FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Bart argues both sides
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 9 of 22 « First 78 9 101119 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-02-2012, 10:12 AM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdboy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
No, it means that by the time perpetual virginity had become doctrine, the Canonical Gospels were already too well known to do anything about.
Yes, the story was understood and well known as fiction. There was nothing to change.
This one is an evangelical fundamentalist statement standing on its head!!!

You could be right, though
Iskander is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 10:13 AM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post

EHRMAN
' and since we know from other sources that the James who headed the church in Jerusalem was in fact known to be the brother of Jesus).'

CARR
Out of curiosity, which sources would they be? Luke/Acts, the Epistle of James, Jude?
No. Perhaps Mein Kampf? The Third Reich was modelled on the hierarchy of the RCC— and somehow, one did not need its leader to say so.

The RCC tries to justify itself, as so often, by the misuse of a single word. In this case, in Acts 5:19 that is translated 'edict' in the context of an emperor, or 'opinion' in the case of James, whose vote was as good as any other man's.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 10:14 AM   #83
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
evangelical fundamentalist
Contradiction in terms.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 10:16 AM   #84
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdboy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
No, it means that by the time perpetual virginity had become doctrine, the Canonical Gospels were already too well known to do anything about.
Yes, the story was understood and well known as fiction.
Cite?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 10:34 AM   #85
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NW United States
Posts: 155
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdboy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
No, it means that by the time perpetual virginity had become doctrine, the Canonical Gospels were already too well known to do anything about.
Yes, the story was understood and well known as fiction.
Cite?
The historical record's lack of evidence for historical jesus.
jdboy is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 12:06 PM   #86
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
Mark says clearly that Jesus had sisters and brothers .
Again, your memory is faulty.

There are QUESTIONS in gMark about the Identity of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 KJV
Quote:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon???????

and are not his sisters here with us?????? And they were offended at him.
The questions could be answered with a 'YES', 'NO' or 'Don't Know'.

Origen ANSWERED with a resounding 'NO'.

"Against Celsus" 6.
Quote:
.......in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter...
1600 hundred years ago Jesus was NOT described as a carpenter in the Churches so who was the carpenter in gMark??? When was that passage written??? After ORIGEN'S "Against Celsus"?????

Certainly there are QUESTIONS about the Identity of the carpenter in gMark.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 12:20 PM   #87
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdboy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Cite?
The historical record's lack of evidence for historical jesus.
By "lack of evidence" you mean the dozen or so independent and unanimous claims for a belief a historical Jesus without any contradictions to that claim from Christian sources, non-Christian sources or sources hostile to Christians?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 12:41 PM   #88
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post

The presence of Phil. 1:14 at the very least disproves the contention that Gal. 1:19 has only one “plain meaning.”
The first, 'in the Lord', means 'Christian'; the second, 'of the Lord', means 'blood relative'.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:10 PM   #89
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdboy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Cite?
The historical record's lack of evidence for historical jesus.
By "lack of evidence" you mean the dozen or so independent and unanimous claims for a belief a historical Jesus without any contradictions to that claim from Christian sources, non-Christian sources or sources hostile to Christians?
The word "independent" has been perverted here. You have no possibility of meaningfully arguing independence of claims, when you are dealing with a tradition spread among many communities and which was shared between those communities, making each community's version of the tradition somewhat different from another's, but not necessarily independent. And the police would tell you when claims are unanimous they smack of collusion. Add to that all the non-christian sources were maintained by christian scribes for very many centuries. You need to deal with christian hegemony at some stage.
spin is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:26 PM   #90
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NW United States
Posts: 155
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdboy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Cite?
The historical record's lack of evidence for historical jesus.
By "lack of evidence" you mean the dozen or so independent and unanimous claims for a belief a historical Jesus without any contradictions to that claim from Christian sources, non-Christian sources or sources hostile to Christians?
No i mean the evidence we have does not support Jesus as a human being at the core of Jesus of Nazareth.
jdboy is offline  
 
Page 9 of 22 « First 78 9 101119 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:21 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.