Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lugubert · 08-09-2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Disagree. The Hebrew bible does not say Jews or anyone else are born of the devil [Gospels] or apes [Quran].

The way I read, you say that the Qur'an mentions that some? humans are born by apes. I have tried to find a similar statement, but failed. Please explain what you mean, and from which verse you get that impression.

Which sura and which verse, please!?

spin · 08-09-2009, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Hence your answer that there were guards over the tomb in the text is correct if you're referring to the text of Matthew (they aren't mentioned in Mark, Luke, or John).

But the question of what happened historically can't be answered solely by reference to the text.

Right. Otherwise, you turn anything into reality. Well, you can't really, but you understand...

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Smaug never guarded the One Ring.

Ya winsome, ya rugly. No... ya win some, ya lose some.

spin

IamJoseph · 08-09-2009, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

The way I read, you say that the Qur'an mentions that some? humans are born by apes. I have tried to find a similar statement, but failed. Please explain what you mean, and from which verse you get that impression.

Which sura and which verse, please!?

Its common knowledge in 1000s of websites and Islamic media. One does not have to read the Quran for this - it is stated as an Islamic doctrine, and that its a blessing to kill Jews.

J-D · 08-09-2009, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

No, it doesn't assume that. I was using 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke', and 'John' as the accepted titles of the books, independently of the question of authorship. If you prefer, I can refer to them differently and say that the first canonical gospel mentions guards over the tomb but the other three canonical gospels don't. Do you find that clearer?

It will be very impressive and avoid all the confusion if a single entry in the Gospel is proven - anything at all. In the absence of this - there is no way it can be denied that it was wholly and completely written by Europeans much later, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with history or reality and truth. It appears that apart from the belief - nothing else is genuine. How wrong am I?

Completely, in every significant respect (as usual).

Firstly, you are completely wrong about what I said. I didn't say anything about who wrote the gospels, nor did I say anything about whether their contents were historical. Your utter and absolute failure to comprehend this caused you to produce a totally and completely irrelevant response.

Secondly, you are completely wrong in saying that there is no way to deny that they (not 'it') were wholly and completely written by Europeans. It is easy to deny this. Anybody can deny it, as neither you nor anybody else has produced one shred of evidence to show that they were written by Europeans. Nobody has the evidence to establish who the authors were, and nobody has the evidence either to establish that they were Europeans or to establish that they were not.

J-D · 08-09-2009, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

Which sura and which verse, please!?

Its common knowledge in 1000s of websites and Islamic media. One does not have to read the Quran for this - it is stated as an Islamic doctrine, and that its a blessing to kill Jews.

You said that it was stated in the Quran, and (as usual) you have completely failed to produce any evidence that what you said was true.

Doug Shaver · 08-09-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If I suggested someone changed the book of Han since it was originally written, what means would you have to prove I was wrong.

That depends. Are we assuming that your suggestion is true or false?

sschlichter · 08-09-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If I suggested someone changed the book of Han since it was originally written, what means would you have to prove I was wrong.

That depends. Are we assuming that your suggestion is true or false?

We are assuming that everyone is open minded enough to
Follow the facts wherever they leave.

Why would we assume one way or the other?

sschlichter · 08-09-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Talmud on the execution of some Jewish guy named Jesus.

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Who hung him - Jews or Romans? Witchcraft was a crime in Judea, and many suffered with right or wrong blame, and this has no connection with the Gospels or Jesus. The quote you gave has no correct names, son of whom?, dates, etc. I think that quote relates to 200 BCE.

Quote:

That the Gospels does not even mention the sacrifice of a million Jews, clearly makes it a terrible lie-by-omission. One must imagine their entire nation being wiped out and it is not even mentioned in a supposed book dealing with God and belief. You think!

===============

your accusation assumes the gospels were written after AD70. If you read the revelation, I think you will come to the conclusion that the author is pissed off over that as well.

Irrelevent. The massacres prevailed for a 100 years before this date, and the Gospels inclined towards Rome and against the Jews - nothing said there is without bias or evidential. But there is no reason to imagine the gospels was writen before 200 - 300 CE.

the gospels were quoted by Christians long before that. There is a reason to beleive they were written before that, but a strong desire exists to believe they were not.

sschlichter · 08-09-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Its common knowledge in 1000s of websites and Islamic media. One does not have to read the Quran for this - it is stated as an Islamic doctrine, and that its a blessing to kill Jews.

You said that it was stated in the Quran, and (as usual) you have completely failed to produce any evidence that what you said was true.

4:47 appears to be a threat to twist the heads off of those whom the Scriptures were given. (I assume that is the Jews.)

I beleive 8:12-13 was delivered in the context of killing the Medinan Jews, but I am not 100% on that.

However, the Jews, Christians, and polytheists were all killing each other before the Muslims arrived - nothing new.

J-D · 08-09-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I guess I should have been more specific. You left the Roman Empire. but, anyway...

Since I do not know what the book of Han is, can you tell me how many copies exist and what gap exists between the copies and the original.

It looks like a history of 200BC+ written in 111AD. This is already in a different ball park from the NT, even if the original existed.

If you have an example under the same conditions of the NT, it would be more telling. (Roman Empire, papyrus)

It looks like the same ballpark to me. Please define more precisely the dates for your challenge.

If, for example, you are looking for books written in the first century about the first century, then the classical examples would be Plutarch, Josephus, and Tacitus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.