Sheshbazzar

If what is admittedly a PROPAGANDA document revises and rearranges the ORDER of events and presents a FALSE 'version' of history, do we have to accept the 'HISTORY' presented within that PROPAGANDA document, -KNOWN to contain FALSE and MISLEADING INFORMATION- as being ACCURATE and FACTUAL?
And CONFORM ALL of our CONCLUSIONS in an exacting CONFORMITY with the ORDER and CONTENTS of that acknowledged PROPAGANDA DOCUMENT?

PLEASE STOP BELIEVING IN THE ACCURACY OF WHAT YOU KNOW IS A FALSE PROPAGANDA DOCUMENT!




who can SHOUT louder?

maryhelena

OK - you win the top prize for the loudest shout.....:wave2:

Sheshbazzar, I share your frustration re how the gospel story is being argued over as though some history can be assigned to the storyline elements, I don’t share your idea that these documents are propaganda. (I take it that this is what you are indicating...)

Arguing over whether the baptism of JC was historical, from my point of view, is a waste of time. The JC story is not history. Just because that gospel JC story is not history does not mean it is propaganda. It only becomes propaganda when taken literally. There are other ways to approach the gospel JC story. A symbolic or a mythological story designed to convey some words of wisdom etc. An interpretation of earlier Jewish history i.e. a re-telling of earlier Jewish history in symbolic form. An origin story for Christianity. I would rather think it our lack of insight that is the issue, rather than level insincerity to the writers of the gospel JC story.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, PROPAGANDA is what I am indicating.
Please, do look up as many definitions as you can find. Whether the writings are sincere or insincere, the word fits the content of religious texts perfectly.

Biased reports intended to deliberately spread ones own cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.








.

ApostateAbe

N/A

Sheshbazzar

Oh I was sure that someone could
Wonder if we all wrote all the time in RED and in "SIZE" 7 if it would make any of our points any more valid? ya think?

aa5874

You seem to have written in "red" to make your point more valid because you hardly ever write in "red".

But, it is NOT the "red" that count it is the evidence from antiquity that counts. Some people don't know how or when to use the "red".