Amaleq13

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you mean this to read "lacking knowledge/understanding" rather than "stupid" but, given your history of sometimes resorting to insults, it might be a good idea to be more careful in your choice of words in the future. OK?

Also, please check your Private Messages.

Vorkosigan

Simonides is a well-known forger who was convicted of forgery in the 19th century, long before the invention of the Internet.

This is not an argument. If you claim that its truth is axiomatic, that is fine, but it is not an argument -- and certainly won't convince anyone here.

Many scholars believe this event never occurred. We were just discussing this on another thread. Here are the words of Paula Fredriksen, a first-rate Christian scholar:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...ustoChrist.htm

on the whole topic of the temple, research, etc.

Willow, this is not a scholarly argument. You simply assert -- "it is true because I say it is true." You then accuse others of rejecting this because they are "angry." Yet, although I have searched diligently, I can find few mainstream scholars who think that the events narrated in Matthew regarding Psalm 8 actually took place. Indeed, almost all appear to think that Matthew used Psalm 8 to create this event.

This is not saying Matthew is a liar. It is saying that he thought he could represent Jesus' life in terms of the events of the OT.

What we'd like is an argument, based on scholarly methods, that says that this event occurred as Matthew has portrayed it. Simply asserting that it is true is not an argument.

Vorkosigan

funinspace

This was in regard to what most perceive as a forged ending to Mark.
Actually, that is not true. I read all sides on such issues and many more, and thru a very difficult period of my life, realized that I had been wrong on my Xian beliefs.

Willow,
The very serious question I have for you is this: Why should someone believe your rather unusual views when they contradict the vast majority of well educated analysis and opinion? Whether it's the ending of Mark, or a host of other details like who made the pyramid. Most Christian (i.e. believers) scholars learned opinion is that the ending of Mark was forged on at a later date. This is a reality. Yes, there are some Christian scholars that consider it true to the originating author. Since one cannot become an expert at everything, and research everything oneself, one has to rely on sources. If one is to choose eccentric (generally disputed) sources, shouldn't there be strong justification for that? Or why not believe in UFO's, or there's a conspiracy by the oil companies to keep 100MPG carberators secret, if credibility isn't a necessity? You continually state Dr. Scott as your source with some rather unusual views. You have been asked a multitude of times to provide detailed sourcing of his "research", and you tell me to go listen to his web cast. Yet you have never given me a reason to consider spending such time, listening to what I would normally consider a crank. Doesn't this seem a somewhat strange request? Would you go listen to some extremist Islamic cleric just because he claimed to have all the answers, but wouldn't provide any detailed justification or explaination?

DK

WILLOWTREE

The greatest greek scholar in the world (Dr. Scott) says Daniel B. Wallace is the greatest greek scholar in the world.

Dr. Scott has trademarked his name because its commoness "Scott" can be used against him if it is not.

To associate "reputable" with persons who have not trademarked their name has nothing to do with reputable.

The ignorance of this entire board as to the scholarship of Dr. Scott means you are out of touch with reality.

WILLOWTREE

The NASB makes a translation error which you use to assert Matthew a liar.

Matthew does not have Jesus riding two animals - how can this be ?

Surely you do not believe Matthew was stupid enough to say that Jesus did ?

Could it be a translation screw-up ?

WILLOWTREE

You cannot have it both ways.

You embrace the fact that God allows Satan to corrupt His word for the single purpose of dismissing the source.

You are using one truth/fact of scripture to eliminate the entire source.

If one truth is true then how many more are there ?

Mageth

Funny, I just read his official Biography page and it didn't mention anything at all about Scott being a world-renowned Greek Scholar.

Oh, I used to watch Dr. Gene Scott's broadcasts on TV a decade or so ago for late-night laughs. (Has he finally ditched that silver army helmet he used to wear all the time?) I don't remember him exhibiting anything I'd exactly call "scholarship", though. Showmanship, perhaps. And lots of rambling. And a lot of asking for money, money, money. I guess he needed it to buy more horses.

I quit watching when his show devolved over time into him talking about and showing continuous videos of his "prancing horses."

WILLOWTREE

Irrelevant.

Show me one - prove it.

WILLOWTREE

Your above blue boxed quote is pure traditional historical heresy - proven absolutely 100% false.

The last mention of the so called "lost tribes" is at the foot of the Caucasus Mountains, hence the origin of the word "caucasian".

I will not hang you for this "37,000 - 40,000" year evo nonsense.

Hosea proves the 10 tribe kingdom, in their state of being dispersed and scattered will not look like "God's people". Thats what it says.

These peoples broke free from Assyrian captivity and spread out across Europe.

The British Isles and their heraldry symbology is straight out of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Hosea clearly says that these peoples will not look like God's people and be in a state of "not having mercy" THEN in that state they will suddenly become "children of God".

Dr. Scott has PROVEN that the so called "lost tribes" are not lost nor were they ever.

The evidence is absolutely voluminous.

Go to www.drgenescott.com and listen to any of the lost tribes teaching.

The secular world at large has their head in the sand - proof of Satan covering the truth of God's faithfulness to His promises.

19th century scholars scoffed at the reality of Nineveh and Troy until Shliemann proved Homer correct by taking him at face value.

Hosea is much ignored - I wonder why ?

Gullwind

Schliemann proved there was a city named Troy. That's a long way from proving that the events in the Iliad actually happened.