 6 C.E. (Luke 2:2). So that doesn't work as we know that the census was in 6 C.E. (as that is the time that Judea went under direct Roman control. Before that, during the reign of Herod (who was a client-king), there would have been no reason for a census. It was not direct Roman control. Quote from Fallingblood

It would be nice if there were extra-biblical sources confirming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. However, it would seem that Luke and Matthew wrote their nativity accounts separately, without being aware of the other. If they had known of each other's accounts, they probably would have made more effort to harmonize them. But one thing they do agree on is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which would seem to give two independent confirmations, albeit within the same New Testament.

As regards the census, I can't say. But I think there is another practical reason why Joseph and Mary wouldn't have minded relocating to Bethlehem for a time. Mary had become pregnant, while still in her engagement period. To avoid the public disgrace of Mary, and even her possible death by stoning, Joseph decided to go ahead and marry her. It is likely that he told people he was responsible for the pregnancy. But there must have been many rumors swirling around, especially since Mary had been gone for three months during the engagement.

As far as I know it's not clear where Joseph or Mary were born. But as Joseph and Mary were both apparently of the lineage of David, their ancestral home was in Bethlehem. There's a good chance they both had at least some relatives there. If they had chosen to live in Bethlehem for a time, they probably would have been able to find a home and establish a life there. At the same time it is likely that those in Bethlehem would have heard much less about the rumors of illegitimacy surrounding Mary's pregnancy. I think it would have been an easier environment for them to live in.

 

[Oberon]

However, it would seem that Luke and Matthew wrote their nativity accounts separately, without being aware of the other.

You have to keep in mind that all the gospel authors, even those dealing with written documents as sources, were still dealing with an active and (arguably) fairly controlled oral tradition. It is not hard to imagine that the early church, curious about the origins of their founder, and wanting to fit him as much as possible into the mold of the messiah, added to the oral Jesus tradition a story of his birth in a more biblical city.

Can we know Jesus was not born in Bethlehem? No. But we do have evidence to suggest otherwise. One commonly employed criterion for historicity is evaluating whether an element of the Jesus tradition is "too" convenient. Obviously, this criterion must be used in conjunction with others. Yet when we look through the rest of the gospels, Jesus is located as coming from Nazareth. And it is clear (from a historical critical view) that the birth narratives have many fictional elements, if they aren't made up entirely.

 

[S-word]

YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING MY BL@#DY QUESTIONS, CORRECTLY, S-WORD!

O deary, deary me, I’m not answering your questions the way you want me to, what a pity, you poor, poor soul.

quote=gnostic; I don't want to know what happen in Luke. I know what happen in Luke, but my questions are with regards of what happened in Matthew's gospel.

Don’t kid yourself matey you don’t understand what is recorded in any of the books that witness to the life of Jesus.

quote=gnostic; I assume you have heard of literary criticism and literary analysis before?

When you read the text, you only concentrate on that text, and that text only.

I will concentrate on the text of the New Testament, if you can’t handle that then go somewhere else.

quote=gnostic; If I was to study the text about The Iliad, by Homer, as an example, then I will only concentrate on the text, which is THE ILIAD, by HOMER. Which will mean, I will leave out other sources, such as those found in the Epic Cycle, texts by Sophocles or Euripides. I will not write about film called Troy with Brad Pitt, or any other movies about the Trojan War. Just The Iliad and Homer

Righteo, you are now studying the text of the new Testament, so we will not go into the film of the crucifixion by Mel Gibson, but as each gospel reveals something that another has not bothered to mention and each sheds light on the other, we will not confine ourselves to just one period in the life and times of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament text, but we will discuss the entire story of he who was the first of many brothers to be risen from the dead past of the Son of Man who comes down through time and gives his immortal body to those that he chooses.

quote=gnostic; Here, I only want to concentrate on just one text, the gospel of Matthew, between 1:13 to the end of chapter 1, and the whole of chapter 2. My questions to you from the last several posts, are about the events and narrative of only gospel of Matthew. And only Matthew's.

I don't want to know about the genealogy (of either Luke or Matthew), the census, the manger, the shepherd, and the whole gala of angels. I don't want to know about Jesus' circumcision, or Jesus at the temple at 12. I don't want to know about Mary and her cousin Elizabeth's conception in Luke 1.

If I want to ask you about frigging Gospel of Luke, then I will ask you. But until then, forget about whatever Luke say in his gospel.

You may ask whatever you wish to ask matey, and I will answer as I choose to answer.

quote=gnostic; Can you get that, through your thick head?????

Settle down there sonny boy, you’ll end up by doing yourself some damage, you’re carrying on like a chook with its head cut off. Now if I thought for one moment that you were prepared to debate the 1st chapter of Matthew without bringing in any outside information, I would gladly accommodate you. Don’t start telling me what your chosen scholars have to say about a subject of which they know near to nothing.

quote=gnostic; The thing you are forgetting is that Herod told the magi to go to Bethlehem, in Judaea,

As the King planet Jupiter, is identified with the promised Messianic King, and there was a triple conjunction of the king planet in 6 B.C., in the northern Hemisphere, we can be almost certain that this was the sign that was believed by the astrologer/astronomers from the east to have heralded the birth of Jesus. After the wise men who had seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus at least a year prior to travelling to Israel and going to Herod of the royal house of Israel to pay homage to he who had been born to be the king of the Jews.

After determining the exact time that the wise men had first seen the star of the prophesied King, and choosing the age of the children who were to be slaughtered as two years and below, which was in accordance to the time that the wise men had first seen the star that had heralded the birth of the then Young Child Jesus, who Matthew states was not in some Inn, stable or manger, but was at the time of their appearance, in the house of his parents, but Matthew fails to give the location of that house, whether it be in Bethlehem of Judaea or in Nazareth of Galilee. Herod then advises that as it was prophesied that the child would be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, they should begin their search there.

But the thing that you are forgetting is, that when they left Herod, they saw in the northern sky, the comet that they had seen in the east, which appeared to have come out of the King planet Jupiter, as it was caught by the mass of that planet and flung in toward our sun where it would be seen for some 70 days according to the ancient Chinese astronomical records which have proved to be very reliable. Following in the direction of the comet of 5 B.C., to the north of Jerusalem and away from the southern town of Bethlehem of Judaea, where it appeared to stand over the house of Mary and Joseph to the north of Jerusalem, and it was in that house of Joseph and Mary, that the wise men paid homage to the then Young Child Jesus.

quote=gnostic; find the one (the child Jesus) who supposedly will be king one day. Which the magi did. There are no mention anywhere between 2:1 and 2:12 that suggest the magi went anywhere, but the home of Joseph in Bethlehem (and again no mention of manger, no Nazareth, and definitely no Galilee).

There is no mention whatsoever in Matthew of the home of Joseph, as having been in Bethlehem of Judaea, this is but a figment of your over excited imagination, matey, and like I have said and continue to say, you haven't got a clue as to what is recorded in scripture..

quote=gnostic; Do you find Nazareth or Galilee anywhere here, between Matthew 2:1 and 2:13?

No, but in Matthew I find that the wise men were guided by the comet of 5 B.C., in the northern hemisphere which stood over the house of Mary and Joseph in the north of Jerusalem. And the term "Stood Over," in ancient literature refers to comets and comets only.

quote=gnostic; And before you go on about bl@#dy Luke, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF BL@#DY LUKE!!!

What foul language, I said that you were carrying on like a chook with its head cut off, now I’m not so sure, from the foul language the fowl must still have its head on.

 

[S-word]

O deary, deary me, I’m not answering your questions the way you want me to, what a pity, you poor, poor soul.

quote=gnostic; Read my question instead going off the tangent from my question. I've ask you countless time, the same bl@#dy questions over and over again.

• quote=gnostic; Where is the mention of Joseph living in Nazareth, IN MATTHEW?

Where in Matthew is it said that the house of Joseph was in Bethlehem of Judaea?

• quote=gnostic; Where is the mention of magi ever been in Nazareth, IN MATTHEW?

Where in Matthew is there any mention of the magi in Bethlehem of Judaea? It aint there matey, it just aint there.


quote=gnostic; The ONLY BL@#DY TIME that Matthew even mention FRICKING, BL@#DY Nazareth or Galilee, is when Joseph and Mary were in Egypt, in MATTHEW BL@#DY 2:19-23.

THE ONLY FRIGGING TIME!!!

Yea that’s the only time that Matthew mentions the home of Joseph, and that is in Nazareth of Galilee.

quote=gnostic; SO DON'T GO ON ABOUT LUKE, BECAUSE I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LUKE'S BL@#DY LUKE!!!

The only thing I am interested in, is you answering my questions about the narrative in Matthew's, and only Matthew's. Do you get it?

Got it matey, got it.

quote=gnostic; Can you read Matthew without straying to Luke? From what I've seen so far, I don't think you have the intellect to do so.

Of course I can, but you still won't like it matey. Matthew reveals that Jesus was the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14: which states that an unmarried woman would be with child and bear a son, who would be given many different appellations, which we know has been fulfilled. He then goes on to show that before Mary was married to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant, and he was thinking of breaking their engagement, but was convinced in a dream to take her for his wife, which he did, when he consummated their union after she had given birth to her firstborn son, Jesus.

Matthew makes no mention of the baby Jesus, at the Inn, the stable or the Manger, but speaks of the HOUSE of Joseph and Mary, but makes no mention of the name of the town in which that HOUSE was, wheter it was in Bethlehem of Judaea or Nazareth of Galilee, to where the star in the northern hemisphere guided the wise men from the east, who studied the stars and who had revealed to Herod when they had first seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, and that Herod determined the age of the children who were to be killed, as two years and below, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men when they had first sighted the star which is believed to have been the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C.

Matthew then Goes on to reveal that when the wise men left Herod, they saw what they believed to be the same star that they had seen in the east, as it was in the same constellation as was the triple conjunction of Jupiter, which we know had to have been in this instance, the comet of 5 B.C., as it is said to have Stood Over, the House of Mary and Joseph, not the Inn, stable, nor manger, but the HOUSE, and the term “Stood Over” in ancient literature refers to comets and comets only.

According to Matthew, while the wise men were paying homage to the YOUNG CHILD Jesus, in the house of Joseph and Mary, they were warned not to return to Herod, but to go home by a different route from which they had travelled the long journey from the east to Jerusalem after they had seen the star that had heralded the birth of the promised King, whose star (The King Planet) they had seen.

Joseph was also warned that Herod (Who died in April of 4 B.C.,) would be looking to kill all the boys in the district of Bethlehem who were two years of age and below, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men, when they had first seen his star while they were still in the east. And if this was in the year of 5 B.C. Herod must have believed that Jesus had been born sometime in 6 B.C.

As Achelaus was ruling in Southern Judaea when they returned from Egypt, this had to be sometime in 3 B.C. or later, after Herod’s will had been ratified by the Roman senate, and Joseph did not want to go into Judaea, so he made his permanent residence in Nazareth of Galilee. How's that old matey, happy now? I never once referred to Luke who reveals that the house of Joseph and Mary was in their own town of Nazareth in Galilee.

What spectacular heavenly star do you believe appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus, which made the star studiers from the east, believe that here was the promised sign that would herald the birth of the long awaited Messianic King of Israel? Look up "Star of David...Jupiter." Is it possible that Jupiter may one day become a brown Dwarf?

 

[S-word]

Please refrain from these unfounded insults. One, they are not true (as I personally believe in a god and thus am not godless) and two, it is a logical fallacy that has no place in a rational discussion.

quote=fallingblood; And again, you show why so many people hate Christians. It is that ignorance and arrogance that fuels so much hatred for Christians

As the so-called Christians, in the main, are those who refuse to acknowledge the human parentage of Jesus as revealed in Luke 3: 23; and believe in magic and mysteries and virgin births etc, I would ask you to please refrain from these unfounded insults as I am not nor ever will be a member of such gullible groups.

quote=fallingblood;And isn't it possible that this prophecy was already fulfilled? There certainly could be an argument that it was fulfilled before the Maccabean revolt in which brought the Jewish homeland back under Jewish authority.

Most prophecies are in essence twofold, they reflect an event of the time that they were spoken and refer also to an event in the far and distant future.

quote=fallingblood;The only suggestion of where Jesus was born is in the Bible and that terms the location to be Bethlehem in Judea. However, is that even logical based on historical events?

Why did Mary and Joseph have to go to Bethlehem? Because of a census which actually did not happen until 6 C.E. (Luke 2:2). So that doesn't work as we know that the census was in 6 C.E. (as that is the time that Judea went under direct Roman control. Before that, during the reign of Herod (who was a client-king), there would have been no reason for a census. It was not direct Roman control.

Here you go; I had Googled this up for you, it might helr you to understand better, the truth as revealed in scripture.
Archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson writes:

[Critics] challenged the Bible’s claim that Quirinius [the Latin spelling of Cyrenius] was governor of Syria at the time. He was governor at the time of the census fourteen years later, in AD 6, but, it turns out that he was also a high official in central Asia Minor in 8 BC, actually being in charge of the Army in Syria. It appears that he was able to repulse a local uprising that proba­bly delayed the implementation of the poll tax in Syria for some time” (Wilson, C. 1980. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 116).


Luke 2:3-5 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:
Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).
The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:


I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taas­ies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list” (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).


This sheds light on why Joseph had to bring his highly pregnant wife along with him when he went to Bethle­hem. Such discoveries caused the late George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr and former Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, to comment:

Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).


quote=fallingblood;What Old Testament Jews? There are some Jews today who believe the Jesus was the messiah. So are they not the ones you are talking about? Or are you aware that modern day Judaism is different from the so called "Old Testament Judaism?"

There are still those, who like myself, are waiting for the promised prophet of Fire, the messenger of the Lord, who is soon to appear, the only exception of all the post-flood body of mankind to be carried to heaven without experiencing death to stand before the chosen one of the pre-flood world, to serve God before the body of mankind into all eternity.

Malachi 3: 1-2; The Lord Almighty answers, “I will send my messenger to prepare the way for me. Then the Lord you are looking for will suddenly come to his Temple. The messenger you long to see will come and proclaim my covenant.”
But who will be able to endure the day when he comes? Who will be able to survive when he appears?

quote=fallingblood;Basically, you have no idea about Judaism, and thus, should not be speaking about it. That pretty much sums it up though. You have no actual background on this subject and are simply projecting unfounded ideas onto the discussion.

When you come to know that which you only think you know now, you will realise just how much I do know.

 

[fallingblood]

As the so-called Christians, in the main, are those who refuse to acknowledge the human parentage of Jesus as revealed in Luke 3: 23; and believe in magic and mysteries and virgin births etc, I would ask you to p[/FONT][/COLOR]lease refrain from these unfounded insults as I am not nor ever will be a member of such gullible groups.

I was under the impression you were no longer participating in this thread. Maybe I misunderstood when you said you were finished with this thread.

Most prophecies are in essence twofold, they reflect an event of the time that they were spoken and refer also to an event in the far and distant future.

Or if you actually look at when the prophecy was written, you will notice that it was written after the fact. There is no evidence for what you are saying.

I will not respond to the rest of you said as it is pointless. What I've already said still stands.

 

[S-word]

I was under the impression you were no longer participating in this thread. Maybe I misunderstood when you said you were finished with this thread.

No you wern't, otherwise, why would you have continued to question me?



quote=fallingblood; I will not respond to the rest of you said as it is pointless. What I've already said still stands.

And what you have already said is still incorrect. By the way, if as you claim, you do not consider yourself to be counted among the godless people, can you now please informs us, as to who your god is, or was that just another of your fallacies? Do you have a God or are you just another one of the godless?

 

[fallingblood]

No you wern't, otherwise, why would you have continued to question me?

Okay, you know more about what I'm thinking than even I do.

And what you have already said is still incorrect. By the way, if as you claim, you do not consider yourself to be counted among the godless people, can you now please informs us, as to who your god is, or was that just another of your fallacies? Do you have a God or are you just another one of the godless?

You have yet to provide evidence that what I said before was incorrect. So it still stands.

My fallacies? Please point them out. I've pointed out many of your logical fallacies, as well as historical and Biblical fallacies.

I'm not answering your question on who my god is. I believe in a god/s. I will not argue this point with you.

 

[S-word]

Okay, you know more about what I'm thinking than even I do.
My fallacies? Please point them out. I've pointed out many of your logical fallacies, as well as historical and Biblical fallacies.
I'm not answering your question on who my god is. I believe in a god/s. I will not argue this point with you.

Quote fallingblood; I'm not answering your question on who my god is. I believe in a god/s. I will not argue this point with you.

Then you are no longer an agnostic, good for you.

Quote fallingblood; My fallacies? Please point them out. I've pointed out many of your logical fallacies, as well as historical and Biblical fallacies.

Well I wouldn't normally do this, but because you have asked so nicely, here goes.

Quote fallingblood; From the thread, “Do you believe that Jesus died for our sins.” Post 38…11/3/2010 ….03: 03 Am. Look at John Dominic Crossan, who is considered the premier scholar on the historical Jesus. He is former Catholic monk, and is still Christian. Yet, he would disagree with pretty much everything you said. Much of my study has been done under him. Look at John P. Meier, another leader in the field of the historical Jesus.

Quote fallingblood; Post 36: 18/3/2010…01: 01 AM. 7 days later. I'm sure you have, even though I've never given a list of the scholars and historians that I've read or been lectured by, or watched documentaries on.
A proven outright lie.

Quote fallingblood; Also, you have yet to prove that both genealogies are from different people.

I don't have to prove it mate, it proves itself, only someone with rocks for brains, could ever possibly believe that the two different genealogies are of the one person named Joseph.
One is of Joseph who never had sex with Mary until she had given birth to her firstborn, and he is about the 24th descendant of Solomon from the tribe of Judah, the other is the genealogy of Jesus, whose father is Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi and he is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the priest of David and the half brother to Solomon, and you are so naive as to believe your pathetic scholars, who believe that they are both the genealogies of the one man named Joseph.

Quote fallingblood; Post 39; As for the rest of what you said, it is not based on facts. First, you claim that the wise men visited Jesus when he was about 1 year old? That does not appear in the Bible. It is very clear that they went to him when he was born, not a year after. It clearly states that they went to Bethlehem, as order by Herod, to see the boy. To say it states anything else is imposing your own view point on it.

Nowhere in scripture is it said that the star studiers from the east went to Bethlehem, and for you to say that it is clearly stated in the Bible shows your complete ignorance to what is recorded therein.

The King planet Jupiter (The Star of David) was identified with the promised messianic king of Israel. In 6 B.C., there was a triple conjunction of the king planet, wherein the planet would have become exceedingly more brilliant, and a comet with a vertical tail, according to reliable ancient Chinese astronomical records, appeared in 5 B.C., and remained visible for 70 nights, both in the northern sky in the constellation of Pisces. The Astronomer/astrologers from the east saw some heavenly phenomenon, and revealed to Herod, who died in the year of 4 B.C., the time that they had first sighted that star, and Herod chose two years old and below, as the age of the children who were to be slaughtered, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men when they had first sighted the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus. Anyone with even only half a brain would assume from this, that Herod believed that the child had to have been older than a Baby wrapped in swaddling cloth.

Knowing that the family of Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus, had returned to their home town of Nazareth in Galilee, See Luke 2: 39; somewhere around two month after her baby was born, we can be absolutely certain that the star gazers from the east would not have had time to get to Jerusalem before the family had left Bethlehem of Judaea.
Although Herod had advised the visitors from the east to begin their search in Bethlehem of Judaea, nowhere does it state in Matthew that they went there, in fact we are told that on leaving Herod, the star that they had seen in the northern constellation of Pisces, while they were in the east and possibly even the comet coming out of Jupiter before it developed its huge tail, appeared again and O what joy was their, and following in the direction of the star in the northern sky, they would have travelled north and away from Bethlehem and Jerusalem, until the comet appeared to stand over the insignificant village of the home town of Joseph and Mary, where in the house of Joseph and Mary they found the young Child Jesus. The term"Stood Over" in ancient literature refers to comets and comets only, and the only comet that is recorded to have appeared around that time, was in 5 B.C.

Quote fallingblood; Post 39; Also, how do you support the idea that Jesus was born in 6 B.C.E.? Most scholars tentatively put it at around 4 B.C.E.;

And what spectacular heavenly event do your great scholars believe occurred in 4 B,C,. which would have led the wise men to believe that it was the prophesied sign for the birth of the promised Messianic King of Israel?

however, there is no exact date that can logically be set from what we know in the Bible. It does not give a date or a year. The best that scholars can do is assume it was around 4 B.C.E. So you first have to prove your idea of the year of his birth, which you simply haven't.

Then the scholars under who you have done much of your study, should go back to school.

Quote fallingblood; Post 39; Finally, based on the fact that you were wrong about where the wise men went to see Jesus (the Bible clearly states it was in Bethlehem very shortly after his birth)

Until you can show where the Bible clearly states that the wise men went to Bethlehem of Judaea, you will continually be seen to be totally ignorant to that which is recorded in God’s word.

Quote fallingblood; Post 39; Misrepresenting what the Bible says, and only believing parts of it that you want, will not go for logical or rational arguments. But go ahead, call me ignorant again. It really doesn't matter as you still have yet to prove anything. Show me some facts, not your "truth."

Who is the one that has been shown, to not only misrepresent what the Bible says, but to also lie about the fact that they had never given a list of the scholars and historians that they had read or been lectured by?

 

[fallingblood]

Then you are no longer an agnostic, good for you.

Look up the definition of the word agnostic since you clearly do not understand it. It is not synonymous with atheist. Again, I'm an agnostic theist. This is not a point of debate.

Well I wouldn't normally do this, but because you have asked so nicely, here goes.

Quote fallingblood; From the thread, “Do you believe that Jesus died for our sins.” Post 38…11/3/2010 ….03: 03 Am. Look at John Dominic Crossan, who is considered the premier scholar on the historical Jesus. He is former Catholic monk, and is still Christian. Yet, he would disagree with pretty much everything you said. Much of my study has been done under him. Look at John P. Meier, another leader in the field of the historical Jesus.

Quote fallingblood; Post 36: 18/3/2010…01: 01 AM. 7 days later. I'm sure you have, even though I've never given a list of the scholars and historians that I've read or been lectured by, or watched documentaries on. Also, you have yet to prove that both genealogies are from different people.
A proven outright lie.

Not a fallacy or a lie. This is simply a misunderstanding by you. Yes, John Dominic Crossan is someone I studied under. And yes, I listed a couple other scholars that I studied. However, I never gave you a list of the scholars that I studied. The point was that you would not have been able to have claimed to read all of the scholars that I base my beliefs on as you were never supplied that list.

Do not try to twist what I said, as it will not work. Again, I listed a couple of scholars that I have read; however, I never gave you a comprehensive list, which the second quote is directly concerning. Try again.

I don't have to prove it mate, it proves itself, only someone with rocks for brains, could ever possibly believe that the two different genealogies are of the one person named Joseph.
One is of Joseph who never had sex with Mary until she had given birth to her firstborn, and he is about the 24th descendant of Solomon from the tribe of Judah, the other is the genealogy of Jesus, whose father is Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi and he is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the priest of David and the half brother to Solomon, and you are so naive as to believe they are both the genealogies of the one man named Joseph.

The same could be said for your position. Does it make it so? Does it make it logical? Not at all. Basically what you've boiled this down to is you insulting me in order to try to prove that I'm wrong. That is a logical fallacy. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Why is it that no one else believes this? Why is it that every scholar states that the Bible clearly says that Jesus was born of a virgin? Why is it that every scholar agrees that there was only one Joseph who was intimate with Mary?

You have the burden of proof to show why all of these scholars are wrong. You have the burden of proof to show why your opinion is the true opinion, even though it can not be supported by any evidence.

Nowhere in scripture is it said that the star studiers from the east went to Bethlehem, and for you to say that it is clearly stated in the Bible shows your complete ignorance to what is recorded therein.

Matthew Chapter 2. Enough said.

And what spectacular heavenly event occurred in 4 B,C,. which would have led the wise men to believe that it was the prophesied sign for the birth of the promised Messianic King of Israel?

Does there need to be one? It was a star. Is your god so weak that he cannot set up a star in order to guide some men to Jesus?

Prove that there has to be some spectacular heavenly event first. Prove that, in theory, God simply could not have put the star there.

]Then the scholars under who you have done much of your study, should go back to school.

Can you get more ridiculous? Because they do not agree with you, someone who cannot even prove your position, and then refuse to provide evidence saying that you do not need to, or claiming that some inner spirit guides you, they need more schooling? Please, before you even respond, make sure you think about what you're going to say.

Until you can show where the Bible clearly states that the wise men went to Bethlehem of Judaea, you will continually be seen to be totally ignorant to that which is recorded in Gpd’s word.

Matthew Chapter 2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, and the wise men visited him at his birth, which would have been in Bethlehem in Judea. Now, prove your position.

Who is the one that has been shown, to not only misrepresent what the Bible says, but to also lie about the fact that they had [/FONT][/COLOR]never given a list of the scholars and historians that they had read or been lectured by?

You have been shown to misrepresent what is in the Bible. And I have yet been proven to be a liar as I never presented a list of the scholars and historians that I've read, as well as the ones that I've been lectured to. We both know that I was talking about was a comprehensive list, and not me just naming a few of the scholars/historians I've learned from. If you're going to call me a liar (another logical fallacy), then prove it.

However, you've been shown to be a liar. You clearly stated that you were finished in this thread, yet you've responded since then.

 

[S-word]

Look up the definition of the word agnostic since you clearly do not understand it. It is not synonymous with atheist. Again, I'm an agnostic theist. This is not a point of debate.

Originally Posted by S-word
Then you are no longer an agnostic, good for you.

Quote fallingblood; Look up the definition of the word agnostic since you clearly do not understand it. It is not synonymous with atheist. Again, I'm an agnostic theist. This is not a point of debate.

S-word…. From the Readers Digest Universal ddictionary.

Ag-nos-tic (ag-nostik) n. One who professes agnosticism.
__adj 1. Pertaining to agnostics. 2. Uncertain or uncommitted on any particular question at issue.
(Suits you down to the ground matey.)

Agnosticism (ag-nosti-siz’m) n. The philosophical view that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.

Or from the World Book Dictionary; (ag nos’tk) n. A person who believe that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of God or about anything outside human experience. SYN: skeptic, unbeliever etc.

This definition means that you, who admit to having a God, are no longer an agnostic, and so I repeat, good for you matey.

Quote:
Well I wouldn't normally do this, but because you have asked so nicely, here goes.

Quote fallingblood; From the thread, “Do you believe that Jesus died for our sins.” Post 38…11/3/2010 ….03: 03 Am. Look at John Dominic Crossan, who is considered the premier scholar on the historical Jesus. He is former Catholic monk, and is still Christian. Yet, he would disagree with pretty much everything you said. Much of my study has been done under him. Look at John P. Meier, another leader in the field of the historical Jesus.

Quote fallingblood; Post 36: 18/3/2010…01: 01 AM. 7 days later. I'm sure you have, even though I've never given a list of the scholars and historians that I've read or been lectured by, or watched documentaries on. Also, you have yet to prove that both genealogies are from different people.
A proven outright lie.

Quote fallingblood; Not a fallacy or a lie. This is simply a misunderstanding by you. Yes, John Dominic Crossan is someone I studied under. And yes, I listed a couple other scholars that I studied. However, I never gave you a list of the scholars that I studied. The point was that you would not have been able to have claimed to read all of the scholars that I base my beliefs on as you were never supplied that list.

Quote S-word post 28; I've read your historians and the works of your scholars, and frankly, I believe that any person who believes the two genealogies recorded in the New Testament are of the one person, are in desperate need of help.

S-word….This was in reference to the list of scholars that you gave to me under whom you had done much of your study, and this is your response to that post.

Post 36: 18/3/2010…01: 01 AM. I'm sure you have, (read the list of historians that was put forward as those who you had done much of your study under) even though I've never given a list of the scholars and historians that I've read or been lectured by, or watched documentaries

S-word….From the thread, “Do you believe that Jesus died for our sins.” Post 38…11/3/2010 ….03: 03 Am. Which was 7 days before, you lied by saying that you did not give a list of scholars that you had read, or attended their lectures or the documentaries that you had watched.

Quote fallingblood; Look at John Dominic Crossan, who is considered the premier scholar on the historical Jesus. He is former Catholic monk, and is still Christian. Yet, he would disagree with pretty much everything you said. Much of my study has been done under him. Look at John P. Meier, another leader in the field of the historical Jesus.
Post 17; Bart. D. Ehrman, who is an agnostic, believes in a historical Jesus.

S-word….Bart. D. Ehrman, is an American New testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity who you have added to your list of scholars

Quote fallingblood; Do not try to twist what I said, as it will not work. Again, I listed a couple of scholars that I have read; however, I never gave you a comprehensive list, which the second quote is directly concerning.
S-word….Not just who you had read, but who you admit that you had done much of your study under. Don’t you try to squirm your way out of this one matey, you may not have given a comprehensive list of every single scholar that you have ever read, or every single lecture that you have sat through, or every single documentary that you have ever seen, and no one would expect that you would, but you did give a list of some scholars that you had read and under who you had done much of your study and it was to those that I was referring and about whom you lied by saying that you had never given a list of them.

Quote: S-word
I don't have to prove it mate, it proves itself, only someone with rocks for brains, could ever possibly believe that the two different genealogies are of the one person named Joseph.
One is of Joseph who never had sex with Mary until she had given birth to her firstborn, and he is about the 24th descendant of Solomon from the tribe of Judah, the other is the genealogy of Jesus, whose father is Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi and he is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the priest of David and the half brother to Solomon, and you are so naive as to believe they are both the genealogies of the one man named Joseph.

 

[S-word]

Quote fallingblood; The same could be said for your position. Does it make it so? Does it make it logical? Not at all. Basically what you've boiled this down to is you insulting me in order to try to prove that I'm wrong. That is a logical fallacy. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Why is it that no one else believes this? Why is it that every scholar states that the Bible clearly says that Jesus was born of a virgin? Why is it that every scholar agrees that there was only one Joseph who was intimate with Mary?
You have the burden of proof to show why all of these scholars are wrong. You have the burden of proof to show why your opinion is the true opinion, even though it can not be supported by any evidence.
Quote fallingblood; Post 49 Yes, Crossan also believes, as every other scholar, that there is a single Joseph.

S-word…. Absolute rubbish, if the great scholar under whom you have done much of your study and every other scholar, and I assume that by every other scholar, you refer to, simply means every other scholar that you believe.
And those scholars have convinced a few gullible people such as your self, that Joseph the son of Jacob who had no sexual relations with Mary until he consummated their union as husband and wife after she had given birth to her first born son, which Joseph whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew is about the 24th descendant of Solomon, is the same Joseph who is recorded in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke, who is shown to be the son of Joseph, the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi and who is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the priest, who is the half brother of Solomon, then you would be well advised to seek help.

What of Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, whom the disciples surnamed “Barnabas”? He had a half sister named Mary who was the adopted mother of one, John, who was surnamed “Mark,” which surname means “Hammer, or the Hammerer” and has been identified by some more astute scholars to be one and the same John, who Jesus had surnamed “Son of Thunder” (Thor). From the cross where Jesus could see his mother and his beloved young disciple John, he said “Mother, behold your son” and to his beloved disciple John, he said “Behold, your mother.” Joseph/Barnabas, was to later take his sister Mary and her son John, who had been surnamed “The Hammer” to the land of Pamphylia, where, in the town of Ephesus, the graves of John and Mary the mother of Jesus can be still visited today.

Quote:
And what spectacular heavenly event occurred in 4 B,C,. which would have led the wise men to believe that it was the prophesied sign for the birth of the promised Messianic King of Israel?

Quote fallingblood; Does there need to be one? It was a star. Is your god so weak that he cannot set up a star in order to guide some men to Jesus?
S-word…. And I suppose you believe that the astronomer/astrologers from the east had seen the full moon rise, and decided that this was the long awaited heavenly sign that was prophesied to herald the birth of the Messianic King of Israel. And after seeing the full moon rising, they prepared their gifts of Gold, frankincense and Myrrh, and headed off across the desert to Jerusalem in search of the promised king who had been born in Israel, whose star they had seen while in the east? Wake up to yourself matey.

Quote fallingblood; Prove that there has to be some spectacular heavenly event first. Prove that, in theory, God simply could not have put the star there.
S-word…. The Bible proves that, if you don’t believe it then prove the bible wrong.

Quote:
]Then the scholars under who you have done much of your study, should go back to school.

Quote fallingblood; Can you get more ridiculous? Because they do not agree with you, someone who cannot even prove your position, and then refuse to provide evidence saying that you do not need to, or claiming that some inner spirit guides you, they need more schooling? Please, before you even respond, make sure you think about what you're going to say.

S-word….And how many scholars do you believe would agree with Crossan, who has convinced you that Jesus was illiterate, and that the two completely different genealogies in Matthew and Luke are of the one man named Joseph, and that Jesus, who his cousin John, believed he was not worthy to baptise him, was originally a disciple of John.

Quote:
Until you can show where the Bible clearly states that the wise men went to Bethlehem of Judaea, you will continually be seen to be totally ignorant to that which is recorded in Gpd’s word.

Quote fallingblood; Matthew Chapter 2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, and the wise men visited him at his birth, which would have been in Bethlehem in Judea. Now, prove your position.

S-word….Nowhere in Matthew or anywhere else in the bible will you find that the wise men went to the manger in the stable of an Inn at Bethlehem of Judaea where the baby Jesus was born. But it is said in Matthew that after being advised by Herod to go to Bethlehem of Judaea, they saw the comet in the northern sky, which led them to the north of Jerusalem to the house of Joseph and Mary, where they found the Young Child Jesus. But if you cannot accept that, you must accept that after they left Herod they saw the star that guided them to the HOUSE of Joseph and Mary, where they found the Young Child, and that nowhere in Matthew does it say that the house over which the star appear to stand over, was in Bethlehem of Judaea.

Quote:
Who is the one that has been shown, to not only misrepresent what the Bible says, but to also lie about the fact that they had never given a list of the scholars and historians that they had read or been lectured by?

Quote fallingblood; You have been shown to misrepresent what is in the Bible. And I have yet been proven to be a liar as I never presented a list of the scholars and historians that I've read,

You did lie, for you did present A list of the scholars and historians that you have read, or are you saying that you have never read, John Dominic Crossan, John. P. Meier, or Bart. D. Ehrman?

Quote fallingblood; We both know that I was talking about was a comprehensive list,
No, we both know that you were talking about A list of scholars and historians who you had read and studied under, and now you are attempting to squirm out of the situation that you find yourself in by saying that you meant a “COMPREHENSIVE” list. What utter Rubbish.

 

[S-word]

hey im doin a survey for school would really appreciate if you could participate.

1. Why do people need to find comfort in a supernatural being?

People need more meaning to life other than to be born, procreate then die. The thought of the opportunity to be able to be accepted into another life after death, gives some meaning to life and the hope that the death of the physical body is not the end of the mind/spirit that develops within that body.

2. Why do bad things happen to good people?

The ultimate God, is a God who sends his blessings of rain and the products produced by that rain, on the righteous and the wicked alike, but he is no respector of those who die in the disasters that he sends on the wicked and righteous alike. It is his Son, "The Son of Man," who is the spirit that is now developing within the body of mankind, who, when born in our distant future with the death of the body in which he developed, he is able to descend spiritually/mentally into his dead past and reveal the approaching catastrophy, to those who are in tune with their indwelling spirit, (For the kingdom of God is within you) an invisible 4th dimension that co-exists within this three dimensional visible world.

3. Why do couples who believe in god get divorced at the same rate as non-believers?

Those who allow their indwelling spirit to choose their spouse for them, will stay with their partner until they are parted in this world by the death of the body of one partner.

4.What do you believe happens after death?

Isaiah 57: 1; "Good people die and no one understands or even cares, but when they (Good people) die, no calamity can hurt them. Those who lead good lives find peace and rest in death." Which means that there remains another state in death for those minds/spirits who did not lead good lives as described by Jesus in his parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus who led a good life, trusting in God that his life on earth was not all for nothing, entered into rest in the bosom of Abraham awaiting that which his indwelling spirit had promised, while the rich man who did not lead a good life, awaited in fearful expectation the ineviable end that he believed was approaching, for to him, the death of the body was the end of life, and it happens to mind, what mind believes will happen.


5. How do you believe god answers prayers?

By giving what is asked for, that is, if God can hear the prayer, for until you know who you are, you will not be known by he who was in the beginning and has become "Who You Are."

For "Who You Are" is connected to his beginning by an eternal unbroken genetic thread of life, he has never died and can never die, and as long as you know and accept "Who You Are" and become a servant to and an extention of "Who You Are," you will live also.

I am who I am, may I never lose sight
Of the fact that I am, 'who I am' day and night
I'm not who I was, nor who I will be
For "Who I Am" is the name that my God gave to me.

So get behind me you charalatan priests and you shams
For I am true to my God, to MY GOD, "Who I Am."

 

[fallingblood]

]This definition means that you, who admit to having a God, are no longer an agnostic, and so I repeat, good for you matey.

Are you that hard headed? Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, I'm not debating whether or not I'm an agnostic theist or if I believe in god/s. You clearly have no understanding of what an agnostic theist is, so I provided you the link. Now, please drop it as all you are doing is showing your ignorance.

Now, once you can actually address me in a respectable manner (as in you stop insulting me), I may consider continuing this debate with you. But as of now, since you show too much ignorance and too much arrogance, I will not continue this debate. You can not provide evidence for your position, and the evidence that I provide you dismiss out right for ridiculous reasons.

You have shown only disrespect, as well as rudeness in this debate, showing there is no reason to try to debate you. You are not an ethical person, which can be seen by the way you one, insult everyone who disagrees with you, and two, the way that you twist what people say in order to try to make yourself feel better.

Again, you, and people like you, are the reason people hate Christians. It is the ignorant and arrogant remarks that you make in order to try to make yourself seem better than everyone else that puts a stain on the Christian religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you that hard headed?

Let's hope that's a rhetorical question ... :yes:

 

[S-word]

Are you that hard headed? Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, I'm not debating whether or not I'm an agnostic theist or if I believe in god/s. You clearly have no understanding of what an agnostic theist is, so I provided you the link. Now, please drop it as all you are doing is showing your ignorance.

Now, once you can actually address me in a respectable manner (as in you stop insulting me), I may consider continuing this debate with you. But as of now, since you show too much ignorance and too much arrogance, I will not continue this debate. You can not provide evidence for your position, and the evidence that I provide you dismiss out right for ridiculous reasons.

You have shown only disrespect, as well as rudeness in this debate, showing there is no reason to try to debate you. You are not an ethical person, which can be seen by the way you one, insult everyone who disagrees with you, and two, the way that you twist what people say in order to try to make yourself feel better.

Again, you, and people like you, are the reason people hate Christians. It is the ignorant and arrogant remarks that you make in order to try to make yourself seem better than everyone else that puts a stain on the Christian religion.

Yea, I've got a mate who's something like you, he reckons that he's an "atheist christian "

Still waiting for you to show, where, according to your own words, it is so clearly stated in the gospel of Matthew, that the visitors from the east went to Bethlehem of Judaea. One of these days you might answer a question, rather than to just keep referring to some scholars who have had their day. Belief is based on the correlation of all the available data up to the point in time of that belief, Nicolaus Copernicus, was once the leading authority of earths position in the Galaxy, but only a fool, would believe that all the theories put forward by Copernicus hold true today.

Awaiting your revelation of the supposed visit to Bethlehem of the astronomer/Astrologers from the east, that you somehow believe is recorded in the gospel of Matthew.
"Hard headed?" It is your mind my friend, which is all mixed up and set hard like concrete, but prehaps, he with the "Hammer" might be able to smash it for you.

 

[S-word]

Let's hope that's a rhetorical question ... :yes:

Ahh ha! me old mate "The Seagull." How's every little thing in your neck of the woods old mate?

"rhetorical question": n. A question to which no answer is required or expected, or to which only one answer can be made.

Now although 'fallingblood' hopefully expects no answer to his question, you should have known that I would believe that an answer was required and also you must have known that he was going to get one or more.

So your hopes have been shattered, as it was not a rhetorical question.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am not reasonably certain that a historical Jesus did not exist, but I am reasonably certain that a global flood did not occur.

Early Doherty is one of the leading proponents of the mythical Jesus theory. I have not read his latest book on that issue, but I can assure proponents of the historical Jesus theory that Earl is not a pushover. Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Robert Price, both who do not believe that a historical Jesus existed, believe that Earl is brilliant. Earl has spent decades studying the mythical Jesus issue.