TruXta
tired
Do you think the Bible is the Word of God?
what the bible says about money
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
p.s. also, who hasn't seen Ghostbusters?
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
Yes
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You don't.
TruXta
tired
Ok, that's that cleared up then (for me at least).
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
You claimed Daniel is a forgery, but you haven't even presented any evidence so far.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why would i? A forgery of what?
Corax
Luke 5:16
It's a complicated question for me, and I'm not able to give as straight an answer as that atm - but in an environment like Urban you've got my respect for doing so with such conviction.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
Well I think you might find it gives your argument a bit more substance than just saying 'its a fact that Daniel is a forgery'.
But then again you're only about about the 'glory' of winning 'internet arguments' aren't you.
So this is probably going nowhere.butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm all about biblical studies - not the word of god. Beware big nose.Well I think you might find it gives your argument a bit more substance than just saying 'its a fact that Daniel is a forgery'.
But then again you're only about about the 'glory' of winning 'internet arguments' aren't you.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That only works if you're a mackerel-snapper, though, not if you're a four-by-two. We're harder to convince about doctrinal jiggery-pokery like transubstantiation.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Are you serious? You don't know that the word of god was a text written 300 years after the events that it claimed to be a witness to?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"Prophecy from G-d" tending to be a euphemism for "the writings of a disturbed but religious person who cons people into believing he has the gift of prophecy in order to achieve religious and personal ends".
And I say that of all prophets, not just Christian ones.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
I've told you I don't.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
About 60% of the material that forms The Old Testament of the bible has been shown to be composites of events and sources, thrown together anywhere between a generation and several centuries after occurrence, often from sources as diverse as translations and oral histories. Daniel is no different. What you need to ask yourself is "even if the original was the work of G-d's prophet, was the retranslation of the work from another language also the work of G-d? Were the oral histories relayed generations after the events recorded also the work of G-d? Or could they have been the work of religious zealots deploying a particular narrative centuries after those events?"
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You've told me that you don't what?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
the christian spin on the furnacing of shadrach & co is that the fourth figure that joins them unburning in the flames is actually the Son and a presaging of jeebus.
at least thats what I was told.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I heard it was Abednego farting.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
I don't know what the arguments for and against what you claim are.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The claims he makes are standard Biblical scholarship, going back a century and more. You should read some.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
The claims he makes are standard Biblical scholarship, going back a century and more. You should read some.
So its undisputed?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
What is? The standard dating of the gospels? The evidence and argument is very good. But of course some people dispute it. Fundamentalists, for example, dispute it.
When I have a moment, I'll get you some references. I've posted some here before, as I'm sure others have.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
No, that Daniel is a 'literary forgery'. I reckon that is likely disputed.
I know a bit more about the dating of the Gospels (only through watching documentaries) and that is definately disputed.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
definitely
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
That's your terminology, though: "forgery". Butchers didn't say that. (He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, though). For myself, I don't really know what you mean by "forgery". Using the term presupposes certain attitudes that you haven't spelt out.
Disputed by whom, though, and based upon what?
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
I just recall that Luke was supposedly written very early. Within a few decades of Jesus crucifixion. And was based on eyewitness accounts. That's about all I remember.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Mark is the one that is generally thought to have been written first, Matthew closely resembles Mark, to the extent that it is possible to say that one copied the other. Mark is the shortest. It's generally thought that Matthew copied Mark, and Matthew includes a lot of material not included by Mark, possibly because it wasn't known to him, or was added to the tradition after Mark had written his account.
Luke is a stark contrast to those first two: he is more literary, more subtle, and it is he who struggles with some of the inconsistencies and tries to square those circles, introducing the threat from Herod to explain the flight from Bethlehem, for example.
John is different again. More mystical, and usually held up as apart from the three "Synoptic" gospels.
Try "the New Testament" (1973) by WG Kummel or "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" (1973) by Robert Grant. Or for the roots of modern scholarship, try Albert Schweitzer's "the Quest of the Historical Jesus". Your local library should be able to help.
Similar threads
