Roger Pearse

Friend, the Josephus debate isn't the point at issue here.

The remainder of your post appears to be concerned to justify the lack of education of those you agree with by means of people dead a century holding fringe views. You are certainly welcome to arguments of that kind, if those are the best you can find; but I would regard the necessity for them as more or less equivalent to refutation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Indeed so.

Chili

I quite agree, but he is the one who lived Luke and wrote Matthew to make known the difference between heaven and hell on earth. There is no question that the story is real and that it was prior to nature before it was written by not just any Jew but by the person who lived the event as described in Luke, and it is from that lofty position that he could look down upon the 'charismatic movement' called Gallilee whence indeed he came but to which he did not return but went to heaven instead.

The difference between these events is best descibed in Rev.13 with the Jesus of Luke being the first beast that came from the water and the second beast being the Jesus of Matthew (and Mark) that came from the [old] earth.

The event as descibed in Luke is a natural event that can and will befal the human condition in the normal course of life that, for example, Golding called "as easy as eating and drinking in" in The Spire. It is called metamorphosis in mankind that leads to the exposition of the true identity of man much like a butterfly once was a larva and the events as described in the Gospels is the pupa stage and that takes place in Galilee.

What happened in Matthew was that this pupa stage was induced by 'the movement' that prevailed from which emerged not 'eagles that can soar' but more like locust that can fly but keep chomping away as if there is no tomorrow and so keep crashing down [still fucking away = procreation only].

It can now be said such an age can be called a plague, which is nothing new in history but will lead to the demise of the nation that endorses such behavior.

dog-on

The three best arguments I can come up with are:

1. Surviving texts which purport the existance
2. Surviving texts which purport the existance
3. Surviving texts which purport the existance

Is that 3?

Roger Pearse

You seem to be under the impression that I am under some obligation to educate you, while you think up excuses. You are mistaken.

Ktotwf

Whatever one may say about Roger Pearse, let it never be said that he lacks in Christian humility and love.

Roger Pearse

[snip]

dog-on

quick one

Solo

I believe you have misread my argument. I accept the historicity of Jesus on probabilistic terms and based on internal NT evidence.

What would you say is the guarantee that Alice Wheeley (is that how you spell her name ?) is

the scholar who most thoroughly studied the TF and its critics.?

Is that some other scholar ? Who was he/she ? And what do you think : would not the person who made such a statement have to be at least close to the one 'who most thoroughly studied the TF and its critics' to be in a position to make such a definitive assessment ?

Intelligence would not be insulted if it has duly considered the issue of standards of evidence which TF raises.

Regards,
Jiri

Solo

I did not know you considered Schweitzer holding fringe views. BTW, he died in 1965.

Best,
Jiri