Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julio · 09-03-2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

What part is then acceptable?

As history? None of it, as far as I'm concerned. There is no good evidence that any of the gospels or Acts was written within living memory of any possible witness. Their authors are unknown, and we know nothing about their sources or even whether they used any sources besides their own imaginations.

The notion that they must contain some residue, however scarce, of factual history looks to me like nothing but wishful thinking.

Correct!
I just posted this on my Facebook page:
Honestly, what destroyed my faith in the Bible was the crime against Ananias and Sapphira to teach stewardship [Acts 5:1-11]! Not even the holy spirit had the right to kill them!! But we know the story is religious fantasy & folklore. And: what happened to Ananias' money?!... The book of Acts is a RELIGIOUS FRAUD! It was written more than 100 years after Pentecost!

lpetrich · 09-05-2009, 07:46 AM

I like to think of Peter as a Stalinist, because to him, Ananias and Sapphira were kulaks who refused to collectivize their property.

Julio · 09-05-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I like to think of Peter as a Stalinist, because to him, Ananias and Sapphira were kulaks who refused to collectivize their property.

Excellent! lol

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

09-05-2009, 07:46 AM	#22
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I like to think of Peter as a Stalinist, because to him, Ananias and Sapphira were kulaks who refused to collectivize their property.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.