Radorth

Re: Biff

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh my. Yeah and there's doubtless another book that says Paul wrote Acts, which backs up every point.

And another "proven" theory that Acts wasn't written until about 140.

Right? I read these theories myself on the other forum, and we all know JM'er's theories are based entirely on "rational thinking."

So the only rational conclusion is that Luke was a woman named Paul who wrote Acts around 140.

Thanks for the help.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Have you had a few drinks this evening?

Biff the unclean

If you are going to insist on solid proof of the date that Acts of the Apostles was written then you are stuck with 324 CE. Because that is the date of the oldest copy that we have. Any earlier dates are mere conjecture.
The author "Luke" is also conjecture. We have no proof of who the author(s) is (are).

But what the hell, you don't care about facts anyway. As soon as they get uncomfortable you ignore them. And you become uncomfortable easily.

Keep laughing and don't forget you meds.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Angry balloon juice? I've seen good witty retorts from you before Fenton but I'm not sure I'm seeing it in this one.

And to not make this completely offtopic I might add that Radorth's problem is that he seems to be applying a mathematician's approach to history. There is no certainty in history. Just because Biff claims that the "Luke was a woman" theory is backed up by evidence by no means implies that it is "proven"...it merely means it's not unsubstantiated. I've never seen Radorth as having a "mathematician's mind" but that's at least the way he's acting here.

B

Radorth

Why not? The bi-weekly Salem Rad trials are about to start, sans the defendent this time and anything but spectral evidence. Maybe you can pinch-judge for Rick, who's running late.

And neither are the other two totally contradictory theories. But spectral evidence is good enough to slander people with, so it must be OK for proving Jesus ahistorical.

But let a thousand JM'er theories bloom, I say. Anything to keep Durant's theory out of mind. The man was a menace to Christian society, unlike wanna-be historians with 20 bored readers.

Rad

Fiach

And to not make this completely offtopic I might add that Radorth's problem is that he seems to be applying a mathematician's approach to history.

That is fallacious because history does have some uncertainty, and it is not linear but cyclical. Political history is transition from tribal-clan to city state. Then there are cycles of city states for hundreds of years to empire building, followed by a break down into city states again, followed by empire building, then the feudal city state like dukedoms, principalities, independent cities, followed by nation states for 300 years then empire building again (British, French, Dutch, Russian, Chinese) then the American, Communist Empires, Nazi Empire. Now we have separatists in every country as the fragmentation of empires resumes toward small political units. The EU is trying to form an empire but it has signs of disintegration before it has succeeded.

There is no certainty in history.

No certainty but a certain probability based on odds knowing the stage of what cycle we are in.

Just because Biff claims that the "Luke was a woman" theory is backed up by evidence by no means implies that it is "proven"...it merely means it's not unsubstantiated. I've never seen Radorth as having a "mathematician's mind" but that's at least the way he's acting here.

Mathematics cannot apply to this topic. It will not answer important questions like if Luke was a woman. It will not answer if Jesus really existed or was a fictional remake of Mithra. The Bible code bollocks using bizarre pseudomathematics is laughable except to the quite psychotic.

Fiach

Yellum Notnef

Balloon juice = hot air

Biff the unclean

And sure but this should show the importance of keeping a good, large, fluffy towel close at hand when you are giving little babies a bath. The dear little things get slippery and squirmy when wet and if you drop one of them on their heads they might grow into a Christian Apologetic, raving on about strange delusions whose only existence is in their own tortured minds.:boohoo:

Fiach

Actually a friend of mine down at Sterling, postulates that parents shaking babies (causing brain contusions in frontal and occipital lobes) might predispose to greater religious belief. I don't know how he will study that. He must consider the fact that hereditary (my gig) plays a role. And Christian parents vastly use more corporal punishment on chilren than Atheists. That like includes shaking babies. He would have to study Christian families that do not shake their babies as a control and a group of babies that have been shaken. Then he must follow them for 20 years or so. Unless he can do a retrospective interview study to identify people who are very religious and how many were shaken as children if it is known, to compare to a broad spectrum of people who were never shaken 20-40 years ago.

I have seen no small number of post-traumatic closed head injuries who were comatose for more than 12 hours who afterward showed increased religious pre-occupation or religion in men who were not previously religious. A personal neurologist friend, agnostic, suffered cardiac arrest and brain hypoxia, and on recovery had memory problems, emotional lability, and religiosity. He also lost critical rational skills and his research work deteriorated.

Fiach

Biff the unclean

And here I thought that the Shakers didn't have babies and only built furniture