G-C

Pretty lame attempt at dodging the discussion at hand.

Let's face it...xtianity stole the "rising deity" from a plethora of religious thought that preceded it. No if buts or maybes. What you worship is a sanitised version of paganism

There was this guy Bob, he ran a business called Cosy Caves, "a lovely place for your loved ones to while away their dead years". He used to sell a cave to the grieving/jolly bereaved, entomb the dead guy, seal it up, wait a week, dump the body and resell the tomb.

Occasionally someone would say hey, that's the cave you put uncle Gary in last month.
It's a miracle, he has arisen from the dead!

It's easy to imagine what happened after that.

And yet priests sin. You are confusing what priests should not do with what they would not do

(November 12, 2013 at 4:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Most Atheists believe Mark was written after the burning of the temple in 70AD

And most stupid fucking xtians think he was taking dictation as his godboy walked around.

He wasn't.


BTW, the site was not leveled in 70...which is what your godboy says:

Quote:And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Mark 13:2

But it was leveled in 135. That's when this fucking "prophecy" came true.

Hadrian's engineers leveled the site, tamped it down and built Aelia Capitolina on top of it. This is history. Learn some of it.

I think you missed the point. I am not disputing whether or not the temple was leveled or not. Before Hadrian's engineers wiped the slate clean, the Roman Army burned the temple, and alot of the temple ornimintation was made from gold. When the temple burned the gold melted and oozed between the cracks in the stone floors, and between the cracks in the walls fillingthem and the puddled and solidified. The larger slugs of gold were cut and taken back to Rome, and the temple was taken down block by block to claim what had 'slipped through the cracks.'

What I was saying was This is why d-bags like you date the book of mark after this destruction of the temple in 70AD. (Because a non believer asks: how could he have said Jesus called for the temple's destruction if it had not already been destroyed)

Those of you who say Mark was written between 70 and 75 AD have to subscribe to roman solider breaking down the temple to get at the melted gold, because 'Hadrian's engineers' didn't get to work till 130AD.

Either way saying the book of Mark is the oldest gospel is wrong simply because, there is evidence that the book of Luke was the first to be written.

Really? And how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that one out? The dispute for the longest time was an argument that Matty was first rather than Mark but that idea has been dropped. You are the first person who has ever claimed that luke was first. This should be good.

PS, I don't give a shit about Josephus' fanciful description of the temple fire. The claim made was that jesus said not one stone would remain on top of another. This did not happen in 70. The burned out shell of the building remained. The "prophecy" came true in 135 when the Romans leveled the site to build Aelia Capitolina.

And no, before you say it I think prophecy is a pile of shit. Whatever bozo cobbled this "gospel" together knew full well that ancient Jerusalem had been leveled and put those words into your godboy's mouth to impress generations of fools.

Well, this is fun. The mental contortions one has to go through to maintain Biblical inerrancy is indeed great; I used to have to do them. One interesting thing to note is that these contortions almost NEVER occur for theological positions that the Christian in question already accepts from verses they claim are explicit.

"Is Jesus God?"

"Of course he is! This verse here says so!"

"What about this one where he says he is not God? Or that he is not good, but only God is? Or that he doesn't know when he will return, but only God does (and thus he's not omniscient)?"

"Well you, when read properly (by someone who is already a Trinitarian), it can be interpreted as saying..."


It just never ends, because intellectual integrity and consistency aren't to be used to invalidate the faith, and an inerrantist can't think it even could in principle.

(November 18, 2013 at 1:45 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Well, this is fun. The mental contortions one has to go through to maintain Biblical inerrancy is indeed great; I used to have to do them. One interesting thing to note is that these contortions almost NEVER occur for theological positions that the Christian in question already accepts from verses they claim are explicit.

"Is Jesus God?"

"Of course he is! This verse here says so!"

"What about this one where he says he is not God? Or that he is not good, but only God is? Or that he doesn't know when he will return, but only God does (and thus he's not omniscient)?"

"Well you, when read properly (by someone who is already a Trinitarian), it can be interpreted as saying..."


It just never ends, because intellectual integrity and consistency aren't to be used to invalidate the faith, and an inerrantist can't think it even could in principle.

With statements like that I can see why you were having to do contortions.

GC

(November 18, 2013 at 3:40 am)Godschild Wrote: With statements like that I can see why you were having to do contortions.

GC

There's a very mean part of me that feels like agreeing with you, then proceeding to add that, as another writer of fiction, the concept of two separate aspects to the same being occurred to me as quickly as it must have to the bible authors.

So I think I will!