Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 2, 2017 at 5:13 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Find me a scholar, other than a fundamentalist such as WLC, who believes that the Apostle Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter, especially, the latter.
Quote:Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.[1][2][3]
Let''s see. Take a Jewish fisherman who speaks Aramaic, give him a crash course in Greek and Greek writing, then expect him to write not one, but two letters in
Greek. This requires more credulity than one would find among scholars who aren't adamantly clinging to their faith despite all evidence to the contrary.
The god who allows children to be raped out of respect for the free will choice of the rapist, but punishes gay men for engaging in mutually consensual sex couldn't possibly be responsible for an intelligently designed universe.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
July 2, 2017 at 6:24 pm (This post was last modified: July 2, 2017 at 6:39 pm by Lek.)
(July 2, 2017 at 5:13 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Find me a scholar, other than a fundamentalist such as WLC, who believes that the Apostle Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter, especially, the latter.
Maybe there are no non-christian scholars who believe that 1 and 2 Peter were written the the apostle Peter. I'd have to do a lot more research to determine that. But as I already said, it's good to get opinions from both sides. One thing I can say is that I haven't read any proof on either side of the argument. It's my scholar vs your scholar. You can show evidence and state opinions, but that's all.
(July 2, 2017 at 5:58 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Let''s see. Take a Jewish fisherman who speaks Aramaic, give him a crash course in Greek and Greek writing, then expect him to write not one, but two letters in
Greek. This requires more credulity than one would find among scholars who aren't adamantly clinging to their faith despite all evidence to the contrary.
Lousy argument. Authors have always used secretaries and ghostwriters. I'll admit, though, that we can't prove for certain that any of the new testament was written by eyewitnesses. In fact, we can't know who wrote these books. For now, I'll stick with opinions of the early church, but I'll remain open in this regard. But you are making an unsubstantiated claim when you say that none of the new testament was written by eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus.
Quote: I never once said the scriptures are perfect. In fact I think they are flawed in many ways. I believe that they deliver the message that God intended them to
Make up your fucking mind.
But that completely misses the point ( common with theists) that when your silly holy horseshit says to stone queers or blasphemers you're fine with whatever translation reinforces that. But catch the fucking up in a contradiction - or plagiarism - or even just something that science has dis-proven and it is always the same shit with you clowns. "Oh, no. If you stand on your head and hold it upside down in a mirror and read it in ancient aramaic from left to right it doesn't say that at all."
I'll agree that there is no written prophesy such as this. If he quotes numerous prophesies that are obviously genuine and one that doesn't appear to be I am inclined to look deeper.
https://www.christiancourier.com/article...e-prophecy
Sure there was a gospel. Jesus' disciples were teaching it long before anything was written. You guys are going through the bible with a fine toothed comb looking for any discrepancy you can find. Even if you do find some, it doesn't at all prove that it message is false any more than can be done with most true accounts. “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
This is a false statement. We are not all atheists! Richard Dawkins is a liar. Nothing he says is true.
Quote:No scholar believes that the Gospels were written by any of Jesus' disciples, and on a minority believe them to contain eyewitness testimony. They were written by second or third generation Christians who were living far outside of Palestine and were written in Greek, which Jesus and his illiterate disciples did not speak or read.
It's a stretch to claim that the Yeshua character and his disciples didn't speak or read Greek. They might not have been able to read or write a Greek dialect but the fairy tale says that the Greeks could understand what Yeshua and his disciples were speaking. Therefore, for the purposes of the story one group or both groups were multi-lingual.
It's a stretch to claim that the Yeshua character and his disciples didn't speak or read Greek. They might not have been able to read or write a Greek dialect but the fairy tale says that the Greeks could understand what Yeshua and his disciples were speaking. Therefore, for the purposes of the story one group or both groups were multi-lingual.
The dominant language in Palestine in the early first century was Aramaic:
(July 2, 2017 at 8:54 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: It's a stretch to claim that the Yeshua character and his disciples didn't speak or read Greek. They might not have been able to read or write a Greek dialect but the fairy tale says that the Greeks could understand what Yeshua and his disciples were speaking. Therefore, for the purposes of the story one group or both groups were multi-lingual.
The dominant language in Palestine in the early first century was Aramaic:
So you have a bunch of Greeks who worship at the Passover. They spoke to the Apostles requesting a meeting with Yeshua. If the Apostles and Jesus couldn't speak and understand the Greek dialect then the Greeks must have been fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Quote: I never once said the scriptures are perfect. In fact I think they are flawed in many ways. I believe that they deliver the message that God intended them to
Make up your fucking mind.
But that completely misses the point ( common with theists) that when your silly holy horseshit says to stone queers or blasphemers you're fine with whatever translation reinforces that. But catch the fucking up in a contradiction - or plagiarism - or even just something that science has dis-proven and it is always the same shit with you clowns. "Oh, no. If you stand on your head and hold it upside down in a mirror and read it in ancient aramaic from left to right it doesn't say that at all."
You're a bullshit artist, Lek.
Don't even give him that much credit. Professional bullshitters barely even deserve that kind of title.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
So you have a bunch of Greeks who worship at the Passover. They spoke to the Apostles requesting a meeting with Yeshua. If the Apostles and Jesus couldn't speak and understand the Greek dialect then the Greeks must have been fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic.
This is a mystery indeed.
John is a Gospel that few scholars trust for any historical authenticity, and your example is one of many reasons why the Jesus Seminar coded the Gospel of John with nothing but black beads (not a single word from the mouth of the historical Jesus.) John and his community were simply not interested in the historical Jesus, but in theologizing, turning Jesus from an apocalyptic prophet into the Son of God. They were no different than the Gnostics, except for the fact that they were on the other end of the Jesus spectrum; whereas, the Gnostics saw Jesus in almost spiritual terms, John's community saw him in almost physical, yet divine, terms. Eventually, the two memes were forced to merge and you got the physical/spiritual God-man.
July 3, 2017 at 12:31 pm (This post was last modified: July 3, 2017 at 12:38 pm by Lek.)
(July 3, 2017 at 7:23 am)Jehanne Wrote: John is a Gospel that few scholars trust for any historical authenticity, and your example is one of many reasons why the Jesus Seminar coded the Gospel of John with nothing but black beads (not a single word from the mouth of the historical Jesus.) John and his community were simply not interested in the historical Jesus, but in theologizing, turning Jesus from an apocalyptic prophet into the Son of God. They were no different than the Gnostics, except for the fact that they were on the other end of the Jesus spectrum; whereas, the Gnostics saw Jesus in almost spiritual terms, John's community saw him in almost physical, yet divine, terms. Eventually, the two memes were forced to merge and you got the physical/spiritual God-man.
The Jesus seminar began with the assumption that Jesus isn't who the bible says he is. They dismissed 2,000 years of christian scholarship right off the bat. They already assumed that the message of orthodox christianity was untrue. I've always wondered how they knew what words Jesus did and didn't say. John didn't see Jesus as almost physical, but a totally physical man and also God. John was totally different than the gnostics.
(July 2, 2017 at 9:49 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So you have a bunch of Greeks who worship at the Passover. They spoke to the Apostles requesting a meeting with Yeshua. If the Apostles and Jesus couldn't speak and understand the Greek dialect then the Greeks must have been fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic.
This is a mystery indeed.
Give your audience some credit for smarts. Someone in the group knew both languages or they found someone who did to interpret for them.
(July 2, 2017 at 9:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Hebrew was also known, but probably not Greek, as that was the language of the educated, and the Gospels say that the disciples were illiterate.
I don't remember where the gospels say that all the disciples were illiterate. Where does it say that? The apostle Matthew was tax collector and I would assume that he would have to keep documentation in his job. In fact, the bible doesn't identify who most of his disciples were. How would we know they if were all illiterate or not?
