Originally posted by no1marauderStill can't believe you are considered a great "forum" whiz. Go figure. I'm still awaitin' a single statement that isn't obvious or obtuse.
If all you're relying on is Christian sources, then you are being untruthful when you say things like "scholars agree", aren't you? That means that your violating your own belief system by lying. I cite sources when I make a factual assertion; I don't just say "everybody agrees" - in fact when you mistakenly seemed to believed that Luke had seen the wedding feast miracle, I cited a source: the Bible!
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not just relying on Christian sources when I say scholars agree. When did I say Luke saw the wedding feast?
If all you're relying on is Christian sources, then you are being untruthful when you say things like "scholars agree", aren't you? That means that your violating your own belief system by lying. I cite sources when I make a factual assertion; I don't just say "everybody agrees" - in fact when you mistakenly seemed to believed that Luke had seen the wedding feast miracle, I cited a source: the Bible!
Please quit putting words in my mouth to attempt to catch up.
Originally posted by DarfiusThis doesn't make sense. Why was everyone dead but Luke? Keep in mind, the gospels say Jesus fed 5000 people (not including women and children) with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish. Were all those men, women and children dead?
I'm not just relying on Christian sources when I say scholars agree. When did I say Luke saw the wedding feast?
Please quit putting words in my mouth to attempt to catch up.
In this passage you are saying that Luke was an eyewitness. "Why was everyone dead but Luke?"...... "Were all those men, women and children dead"? I suggest that you have now crossed over and deliberately lied in this thread. And if you have other sources, CITE THEM or I'll have no choice but to assume you're lying about them also.
Originally posted by Darfius
If Christian sources were lying, what would be the point of lying? To give hope to others while they themselves had none?
You will note that I have not said that 'Christian sources are lying.'
This is another straw man for you to knock down.
Look up the term 'midrash.' See how it is applied in the Old
Testament.
Then look at a synopsis of the Gospels and look where the Synoptic
texts all have a single passage. Look what St Matthew does with
St Mark's text as different than St Luke (e.g., Blessed are the poor
versus Blessed are the poor in spirit).
Explain to me the difference between not lying and not bearing false witness. Don't just say they are different.
Lying is stating something that is untrue.
Bearing false witness is lying in the context of formal
Jewish inquries (i.e., like modern-day court).
This is why Jesus makes a big to-do about swearing by God
or Heaven or Earth. It's all in the context of the various and
sundry court-related things which were part and parcel of
Jewish social life.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderI never said Luke was an eyewitness. In fact, I said in an earlier post that he got his testimony from Paul. I just assumed Luke was around the same age as Paul.
This doesn't make sense. Why was everyone dead but Luke? Keep in mind, the gospels say Jesus fed 5000 people (not including women and children) with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish. Were all those men, women and children dead?
In this passage you are saying that Luke was an eyewitness. "Why was everyone dead but Luke?"... ...[text shortened]... other sources, CITE THEM or I'll have no choice but to assume you're lying about them also.
My other sources are as follows:
Josephus
Tacitus
The Talmud
Pliny the Younger
"The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel
Originally posted by NemesioThe Synoptic gospels were written in the mid 3rd century, can they really be compared to the gospels of the New Testament?
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]If Christian sources were lying, what would be the point of lying? To give hope to others while they themselves had none?
You will note that I have not said that 'Christian sources are lying.'
This is another straw man for you to knock down.
Look up the term 'midrash.' See how it is applied in the Old ...[text shortened]... and
sundry court-related things which were part and parcel of
Jewish social life.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioI'm extremely sorry, I could have sworn I talked about Quirinius here. It must have been at another of the forums I frequent. Please forgive me, I did not lie intentionally, but I did. I will address your questions in my next post.
He had Nemesi-itus when he wrote that 😉
Originally posted by DarfiusYou are sleepy and making silly mistakes now. The
The Synoptic gospels were written in the mid 3rd century, can they really be compared to the gospels of the New Testament?
Synoptic Gospels are those of Sts Mark, Matthew,
and Luke.
You are thinking of the Apocryphal Gospels, which were
written between the late-first and mid-third centuries
(depending on the text).
Get some rest.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusA lie is necessarily intentional. I do not believe you lied. I believe
I'm extremely sorry, I could have sworn I talked about Quirinius here. It must have been at another of the forums I frequent. Please forgive me, I did not lie intentionally, but I did. I will address your questions in my next post.
you erred.
Nemesi-itus is writing long posts, not lying. It's a long-standing joke
that I write too much. (Nemesio-itus, like a disease).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAnother way of resolving the problem is that Lk 2:2, mentions that the Nativity census is the 'first census'. He might be suggesting that there might have been more than one census of which this was the first. It is known that when Quirinius became legate in AD 6 he did order a census for taxation and that this caused an uprising in Judea. Luke himself mentions this in his second book, The Acts of the Apostles. (Acts 5:37 ) Luke makes no attempt to link this census with what he describes as the 'first census' in his gospel account. This has caused some people to wonder if Quirinius might have been a governor of some sorts in this area before. He might then have held a census which could have been described as his 'first census' to distinguish it from this infamous taxation census which happened much later.
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Did I say they were all verifiable for today? No. They were all verifiable to the people who heard the gospel from the Apostles. And archeology has found some of them, which gives us more reason to accept the rest, rather than deny them.
By 'some' you mean what? A boat to prove that people did
fishing at ...[text shortened]... der Quirinius
cf St Luke 2:2) occurred in the winter of either late 6 or early 7 CE.
Nemesio[/b]
Dio Cassius, a Roman writer mentions there were taxes levied during this decade. This involved going back to one's home town to work out what had been left you as an inheritance, and then taxes were demanded based on its value . However, Dio Cassius does not help us with the dates of these taxes.
It has also been suggested that when Quirinius was in charge of subduing the Homanadensians from 10 BC to 7 BC Quirinius could have assumed military governorship of the surrounding provinces including Syria. The argument says that he could have secured an oath of loyalty via a census at any time during 10 BC and AD 3. It is suggested that this census prompted Joseph to go to Bethlehem.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey should, if they read the Bible literally. The word used
BTW, the James as the brother of Jesus point was the only one that made any rational sense. Do born agains like RB, BlindFaith and Darfius believe that Jesus had real (blood) brothers?
in aramiac is unequivocably brother. There is no lee-way here.
Not 'cousin' not 'step-brother' and not 'close buddy.'
The notion of Perpetual Virginity is only a dogma in the Catholic
Churches, I believe. I don't think that it is an element of faith
for Lutherans, for example.
Nemesio