Originally posted by jaywill ... one clergyman named Ussher. Be Ussher did his calculations based upon biblical geneologies.
Ussher established the time and date of the creation as the night preceding 23 October 4004 BC. Do you really think Ussher is reliable? Can't we just agree that we can have a laugh about his so called chronologies? Why give him any credence at all?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Josephus was alive until approximately 100 AD. You are alive now. I think we can fairly successfully eliminate any commentary you may have to offer on the subject as suspect, at best.
The point i'm making, or at least trying to make, is that the evidence for the holocaust far outweighs the evidence for Jesus. All the commentary on Jesus was written after his death by people who never met him, the evidence for the holocaust speaks for itself, literally.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]===============================
I don't believe Jesus Christ existed, but i believe it's pretty feasible Jesus of Nazareth existed. Do you equate me with a holocaust denier?
=====================================
Yes. I'm afraid I would say in principle you are like today's Holocaust deniers.
There use to be a saying "The Germans laimed His Father) is a reality. Better yet, you deny that any such person ever existed.[/b]
Originally posted by Proper Knob The point i'm making, or at least trying to make, is that the evidence for the holocaust far outweighs the evidence for Jesus. All the commentary on Jesus was written after his death by people who never met him, the evidence for the holocaust speaks for itself, literally.
===========================
. All the commentary on Jesus was written after his death by people who never met him,
======================================
What a load of presumptuous babble.
A lot of the commentary in the New Testament was written after His resurrection and they ALL knew Him either in His resurrection state, or in the case of Matthew's gospel and John's Gospel, before and after His resurrection.
No, the default position is not that someone pseudo wrote fictitious stuff and slapped the name Matthew or John on it.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]===========================
. All the commentary on Jesus was written after his death by people who never met him,
======================================
What a load of presumptuous babble.
A lot of the commentary in the New Testament was written after His resurrection and they ALL knew Him either in His resurrection state, o is not that someone pseudo wrote fictitious stuff and slapped the name Matthew or John on it.[/b]
No, the default position is not that someone pseudo wrote fictitious stuff and slapped the name Matthew or John on it.
the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 110. They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (i.e. 100–150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180.
E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.
Here's his wikipedia page if you'd like to check his credentials
Originally posted by Proper Knob [b]No, the default position is not that someone pseudo wrote fictitious stuff and slapped the name Matthew or John on it.
[i]the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 110. They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second cen ...[text shortened]... edia page if you'd like to check his credentials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Sanders[/b]
And I recommend to you Bock's "Dethroning Jesus - Pop Cultures Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ"
Originally posted by Proper Knob The point i'm making, or at least trying to make, is that the evidence for the holocaust far outweighs the evidence for Jesus. All the commentary on Jesus was written after his death by people who never met him, the evidence for the holocaust speaks for itself, literally.
Thats right, in fact, there is a memorial to the Holocaust survivors on pretty much every street corner......or is that a church on every street corner? 😛
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that Mohammad existed? How about Buddah? How about Moses?
Originally posted by FabianFnas If C14 shows that it couldn't be the ark of Noah then they dismiss the C14 method altogether, until they use it again to prove another biblical thing.
"C14 is science when it goes my way. C14 is no more than guessings when it doesn't." - Words from an unknown fundamentalist.
So lets say the C14 is off by a few hundred or thousand years. How did it get there?
Of course, as I have said, I don't believe that the carbon dating is flawed regarding the age of the earth because we have a myriad of ways to date the earth and universe. They all can't be wrong.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat I would be interested to know who did the C14 dating. That aside, there's a bit where theres a four sided, shaped timber protruding from the ice - no way is that 4000 years old with edges that sharp. All that knocking on the wood and getting a solid sound - I don't believe that. Frozen for 4000 years, it would sound like knocking on porridge or ic ...[text shortened]... bjoch ice-mummy and associated finds to see what happens to organics after 4000 years in ice.
Well then, why don't you do all of us, and more importantly Whodey a favor, and shimmy up the mountain top and get a piece and carbon date it?
Then again, don't stop your archeological digs in Europe. After all, if you do we may never know what kind of underware King George the Vlll wore. 😛
Originally posted by whodey So lets say the C14 is off by a few hundred or thousand years. How did it get there?
Of course, as I have said, I don't believe that the carbon dating is flawed regarding the age of the earth because we have a myriad of ways to date the earth and universe. They all can't be wrong.
Carbon dating says nothing about the age of the Earth itself. You need an isotope with far longer halftime as carbon 14. But within the history of modern man, C14 is an excellent method.
How a log of wood got its way up the MtArarat? Someone brought it there, of course. How else could it get there? By some magic?
Originally posted by whodey So lets say the C14 is off by a few hundred or thousand years. How did it get there?
Of course, as I have said, I don't believe that the carbon dating is flawed regarding the age of the earth because we have a myriad of ways to date the earth and universe. They all can't be wrong.
So you're accepting the claim that this video was actually filmed on Mt Ararat?
Originally posted by FabianFnas Carbon dating says nothing about the age of the Earth itself. You need an isotope with far longer halftime as carbon 14. But within the history of modern man, C14 is an excellent method.
How a log of wood got its way up the MtArarat? Someone brought it there, of course. How else could it get there? By some magic?
Like I said, they hauled all that ancient lumber up there and then constructed the darn thing. You know, they did this at altitudes that will kill the layman climber. Duh!!
Originally posted by avalanchethecat . Have a look at the pics of the Hauslabjoch ice-mummy and associated finds to see what happens to organics after 4000 years in ice.[/b]
With all due respect, did the Hauslabjoch ice mummy have tons of lumber around him? It seems to me he had a few peices of wood that actually survived for thousands of years that were directly exposed to the elements.
02 May '10 09:04
Naoh's Ark or hoax?
Back to Top