Spirituality
11 Dec 08
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethis is your problem. you don't think past a certain point. you made an example that illustrates part of your claim and then you immediately assumed the claim is demonstrated.
if you dispute the references then that is up to you, they were good enough for my purposes, and like lemon yellow it took me a considerable amount of time and effort for me to source and post these statements from a variety of sources, that's what i call research, so if you don't mind i also demand of you a full public apology for having slandered m ...[text shortened]... them together to form a collage of thought that best illustrates the points that i am making.
someone claimed(maybe you) that if quotes from the OT are present in jesus sermon on the mount, it is proof jesus sermon is unchanged for millenia. you put forward a phd that claimed that the new text has been perfectly preserved and considered your claim has been proved, but you failed to demonstrate if that phd's claim has been proved.
your debating methods are awful.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOhhhhh... Every body loves a bit of righteous indignation makes for entertaining reading. However...........
if you dispute the references then that is up to you, they were good enough for my purposes, and like lemon yellow it took me a considerable amount of time and effort for me to source and post these statements from a variety of sources, that's what i call research, so if you don't mind i also demand of you a full public apology for having slandered m ...[text shortened]... nts are also baseless assertions but we need to grasp at something, regards no 1 muppethead'.
You do appear to often use it to evade answering peoples direct questions. Such as in the thread you started a while back, which once cornered about your information and offered arguments you didn't have the answers for..... You took the righteous indignation approach once again.
And I quote
sorry my friend the ill will that has been generated by those who have nothing constructive nor relevant to state has overwhelmed my desire for anything more to do with this thread nor this forum, if you want to private mail me any of your references then please do so, for i myself have nothing further to state and in future, although it is a public forum i will be more careful with whom i engage in dialogue for the motives of those aforementioned are unclear and their propensity for derogatory remarks a general feature and reflective of the type of persons they are! i find myself being drawn to this level which is not advisory for i am a generally cheerful and good natured person and only wish to share some ideas and have some fun in the process - regards Robbie.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzii do not deny that my technique leaves much to be desired, however, what can i say, in order for me to prove the claim i would need to go and source the actual fragments, compare them to what i have got in my hand in biblical terms today, insist that there is no discrepancy and post the analysis. it is simply enough for me to site the authors research on the subject for it well illustrates the point that i was making, in the same manner that the testimony of a learned individual is upheld in court, his qualifications and experience in a particular field being held in high esteem and regarded by others as trustworthy. it is simply impractical to be a theologian, an archeologist, a linguistic expert, a scientist, a historian, etc etc at the same time.
this is your problem. you don't think past a certain point. you made an example that illustrates part of your claim and then you immediately assumed the claim is demonstrated.
someone claimed(maybe you) that if quotes from the OT are present in jesus sermon on the mount, it is proof jesus sermon is unchanged for millenia. you put forward a phd that clai ...[text shortened]... failed to demonstrate if that phd's claim has been proved.
your debating methods are awful.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by Mexicono actually my friend, i had planned on providing some sort of defense but my will simply gave out, what can i say, i am a human being, not a machine.
Ohhhhh... Every body loves a bit of righteous indignation makes for entertaining reading. However...........
You do appear to often use it to evade answering peoples direct questions. Such as in the thread you started a while back, which once cornered about your information and offered arguments you didn't have the answers for..... You took the righteous i ...[text shortened]... person and only wish to share some ideas and have some fun in the process - regards Robbie.[/i]
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
16 Dec 08
1 edit
1. Christ messiahship and its subsequent claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E. (Compare Matthew 21:9 Acts 4:27 5:27, 28) If the claim was false, any of Jesus opponents and he had many could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking his lineage in the genealogies in the public archives.
The messaiahship of Jesus of Nazareth followed a long line of many others of the time claiming to be the 'messaiah'. The Jewish culture of the time was engaged in an apocalyptic expression for several centuries. There were many, many claiming to be 'messaiah'.
Where are you getting this notion of recorded geneologies? Where is the specific documentation (and I don't mean the Bible, it's not a civic document)?
3. Christianity is essentially a textual based religion, your claims of an oral tradition that was manipulated and embellished are quite contrary to established practise, as illustrated in the teachings of Christ, the apostles and first century Christianity and as recorded in scripture. i hope i will not need to remind you of the verses and references. this simple fact invalidates any of your scant and incredulous claims of manipulation and embellishment.
Yes, it is now, but it was not in its inception. To represent otherwise in the absence of any facts at all is erroneous.
4. concerning the eye witness accounts...5, that none of the gospels was written by anyone who actually met Christ is quite simply an astounding baseless assertion
Concerning eyewitness accounts, most established and distinguished seminaries are not of the opinion that any of the Gospels are first-hand accounts. There is speculation that Luke may have been written second-hand; that is to say the author may - may - have actually met Luke, but that is purely speculative. There is no proof that rwingett is representing incorrectly. (If you have any questions, I can refer you to some folks at Harvard or Princeton Theological Seminaries).
rwingett is entirely correct in his assertions, 1-5. There is nothing that he is representing falsely. You may not like it...*shrugs*...and many don't, but all you seem to be doing from what I'm reading is validating John Shelby Spong's assertion.
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Badwateri have already stated that the practice of recording genealogies was a fact as established by Josephus, the main discrepancy lies in whether they were recorded for everyone or just the priestly families, i simply took the text from a website that i had sourced which states that it seems likely that the genealogies of the Davidic line would also have been preserved considering its importance to the nation, other sources are the Talmud and the bible itself.
[b]1. Christ messiahship and its subsequent claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E. (Compare Matthew 21:9 Acts 4:27 5:27, 28) If the claim was false, any of Jesus opponents and he had many could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking his lineage in the genealogies in the public archives.
The m you seem to be doing from what I'm reading is validating John Shelby Spong's assertion.[/b]
here is a reference for you.
http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/lineage/fulfill.html
the lineage is really only one source that Christ was a messiah, there are many others.
that Christianity was a textually based religion i do not think you can deny, for it seems that the practise of the Christ and the apostles was to consult written text when making descisions or when preaching and teaching, the many references to the Hebrew scriptures add validity to this statement.
for example.
'So according to Pauls custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead' acts 17:2
as for whether Luke actually wrote the gospel that bears his own name i have no reason to dispute, one must keep in mind the many other incredulous statements the biblical critics have made in an effort to discredit the integrity of scripture, some of which i posted earlier and would grace the realms of many a fairy tale book, whether you like it or not 'shrug'.
16 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSloppy genealogies then...?
i have already stated that the practice of recording genealogies was a fact as established by Josephus, the main discrepancy lies in whether they were recorded for everyone or just the priestly families, i simply took the text from a website that i had sourced which states that it seems likely that the genealogies of the Davidic line would also have ...[text shortened]... d considering its importance to the nation, other sources are the Talmud and the bible itself.
Some parts of the bible is permitted to be sloppy? Like the genisis too?
As Josephus was not the father of Jesus, why is his genealogy interesting at all? Jesus has no genetic lineage from King David, so Jesus cannot be that one told from the prophecies? Jesus wasn't Messiah, if I extrapolate correctly? Jews were right. Moslems are right when only put Jesus as a prophet.
16 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnashow do you arrive at this conclusion, all i stated was that as far as i am aware Josephus states that the priestly families were recorded and sites his own lineage as an example, whether the lineage of everyone was recorded i do not know at present, perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary? what about the other sources, the Talmud etc etc are you also disputing them? how do you account for the biblical references to Christ the son of David. how do you account for second century historian Hegesippus, what evidence do you have to the contrary?
Sloppy genealogies then...?
Some parts of the bible is permitted to be sloppy? Like the genisis too?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethat method you are citing means you let the testimony do the talking. it isn't the lawyer who draws the conclusion but the jury.
i do not deny that my technique leaves much to be desired, however, what can i say, in order for me to prove the claim i would need to go and source the actual fragments, compare them to what i have got in my hand in biblical terms today, insist that there is no discrepancy and post the analysis. it is simply enough for me to site the authors resear ...[text shortened]... ogian, an archeologist, a linguistic expert, a scientist, a historian, etc etc at the same time.
you however post the reference and then without the steps necessary you draw the conclusion, often a much more complex conclusion that that reference would imply. and this means we hold you as oblivious to logic when perhaps as you say you are simply lazy.
you must be fair with your deductions and if you go through the trouble of finding references that support in part your theory, you might as well go through the extra trouble of really reading them, find flaws in them, find the aspects insufficiently discussed and form your conclusion accordingly.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI've thought about this a little more. Finding God in Christ is exactly what Spong seeks to do. But for him, all the mythology that has grown up around Jesus is an impediment against that objective and not an aid toward it. Look at all the time and effort that the poor, misguided RobbieC has spent vainly trying to defend Jesus' spurious lineage. It is he who cannot see the forest for the trees. If he would cease his crazed and maniacal ravings on what is really an inconsequential subject, then maybe he would have a truer understanding of the mystery of God as revealed through the person of Jesus. That is Spong's viewpoint at least.
If all Christianity is, is a subject to study it is no different than any
other belief. If Jesus is a live and well, and your are focused upon
anything other than God Himself you will have missed the forest for
the trees if you do not find God in Christ.
Kelly
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, if two genealogies that should be the same isn't the same, then there must be some sloppy writings. This is a very fundamental thing if you want to be sure of that Jesus is the true Messiah or not. If one source only include priests and the other not, then it would be proper explanation, but it is not more than a guessing, is it? Else, where is the sources of this?
how do you arrive at this conclusion, all i stated was that as far as i am aware Josephus states that the priestly families were recorded and sites his own lineage as an example, whether the lineage of everyone was recorded i do not know at present, perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary? what about the other sources, the Talmud etc etc are y ...[text shortened]... you account for second century historian Hegesippus, what evidence do you have to the contrary?
But anyway, what's the point of having a true genealogy if it's stops with Josephus, and he is not the biological father anyway? Sounds sloppy that too, in my mind.
Does Talmud says otherwise? Does the Quaran say something about the lineage of Jesus? What does Hegesippus say, and what is his sources?
I only dispute what I can read in the bible, nothing more. If I don't know, then I ask. As I did now. If this is a hot potatoe in christianity, then tell me so, and I settle with that.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by Zahlanziyou are entirely correct Zahlanzi, the testimony does the talking, i merely try to present the information which i feel best suits my argument, nothing more, nor have i ever claimed otherwise.
that method you are citing means you let the testimony do the talking. it isn't the lawyer who draws the conclusion but the jury.
you however post the reference and then without the steps necessary you draw the conclusion, often a much more complex conclusion that that reference would imply. and this means we hold you as oblivious to logic when perhaps ...[text shortened]... flaws in them, find the aspects insufficiently discussed and form your conclusion accordingly.
i generally make my appeal based on the individuals credentials, for if one goes to a doctor for example, one trusts that the doctors analysis is good for he has studied medicine, we do not require to know anything about the anatomy or physiology of the human body to recognize that he knows more than we do ourselves, for to dismiss his analysis and try to supersede it with our own is folly and may lead to serious health issues and repercussions, thus it is with history, theology, art, science etc etc. although this naturally goes against my own natural inclinations as i am in some way influenced by Platonic philosophy which asserts that everything taken upon trust is nothing more than mere opinion, but i realize that there are many who 'know', more about these things than i do, with the exception of atheists who know nothing, (with the exception of black beetle who knows a good malt whiskey when he sees it), for the very basis of their assertions are conjecture and speculation! this statement i will never retract!
yes you are correct, however when i find a reference i become so gleeful as if i have been given some type of gift i cannot wait to add it to my collection, and even when on occasion i find its greater contents to be either dubious or contradictory to my argument, i may insist on using it anyway if it suits my immediate purpose. this has the detrimental effect that those bad ol putty cats usually find some other pretext and we must address some other point that they bring up. but its a small price to pay for quality insults.😀
if i may summarize my position this way, i produce a biblical reference for your consideration which has always influenced my thoughts on the correct procedure,
Christ stated, ' what I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him.'
now you may not agree with this statement but it forms the basis of why i source and produce testimony from others in support of my argument, for my motive is simply to uphold the integrity of scripture.
16 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasdude if you want to know do your own research, im doing no more for anybody else. whether its a hot potato or not i do not know, i am no part of mainstream Christianity. the extra biblical sources simply indicate that Christ was a descendant of David, that all.
Well, if two genealogies that should be the same isn't the same, then there must be some sloppy writings. This is a very fundamental thing if you want to be sure of that Jesus is the true Messiah or not. If one source only include priests and the other not, then it would be proper explanation, but it is not more than a guessing, is it? Else, where is the did now. If this is a hot potatoe in christianity, then tell me so, and I settle with that.
my apologies Fabian, you have asked in earnest, i should not have reacted they way i did, consider this site it has some of the relevant information as well as the so called 'discrepancy', for i myself have had no time to verify otherwise.
http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/lineage/fulfill.html
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat christ stated is different from this case. firstly, him being the son of god adds some credibility to his words. secondly, he conveyed moral guidelines most of the time he was here and those are not really necessary to prove. love each other is a no brainer.
you are entirely correct Zahlanzi, the testimony does the talking, i merely try to present the information which i feel best suits my argument, nothing more, nor have i ever claimed otherwise.
i generally make my appeal based on the individuals credentials, for if one goes to a doctor for example, one trusts that the doctors analysis is good for h ...[text shortened]... ers in support of my argument, for my motive is simply to uphold the integrity of scripture.
you however are not christ and if you want to be taken seriously you must demonstrate your claims. and then we those we do not believe your claims will stop attacking your debating methods and yourself and start debating your claims. as debates should go.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJura 's a happy toddler
you are entirely correct Zahlanzi, the testimony does the talking, i merely try to present the information which i feel best suits my argument, nothing more, nor have i ever claimed otherwise.
i generally make my appeal based on the individuals credentials, for if one goes to a doctor for example, one trusts that the doctors analysis is good for h ...[text shortened]... ers in support of my argument, for my motive is simply to uphold the integrity of scripture.
Glenkinchie 10 a standard blink of the eye
Talisker a yellow eye-catcher diamond
Glenlivet 15 drives you higher the most you keep warm its dark amber soul
Cardu 12 will soon become a rare pleasure
Oban how perfect for the everyday practice and reflection over the board
Macallan 18 is fine whenever I have to wash down my joyful bitterness after a game against Mathurine
No religion
Nothing Holy😵