stephan huller

The point is that I am writing this as quickly as I am working it out in my head. If the original gospel writer(s) originally used the Book of Jubilees rather than the Pentateuch all - or at least most - of the difficulties about chronological difficulties disappear. Note - the Gospel of Peter does not contain a single OT reference and has this wacky understanding of the appearance of Jesus after the Festival of Unleavened Bread which has never been explained. The next scene however - where the current fragment breaks off - is his appearance to the rest of the disciples in Galilee.

stephan huller

For those keeping track at home. Theodotos's gospel reads:

Compare Luke 9:22

It is obvious to see the 'Catholicizing' of the material. First the emphasis that Jesus 'suffered' and then that what happened 'was according to scriptures' (which wouldn't have been true if the community was exclusively employing the Book of Jubilees).

Sheshbazzar

Your 'quickly working it out in your head' ideas are far less informed and persuasive than 90 years of detailed study and observances.
There have always been a diversity of opinions, and those that were simply seeking an excuse to fashion their own following.

stephan huller

And that includes your consistent reference to Jesus under a host of insulting references, that the gospel is feces and the like. It took 90 years to come up with that?

stephan huller

You have this annoying need to talk about yourself in this forum. It's just not the place to do it here. You mistake the fact that this is primarily a hang out for atheists to mean that this forum is a welcomed place to insult Christians. This isn't the place for that or - by extension - to talk about your personal faith. There are plenty of donut shops and coffee houses that you can do that in.

spin

I'd recommend the privacy of one's bathroom.

Sheshbazzar

It only annoys you because it makes your utter ignorance of experience look bad.

You have no idea of how much real and practical information you are missing out on while pursuing those unicorns you seek within obscure sectarian religious texts.

The drivel you spiel here by the reams daily is the expression of your confused personal faith.

How many days are in your Scriptural year stephan, and whom was it that decided the number for you?

stephan huller

But why do you come here? This is a forum for Biblical criticism. It's not a faith forum or a faith bashing forum.

spin

What looks bad is a religionist who sneaks in here and slags off religionists who believe different things. What looks bad is someone who vociferates against other people who don't sink into the mire of your belief just because you say what you think must be correct.

The rule in this forum is not tradition, not belief, but evidence. You can think whatever you like, but what you present here needs to be BC&H and that done with an effort at good methodology.

If you want to talk about pesakh, you do so from the reliable sources, such as Lev 23. That is what we can evaluate. That which we cannot evaluate has no place here.

Ignorance parading as tradition is still ignorance. You need to be able to produce evidence for your views. Otherwise there is no way to separate them from nonsense.

Give me an ounce of doubt rather than a ton of religious certainty. Certainty is for stones.

Stephan's "scriptural year" is not a topic here. The year as seen from different positions in antiquity is something we can talk about.

It's interesting how calendars bring out the aggressive nature in religionists.

Sheshbazzar

<edit>