Originally posted by epiphinehas
The year of Jesus' crucifixion is roughly 32 A. D., therefore it is completely conceivable that his biographies were circulated among those who had witnessed his ministry. Also consider that Paul's letters, which assume the listener's familiarity with Christ's Lordship, divinity, death, and resurrection, etc., predate Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

"completely conceivable" is of no historic interest. My guess is as good as yours. But I rather skip the guessing. The fact is that we don't know anything for sure about the authors, if they actually were there, or if i's just stories passing from moth to mouth.

Remember that St Paul was about to found a church at the time the gospels was written. Of course he chosed from the stories about Jesus in order to make the new cult plausible. That's my guess. Not very historic either.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Sokrates teachings are not the foundation of a religion, where its prime dogam is that everything Sokrates said was the very Truth, and that Sokrates is gods son. That's the difference.
Whenever I hear of someone starting a war because the words of Sokrates, then I will rethink.

I don't think the gospels are read within the witnesses lifetime:
The ...[text shortened]... he told someone else while adding and subtracting facts. Therefore I call it 'hearsay'.

Sokrates teachings are not the foundation of a religion, where its prime dogam is that everything Sokrates said was the very Truth, and that Sokrates is gods son. That's the difference.
Whenever I hear of someone starting a war because the words of Sokrates, then I will rethink.

Like I said, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredible claims. You've concluded that the events attested to in the NT never happened because they are in your opinion impossible, so you look for evidence to support that belief. This is all well and good, the problem is you won't find much, if any, support in the NT documents themselves, as they are very strong, reliable accounts.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Like I said, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredible claims. You've concluded that the events attested to in the NT never happened because they are in your opinion impossible, so you look for evidence to support that belief. This is all well and good, the problem is you won't find much, if any, support in the NT documents themselves, as they are very strong, reliable accounts.

Yes, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredible claims. But still there are quite a few fundamentalists that have the firm opinion that the whole bible is the very Truth to the letter. It's these people I'm trying to understand.

I don't know exactly what part of the gospels are true and what parts are not. As I don't believe in miracles, I find those stories impossible. But there were several groups of 'preachers' walking around with a tail of followers. Jesus was one of them, John the Babtist was another. That's probably true. We should read the gospels as they actually are.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredible claims. But still there are quite a few fundamentalists that have the firm opinion that the whole bible is the very Truth to the letter. It's these people I'm trying to understand.

I don't know exactly what part of the gospels are true and what parts are not. As I don't believe in miracles, I ...[text shortened]... btist was another. That's probably true. We should read the gospels as they actually are.

never mind that, will you challenge my friend Scriabin, or will you woose out? pistols at dawn my friend! for the honour!

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Sokrates teachings are not the foundation of a religion, where its prime dogam is that everything Sokrates said was the very Truth, and that Sokrates is gods son. That's the difference.
Whenever I hear of someone starting a war because the words of Sokrates, then I will rethink.

Like I said, most people disregard the Bible based on its incredi ...[text shortened]... , if any, support in the NT documents themselves, as they are very strong, reliable accounts.[/b]

Hi epiphinehas.

Good to see you posting some.

Originally posted by jaywill
Hi epiphinehas.

Good to see you posting some.

Howdy, Jaywill! 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Howdy, Jaywill! 🙂

you only need Duecer to complete the unholy trinity!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well the scientific part is one aspect. A pretty poor aspect too.

It is my contention that the bible has been 'fiddled' with. Possibly some parts have been omitted,(and/or addded), as well.
If the bible was not tampered with in this way I believe our world would be a better place. (Primarily the western world-which affects the whole world in the end.)

Sounds like someone's on his way to Islam!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Sounds like someone's on his way to Islam!

dude you still interested in the Najdorf Sicilian? if so i want to post some games for discussion, for i have discovered some very thematic moves, which i wish i had known about before i tried it!!

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Bible is a diverse set of books written over a long period of time by a large number of writers with different backgrounds religions and political opinions and intentions. To make the statement that the Bible was written for a specific purpose - political or otherwise - is clearly untrue, or a claim that the Bible was written or dictated by God.

What political ends do you think the author of Song of Songs was after?

Pooping is so romantic.


Song of Songs 4:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

😀

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What is so significant about the fact that eyewitness accounts (hearsay, as you put it) are relied upon to piece together the ministry of Jesus Christ? Do we question the knowledge we have of Socrates' career as it has been related to us in Plato's dialogues? Rarely, if ever, that I know of.

If we consider that the most trustworthy of Alexander the ...[text shortened]... incredible claims, but certainly not based upon its reliability as an historical document.

Do we question the knowledge we have of Socrates' career as it has been related to us in Plato's dialogues?

Yes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude you still interested in the Najdorf Sicilian? if so i want to post some games for discussion, for i have discovered some very thematic moves, which i wish i had known about before i tried it!!

Yes sir! Post away!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
never mind that, will you challenge my friend Scriabin, or will you woose out? pistols at dawn my friend! for the honour!

Never heard of any interest from him...

But this is interesting: If we play, and I win, are you prepared to lay flat on floor, and abandon your fundamnetalistic ideas? No? Well, I never thought so.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Never heard of any interest from him...

But this is interesting: If we play, and I win, are you prepared to lay flat on floor, and abandon your fundamnetalistic ideas? No? Well, I never thought so.

oh my dear Fabs i am merely an arbitrator, a messenger if you like, sent to try and gauge the interest in such a struggle. please I have goaded you, called into question your bravery, caricatured and even tried to appeal to your noble side in an effort to have this take place. If you play and win, short of offering you a few million Krona, the best i can offer at this moment, is to try to be less pedantic and occasionally revise my demeanour. what say you, shall you play?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh my dear Fabs i am merely an arbitrator, a messenger if you like, sent to try and gauge the interest in such a struggle. please I have goaded you, called into question your bravery, caricatured and even tried to appeal to your noble side in an effort to have this take place. If you play and win, short of offering you a few million Krona, the bes ...[text shortened]... s to try to be less pedantic and occasionally revise my demeanour. what say you, shall you play?

There is a good sign when a poster knows that he is dead wrong. It is to try to divert the topic to something completely other thing with no obvious relevance.

You try to discuss the Najdorf variation, you try to pair two players into a game, earlier you hinted the Swedish role in WW2, you are desperately trying to do anything in order to avoid admitting that you are dead wrong.

You are dead wrong!