Bede

Well, ten years earlier according to Josephus who Toto's method says is utterly unreliable. More seriously, the fact the speech contains an error does not mean that Gam. was not Paul's teacher.

I must admit that I long ago gave up trying to reason with most of the people here. There is very little point in giving references and careful analysis to those who will do an internet search and find some scribbler to trump Brown or Meier or other recognised scholars. Also, your stuff on Mark is very hard to refute as it is utterly devoid of hard facts beyond saying your parallels don't exist (as they didn't for MacDonald as you now admit). I'd have to do all the work of inventing parallels for something else which is frankly not worth the effort. It all reminds me of how hard it was to refute the Bible Codes (beyond the fact they were obviously BS) without doing some heavy legwork.

In fact, I have been consciously trying to behave like an infidel and it hasn't taken you long to call me on it. I stick around because I enjoy rattling your cages. I know, I know. It's childish and stupid and a waste of time. I should leave you guys to your illusions and you can all discover that Mark is based on Plato, that Eusebius forged (brief pause while I think of an ancient author he hasn't been accused of forging) Homer and that Paul never existed.

Also, the same on stuff appears all the time. We (I mean my lot, not your lot) refuted Freke and Gandy, refuted MacD, refuted the 'we' passages/sea voyages stuff, refuted most of the black legend and conflict hypothesis. Not a bad collection of dragons. Yet from time to time a wide eyed innocent appears here and asks if they are true. And you need me, Sumner or Celsus to point out we have done and dusted the subject because for some reason you mods never like to point this stuff out. And as I have to keep an eye out on your errors of commission, I might have well have some fun pointing out the obvious fact that your current theories are headed the same way...

Besides, you are a bit short of theist posters at the moment (wonder why that could be) and I don't want you to think you have won just because you drove them away.

So, if you find my continuing presense a tad frustrating, then it just means I'm doing my job, guv. .

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Amaleq13

Actually, ten years later and Toto's "method" would appear to suggest that we only consider any supernatural event Josephus describes as unreliable. It is much easier to have a rational discussion if you stick to what your opponents actually say rather than exaggerate their position into an extreme strawman.

The fact that the author is willing to attribute a falsehood to Gamaliel certainly doesn't suggest we assume everything else he attributes to Gamaliel is true. On the contrary, the least effect this should have on a rational consideration is to create a reasonable doubt about anything the author claims regarding Gamaliel.

This is ridiculous given that Brown, as well as Koester, have been cited against the position both you and Metacrock support. Both agree that a falsehood has been attributed and Koester, at least, appears to doubt that Paul was ever a student of Gamaliel.

More nonsense. It did not require any "heavy legwork" to apply the same rules to Moby Dick or War and Peace in order to demonstrate that the "code" is ubiquitous and, therefore, meaningless.

Keep rattling the bars all you want, amigo. We won't let you out of your cage until you learn to behave.

Toto

So you admit that you are not posting here in good faith? That you could not win an argument on the merits, so you are putting on a parody of bad reasoning?

Bede - I consistently try to disabuse people who pop up and ask about the clearly invalid Jesus-Horus connection, without waiting for you.

As for your idea that you have refuted prominent Christian scholars like McDonald and Robbins, perhaps you should be getting your degree in the appropriate field, so you could actually test your ideas against specialists in the field.

That's not what I think that means.

Chili

You claim that the return of Christ is not about to happen and used Rev 22:10-11 to prove this. My reply was to show that the very passage that you used to prove that it did not happen is the passage that shows how and why the second coming will be a personal event in the life of the believer.

The Gospels warn us not to look for signs except the sign of Jonah, who was running away from God and there found the end of his world etc. The sign of Jonah applies to those who knowingly do wrong in the passage you cited and i tried to show you how and why.

To seal up the words of the prophecy is to make theology an exercise for the sake of theology and that is not what the Revelation is about. Revelation is where the judgment is made.

johntheapostate

I don't know why I should debate the scripture with you when the only boundaries defining the correct interpretation in your case are the limits of your imagination. Give your head a shake



Yes the Gospels do contain a disclaimer telling us to disregard as uncertain all those statements by Jesus regarding the end times which he had just presented as certain only a few short verses before and I am familiar with all the apologetics insisting that all those confident statement by Jesus insisting that the end would come while the generation he was addressing was still alive or his disciples would not finish going through the cities of Judea before he returned are in fact meant to be understood in a manner not readily perceptible in the plain reading of the text.


You know very well that the sign of Jonah was to signify that Jesus would spend three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth, which he did not do anyway, so whats the point. And as for Jesus and his double talk, he makes a big deal on how certain cities in Judea will be judged more severely for their rejection of his claim of being the messiah because they were witnesses to his spectacular miracles and signs so I don't see how he can get off saying no sign will be given.


Debating with mystics is like trying to explain something to someone who's got his fingers in his ears and is yelling I cant hear you.

Do you come up with your "insight" on your own or are you regurgitating something you picked up elsewhere.

Atheos

Sounds good to me. I'll try to keep the caustic comments down.



-Atheos

Vorkosigan

No, Bede, not frustrating. I'd enjoy it if it were frustrating -- that is, if you came up with strong arguments that were well-supported that punched holes in everything that was said. <ad hominems deleted>

See, despite your attempts to derail our discussion into a discussion about what Infidels believes, our subdiscussion is about you. You are correct; whatever the quality of the discussion is around here, it reflects on us. But your behavior, Bede, reflects on you.

Think about it. I believe Infidels would love to have you, if you could be a gadfly who made reasoned posts, instead of a horsefly who upchucks on whatever everyone else is eating.

Vorkosigan

Chili

You are right, but tell me, why did they call it "the bowels of the earth" and not just just a hole in the ground 6 foot deep in which he was buried for 3 days.

How can a city suffer if people were witnesses.

Metacrock

Yea but I remember when Bede was a genetleman and never put anyone down, would take any insult to make serious analysis and spent a time answering things here. Why dont' you guys ever examine the way you treat people? It's always everyone elses fault.

Metacrock

wish I had a better graphic of a thumbs up, but I guess this will do. :thumbs: