The Virgin Mary

[Aladdin]

shits and giggles

Where does that phrase come from...? Out of curiosity...

 

[bcuster]

Just wondering what the posters who believe all this stuff think. What with the bible being the word of God. How do they explain the (many) errors in the bible?

We accept the Magisterium's interpretation and go about our business.

 

[bcuster]

Where does that phrase come from...? Out of curiosity...

I heard that first in the Navy. perhaps ouirdeaux is ex- USN...

 

[Aladdin]

I heard that first in the Navy. perhaps ouirdeaux is ex- USN...

I only ever heard it used irl once before.

 

[bcuster]

I only ever heard it used irl once before.

I think the phrase is American military in origin. The hard boiled Chief Petty Officers used it to "convince" young seamen to do seemingly senseless tasks.

our friend ouirdeaux may've been a noncommissioned officer

 

[Dystopiary]

I've heard it a few times in different parts of Britain I think Aladdin, think it's a fairly common British thing.

 

[andysays]

Where does that phrase come from...? Out of curiosity...

No idea where it comes from, but it seems a good description of ouirdeaux 's behaviour on this thread

 

[PTK]

What's wrong with using the time-hallowed phrase "for a laugh"?

 

[Aladdin]

What's wrong with using the time-hallowed phrase "for a laugh"?

Who said there wad anything wrong with it? I just wondered where it came from. It's not something I have heard often

 

[PTK]

Who said there wad anything wrong with it? I just wondered where it came from. It's not something I have heard often

Well, if people are not using it, that implies that there is something wrong with it.

 

[zahir]

I really appreciate your perspective. What do you think of the notion that Luke’s primary, or at least important, source is Mary?

Thanks.

Well, my non expert understanding is that there are two competing theories about the sources of Luke among scholars. Either Mark + Matthew or (more popularly I think) Mark + a lost sayings gospel denoted "Q". Under the latter theory Matthew is also Mark + Q. These are all written sources and Mary would very likely not have been literate.

There are some things that appear in Luke but not Mark and Matthew. The crucifixion is different and the birth narrative is different to Matthew (not in Mark at all). I think there are also some parables in Luke that don't appear elsewhere (maybe).

Now maybe Luke interviewed Mary about Jesus's birth which I guess would be possible. The problem with that idea is that Luke gets mundane facts wrong. No other historian records a census at thar time and if there was one the idea that you travel back to your ancestral town is ridiculous, impossible to do in practice and a strange thing to want to do in the first place. No reason as far as I can see for Mary to tell him that.

It doesn't seem likely to me, but I'm no expert.

All of which is thrown into question by the reopening of the debate on Marcionite priority. Very briefly the issue is whether Marcion's gospel was an abridged version of Luke or Luke was an embellished version of Marcion. If anyone feels like watching a two hour youtube video this is a good introduction.

 

[ouirdeaux]

Luke was from Antioch. There is no evidence that he met Mary or was ever even in the vicinity. As he was a Greek speaker, they may not even have had a common language.

 

[Knotted]

Luke was from Antioch. There is no evidence that he met Mary or was ever even in the vicinity. As he was a Greek speaker, they may not even have had a common language.

We don't know where Luke was from or that he was called Luke.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

We don't know where Luke was from or that he was called Luke.

Are you implying that someone who wasn't called Luke was called Luke?

 

[bcuster]

All of which is thrown into question by the reopening of the debate on Marcionite priority. Very briefly the issue is whether Marcion's gospel was an abridged version of Luke or Luke was an embellished version of Marcion. If anyone feels like watching a two hour youtube video this is a good introduction.

I'd go with the Magisterium on this

 

[PTK]

Are you implying that someone who wasn't called Luke was called Luke?

John Lennon was not really John Lennon, as every fule kno.

 

[Knotted]

Are you implying that someone who wasn't called Luke was called Luke?

The canonical gospels have all been attributed to various people. However they were all anonymous.

 

[PTK]

The canonical gospels have all been attributed to various people. However they were all anonymous.

Anonymous has written a lot of things over the years.

 

[zahir]

I'd go with the Magisterium on this

Give the video a watch and see what you think.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

The canonical gospels have all been attributed to various people. However they were all anonymous.

Perhaps we should rename the "Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" as "Some stories made up by somebody or other"?

 

[Humberto]

So is the bible wrong then? It states in Luke that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be registered.

I was speaking to this. But you are right Luke 2:1-3 does state that.

It amazes me how people can accept, or at least think plausible, the idea that the Romans required everyone to travel to their home town in order that a census could be conducted. I have spoken to people who are not religious who entertain the notion that it could have been the case. If you want to know how many people live in a town now, you don't require that those who are incomers move out. A requirement that everyone moved to their home town would have created massive disruption, and would have taken months to implement. Of course, we know that the political reason for the claim is so that it can be claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem, in order to match a prophecy and give legitimacy to the claim that he was indeed the king of his people.

So Elizabeth and PTK what's the query? That the idea that citizens and subjects were required to return to their home town(?) to complete the census is implausible? It might be. That it would have taken a considerable time? This is well over a millenium before the Domesday survey took place in England.

 

[Humberto]

The gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus are wildly different. Which one do you believe is correct - Matthew or Luke? And how did the other one get it so terribly wrong, do you think?

There are contradictions in the Gospels. Quite a few but the initial ones that spring to mind are:

Before the cock crows you will deny me three times. Vs before the cock crows twice you will deny me thrice. (Matthew and Mark)

And: The two criminals that were crucified with Jesus reviled him (Matthew). Vs one of the two criminals that were crucified with Jesus begged Jesus to remember him and was assured that he would be with him paradise for believing (Luke).

Also, in the Garden of Gethsemene, shortly before being arrested, there is an account of what Jesus had said when apparently everyone else (the 11 disciples) had fallen asleep. Who witnessed and recorded it? That's another one that stuck out to me

The thing is, and questioning is fine it's our Urban trade, there is always another layer of context or literal ancient language double meaning to consider and so on when you look into it. And while the discussion has largely been patient and cordial, the idea that no one else on Earth has noticed and that either side's argument or belief is going to collapse like a deck of cards just isn't going to happen.

 

[bcuster]

I’m not sure nitpicking the scriptures for straight down the line consistency leads to greater faith

 

[Humberto]

I’m not sure nitpicking the scriptures for straight down the line consistency leads to greater faith

That wasn't my intention.

 

[bcuster]

That wasn't my intention.

It is exactly the intention of the atheists who post here. They have no desire to increase their faith.

They are trying to dissuade us from ours. …won’t work.

 

[Humberto]

It is exactly the intention of the atheists who post here. They have no desire to increase their faith.

They are trying to dissuade us from ours. …won’t work.

I agree but you leave yourself open to accusations of arrogance: 'Why should we care about faith? it's up to you to persuade us'. Which has a logic.

 

[bcuster]

I agree but you leave yourself open to accusations of arrogance: 'Why should we care about faith? it's up to you to persuade us'. Which has a logic.

No it doesn’t. I posted many apologetic links. They scoffed at them.

 

[Humberto]

No it doesn’t. I posted many apologetic links. They scoffed at them.

I stand by what I said, neither side will or can collapse the other's deck of cards even if they want to stay in the discussion or not.

But Urban is a strange beat in that regard. There are confirmed satanists and 'non-servium', that's the community. It's more or less society, much as they like to pretend they are some edgy vangaurd.

 

[bcuster]

I stand by what I said, neither side will or can collapse the other's deck of cards even if they want to stay in the discussion or not.

But Urban is a strange beat in that regard. There are confirmed satanists and 'non-servium', that's the community. It's more or less society, much as they like to pretend they are some edgy vangaurd.

This is a very informative post

 

[ElizabethofYork]

But Urban is a strange beat in that regard. There are confirmed satanists and 'non-servium', that's the community. It's more or less society, much as they like to pretend they are some edgy vavangaurd.

Who are the satanists?

Satan is a Christian invention.