 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » When Jesus "overturned the tables of the... |
|
Page 12 of 16 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Matt Giwer... |
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
[quote]Matt Giwer wrote:
Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:03:25 -0400, Matt Giwer
jull43 at (no spam) tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
...
Then you have nothing of interest to those not possessed with
minds immature enough to accept such stories.
Well, our goal is eternal rest with the Lord in Heaven. And the
acts, words and religious practices of the new Christian people at
the time of, and who knew Christ personally, definitely spoke up for
him.
And everything beyond that which they said is an invention by the
authorities for their personal profit. Paul is not among those who
knew him. That means just about everything is an invention of those
who do not fit your "knew personally" criteria.
You go ahead and commit spiritual suicide. I'll stick with God
Passing off belief as fact without evidence for it being a fact
falls into the category of lying.
We are so glad you finally realized that fact, Giwer. So you have
withdrawn your kook bogus assertion that Hebrew was not invented in
Alexandria after 331 BCE because you recognize the existence of
hundreds of ostraca containing Hebrew inscriptions dated from the 4th
through the 8th centuries BCE?
Give is a rest, boy. You believers have yet to show it differed in
any manner greater than a local dialect from *contemporary* Phoenician
in which script it is written. Punic would of course have diverged.
Then by all means produce the evidence that the language of the
inscriptions on the Arad and Samaria ostraca collections were inscribed
in Phoenician, Giwer.
I have given you dozens of examples of them being the same. You chose
to ignore them all. Which is why I keep stringing you on.
No, you haven't Giwer.
Quote yourself.
[/quote]
Why quote? They are the posts where I gave URLs to my website and
you stated that was sufficient reason for you not to consider the material.
I can repeat the links to my website and save much time.
--
The boundary between the sciences and the humanities is unbreechable. Any
scientist can obtain a degree in any of the fine arts if he is interested.
The opposite is not possible.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4182
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Sun Oct 25 19:30:55 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pomposity... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
duke wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:16:11 -0500, Tom P <th_om_as_p at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Since the writings of the Apostolic and Church Fathers are not scripture
and never were, that can only mean you are not aware of any writing by
any Father of the Church that discusses the pericope of Jesus and the
money changers. Do I have that right, Duke?
Again, what is an Apostolic Father?
Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and look it up.
Don't have to. That's not the point. The point is that you deny the writings
as scriptures. I'm was looking for your reason for saying that.
The term includes Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of
Antioch, the first and second centuries CE author(s) of the "Didache,"
the author of the "Epistle of Barnabas," and Papias of Hierapolis. The
reason for the name "Apostolic" is that these churchmen were reputedly
instructed personally by the Apostles.
Or at least early enough to have been instructed by the Apostles, which you
could have suggested in the beginning, but never the mind.
As a faithful Catholic of the Latin Rite who purports to represent your
church in public forums, you really should know this stuff.
Yes, I hope that I am a faithful Catholic, but as far as representing my Chruch
in public forums, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I do know a few things,
but was not familiar with such a term as "apostolic father" .
We have the historical writings of the
Gospel writers who reflect the words, actions and religious practices of the
Christian people some 30-60 years after Christ. That is evidence of a prior
event. Of course, feeding into these gospel events could easily include
snippets/etc of events as they actually occur. Then we have the writings from
further learned men starting as early as 65 to as late as 500 years after Christ
continuing to support the faith of the Christian people.
Your confusion stems from two separate conditions: 1) the faith as supported by
2) the history.
History is history regardless of faith. You repeat the same error as
Eusebius of Caesarea made in the 4th century CE.
Absolutely. History is history. Looks like you ran out of steam.
If I do have that right, and I think I do, that can only mean that you,
Duke, lied when you wrote "The book of books called the bible, and the
writing of the early Chruch [sic] Fathers" were your historical sources
for the incident of Jesus and the money changers.
Well, now you know the error of your ways. Although, I'm sure your confusion
stems from the money changer event and your looking for confirmation is the
words of the early Church Fathers.
Care to rephrase that above into something coherent?
Oh...........you don't understand?
I don't see you being more confused.
Ah, good no response.
You obviously have no
idea whether or not any Father of the Church ever bothered to mention
Jesus and the money changers much less where exactly such an account can
be found. Shame on you, Duke.
See what I mean. It's your own lack of knowledge driving your confusion.
Why do you act like Matt Giwer?
I don't. I have my facts.
Giwer operates under the identical delusion.
Then our delusions are superior to your delusions.
Cardinal Carlo M. Martini did some rather outstanding work identifying
and classifying these sources during his lifetime. Perhaps you should
consult Cardinal Martini's corpus because the answers are there. Surely
as a devout Catholic you are familiar with the work of the preeminent
Roman Catholic scholar concerning "the book of books called the bible"
during the second half of the 20th century. Aren't you?
Why do you care if the money changers were inside the door sill or on the
outside of the door sill? Jesus said they were desecrating his Father's house.
That's clear enough for me to understand that God's house is to be used for
God's work, and not private work.
I wasn't aware that I did care. What did I write that causes you to
think I do care about the precise location of the events described in
this pericope?
The facts that this is the only case of anger displayed by Jesus is a
theological issue. The why's and wherefor's of that action clearly fit into the
question of Jesus's sinless life. If you had been a religious person, you would
have picked up on that part.
I still don't care.
Then you lose this discussion because you are now clearly in over your head.
Your reply indicates that you are not familiar with the work of the
Roman Catholic Cardinal and scholar Carlo M. Martini. Am I right, Duke?
I have no idea who he is, but I do have a hint at what others have said. Nor do
I have any reason to believe that what he said, whatever that is, is not
accurate. And apparently you have no idea either.
You honesty was refreshing, albeit highly uncharacteristic of you.
You're much too easy.
I am familiar with the work of Cardinal Martini. I have read a couple
of his books and regularly consult the manuscript of the Greek New
Testament Martini co-authored. Which your Roman Catholic Church, Duke,
recognizes as the authoritative Greek New Testament.
It is Catholics with attitudes such as yours, Duke, who are the reason
the fastest growing group of Christians in the United States of America
is former Catholics.
And the fastest growing religious faith in the US is the Roman Catholic Church.
Gee, that was fun, and I won.
[/quote]
Dream on, you poor fool!
[quote]
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
duke wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:57:58 -0400, Matt Giwer <matt at (no spam) localhost> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, duke wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:13:57 GMT, Odysseus <odysseus1479-at at (no spam) yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
In article <cgajd5d2m3sr92u5hdbn1ssmkpgptec8dc at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
duke <duckgumbo32 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:08:54 +0100, Martin Edwards
big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
snip
Oh, your body rots in the grave. Your spiritual self takes it on the
chin.
It has a chin? How about a plonker?
Whatever rotted off can be replaced by God. That's the wonderful thing
that God can do, and does do in life after life.
Isis went one better, restoring to Osiris what had been eaten by a fish!
Never happened.
Raising from the dead after three days in the underworld is very
common and your Jesus god was far from the first.
Jesus was the only man to do that.
[/quote]
I thought you folks claimed he was a god.
[quote] Care to explain why your god didn't do something original instead of
imitating so many other gods? The copy cat nature of his resurrection is the
main thing that brings it into question.
Your mythology books were written after Christ.
[/quote]
No way. They have been found all over Egypt and the middle east dating back
thousands of years BC.
Next you can tell me they were inspired by the devil which will make as much
sense.
--
To help mankind a degree in medicine requires great effort, intelligence and
dedication. A degree in divinity requires only dedication.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4184
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Tue Oct 27 02:44:30 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
duke wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:53:05 -0700 (PDT), George <gblack at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:14 am, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
Your mythology books were written after Christ.
Riiiight.
You really don't know anything about history do you....
There is no true history in mythology.
[/quote]
The resurrection you claim remains a copycat of other gods.
[quote]this god of yours is a culmination of a long line of bullshit and
superstition reaching back into prehistory.
I happen to (out of the 5000 gods Man has created) believe in one less
god than you.
Or put another way, I believe in God and you don't. It's your funeral.
[/quote]
By your own definition it cannot be a funeral.
But as you have denied Jesus was a god, watch your backside.
So is not the better question if your god believes in you?
The worst problem for christians as I see it is which kind of christian is
the only saved kind of christian.
--
Atheism dignifies theism. There is no special name for
those who do not believe in faeries.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4190
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Oct 27 02:47:31 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| duke... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:53:58 -0400, Matt Giwer <jull43 at (no spam) tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]duke wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:53:05 -0700 (PDT), George <gblack at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:14 am, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
Your mythology books were written after Christ.
Riiiight.
You really don't know anything about history do you....
There is no true history in mythology.
The resurrection you claim remains a copycat of other gods.
[/quote]
There are no other resurrections. There are no other gods. Perhaps you can
name another "god", and then show **writings** about it that are older than 2000
years older.
[quote]this god of yours is a culmination of a long line of bullshit and
superstition reaching back into prehistory.
I happen to (out of the 5000 gods Man has created) believe in one less
god than you.
Or put another way, I believe in God and you don't. It's your funeral.
By your own definition it cannot be a funeral.
[/quote]
Wow, whatever that means!
[quote] But as you have denied Jesus was a god, watch your backside.
[/quote]
I did?
[quote] So is not the better question if your god believes in you?
The worst problem for christians as I see it is which kind of christian is
the only saved kind of christian.
[/quote]
Only God decides that.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| duke... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:47:00 -0400, Matt Giwer <jull43 at (no spam) tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]duke wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:57:58 -0400, Matt Giwer <matt at (no spam) localhost> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, duke wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:13:57 GMT, Odysseus <odysseus1479-at at (no spam) yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
In article <cgajd5d2m3sr92u5hdbn1ssmkpgptec8dc at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
duke <duckgumbo32 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:08:54 +0100, Martin Edwards
big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
snip
Oh, your body rots in the grave. Your spiritual self takes it on the
chin.
It has a chin? How about a plonker?
Whatever rotted off can be replaced by God. That's the wonderful thing
that God can do, and does do in life after life.
Isis went one better, restoring to Osiris what had been eaten by a fish!
Never happened.
Raising from the dead after three days in the underworld is very
common and your Jesus god was far from the first.
Jesus was the only man to do that.
I thought you folks claimed he was a god.
[/quote]
See, you don't get it.
[quote] Care to explain why your god didn't do something original instead of
imitating so many other gods? The copy cat nature of his resurrection is the
main thing that brings it into question.
Your mythology books were written after Christ.
No way. They have been found all over Egypt and the middle east dating back
thousands of years BC.
[/quote]
Mankind as looked to a supreme being since man walked on 2 feet. That's not the
point. Even in Moses' time, Ramses looked to a wooded statue of a jackal as his
god. No resurrection there.
[quote] Next you can tell me they were inspired by the devil which will make as much
sense.
[/quote]
Why not. It fits right in with you level of understanding.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| duke... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:55:03 +0900, Pomposity <pomposity at (no spam) god.net> wrote:
[quote]duke wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:16:11 -0500, Tom P <th_om_as_p at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Since the writings of the Apostolic and Church Fathers are not scripture
and never were, that can only mean you are not aware of any writing by
any Father of the Church that discusses the pericope of Jesus and the
money changers. Do I have that right, Duke?
Again, what is an Apostolic Father?
Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and look it up.
Don't have to. That's not the point. The point is that you deny the writings
as scriptures. I'm was looking for your reason for saying that.
The term includes Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of
Antioch, the first and second centuries CE author(s) of the "Didache,"
the author of the "Epistle of Barnabas," and Papias of Hierapolis. The
reason for the name "Apostolic" is that these churchmen were reputedly
instructed personally by the Apostles.
Or at least early enough to have been instructed by the Apostles, which you
could have suggested in the beginning, but never the mind.
As a faithful Catholic of the Latin Rite who purports to represent your
church in public forums, you really should know this stuff.
Yes, I hope that I am a faithful Catholic, but as far as representing my Chruch
in public forums, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I do know a few things,
but was not familiar with such a term as "apostolic father" .
We have the historical writings of the
Gospel writers who reflect the words, actions and religious practices of the
Christian people some 30-60 years after Christ. That is evidence of a prior
event. Of course, feeding into these gospel events could easily include
snippets/etc of events as they actually occur. Then we have the writings from
further learned men starting as early as 65 to as late as 500 years after Christ
continuing to support the faith of the Christian people.
Your confusion stems from two separate conditions: 1) the faith as supported by
2) the history.
History is history regardless of faith. You repeat the same error as
Eusebius of Caesarea made in the 4th century CE.
Absolutely. History is history. Looks like you ran out of steam.
If I do have that right, and I think I do, that can only mean that you,
Duke, lied when you wrote "The book of books called the bible, and the
writing of the early Chruch [sic] Fathers" were your historical sources
for the incident of Jesus and the money changers.
Well, now you know the error of your ways. Although, I'm sure your confusion
stems from the money changer event and your looking for confirmation is the
words of the early Church Fathers.
Care to rephrase that above into something coherent?
Oh...........you don't understand?
I don't see you being more confused.
Ah, good no response.
You obviously have no
idea whether or not any Father of the Church ever bothered to mention
Jesus and the money changers much less where exactly such an account can
be found. Shame on you, Duke.
See what I mean. It's your own lack of knowledge driving your confusion.
Why do you act like Matt Giwer?
I don't. I have my facts.
Giwer operates under the identical delusion.
Then our delusions are superior to your delusions.
Cardinal Carlo M. Martini did some rather outstanding work identifying
and classifying these sources during his lifetime. Perhaps you should
consult Cardinal Martini's corpus because the answers are there. Surely
as a devout Catholic you are familiar with the work of the preeminent
Roman Catholic scholar concerning "the book of books called the bible"
during the second half of the 20th century. Aren't you?
Why do you care if the money changers were inside the door sill or on the
outside of the door sill? Jesus said they were desecrating his Father's house.
That's clear enough for me to understand that God's house is to be used for
God's work, and not private work.
I wasn't aware that I did care. What did I write that causes you to
think I do care about the precise location of the events described in
this pericope?
The facts that this is the only case of anger displayed by Jesus is a
theological issue. The why's and wherefor's of that action clearly fit into the
question of Jesus's sinless life. If you had been a religious person, you would
have picked up on that part.
I still don't care.
Then you lose this discussion because you are now clearly in over your head.
Your reply indicates that you are not familiar with the work of the
Roman Catholic Cardinal and scholar Carlo M. Martini. Am I right, Duke?
I have no idea who he is, but I do have a hint at what others have said. Nor do
I have any reason to believe that what he said, whatever that is, is not
accurate. And apparently you have no idea either.
You honesty was refreshing, albeit highly uncharacteristic of you.
You're much too easy.
I am familiar with the work of Cardinal Martini. I have read a couple
of his books and regularly consult the manuscript of the Greek New
Testament Martini co-authored. Which your Roman Catholic Church, Duke,
recognizes as the authoritative Greek New Testament.
It is Catholics with attitudes such as yours, Duke, who are the reason
the fastest growing group of Christians in the United States of America
is former Catholics.
And the fastest growing religious faith in the US is the Roman Catholic Church.
Gee, that was fun, and I won.
Dream on, you poor fool!
[/quote]
You can't show me an error is what I said. That's obvious.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
duke wrote:
[quote]There are no other resurrections. There are no other gods. Perhaps you can
name another "god", and then show **writings** about it that are older than 2000
years older.
If you really do not know that, you are below the threshold for rational[/quote]
debate. Search for Adonis, this will probably bring up a lot of other
links.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
duke wrote:
[quote]
Mankind as looked to a supreme being since man walked on 2 feet. That's not the
point. Even in Moses' time, Ramses looked to a wooded statue of a jackal as his
god. No resurrection there.
There is no evidence of this at all. Even the Neanderthals seem to have[/quote]
had a vague concept of the afterlife, but so do elephants. The supreme
being idea arose in Classical times. China has survived thousands of
years without it.
[quote] Next you can tell me they were inspired by the devil which will make as much
sense.
Why not. It fits right in with you level of understanding.
[/quote]
Frankly you have chutzpah without end if you comment on someone else's
level of understanding.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| duke... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:43:54 +0000, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote]duke wrote:
There are no other resurrections. There are no other gods. Perhaps you can
name another "god", and then show **writings** about it that are older than 2000
years older.
If you really do not know that, you are below the threshold for rational
debate. Search for Adonis, this will probably bring up a lot of other
links.
[/quote]
OK, here you go - a myth thru and thru.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/adonis.html
Adonis
by Morgan Upright
Adonis is a complex figure, for the outlines of his tale were fully as a part of
the sub-Olympian Greek mythology by Greek and Roman authors, and yet he also
retains many deep associations with his Semitic origins. The name "Adonis" is a
variation of the Semitic word "Adonai", which means "lord", and which is also
one of the names used to refer to YHWH in the Old Testament.
At the beginning of his appearance in Greek myth
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| duke... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:47:55 +0000, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote]Mankind as looked to a supreme being since man walked on 2 feet. That's not the
point. Even in Moses' time, Ramses looked to a wooded statue of a jackal as his
god. No resurrection there.
There is no evidence of this at all. Even the Neanderthals seem to have
had a vague concept of the afterlife, but so do elephants.
[/quote]
Neanderthals - that's what I said. Elephants - did they tell you that?
[quote]The supreme
being idea arose in Classical times. China has survived thousands of
years without it.
[/quote]
You're confusing your neanderthals with your chinese.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
duke wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:43:54 +0000, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com
wrote:
duke wrote:
There are no other resurrections. There are no other gods. Perhaps you can
name another "god", and then show **writings** about it that are older than 2000
years older.
If you really do not know that, you are below the threshold for rational
debate. Search for Adonis, this will probably bring up a lot of other
links.
OK, here you go - a myth thru and thru.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/adonis.html
Adonis
by Morgan Upright
Adonis is a complex figure, for the outlines of his tale were fully as a part of
the sub-Olympian Greek mythology by Greek and Roman authors, and yet he also
retains many deep associations with his Semitic origins. The name "Adonis" is a
variation of the Semitic word "Adonai", which means "lord", and which is also
one of the names used to refer to YHWH in the Old Testament.
Precisely my point, and one which reappears time and time again.[/quote]
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
duke wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:47:55 +0000, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com
wrote:
Mankind as looked to a supreme being since man walked on 2 feet. That's not the
point. Even in Moses' time, Ramses looked to a wooded statue of a jackal as his
god. No resurrection there.
There is no evidence of this at all. Even the Neanderthals seem to have
had a vague concept of the afterlife, but so do elephants.
Neanderthals - that's what I said. Elephants - did they tell you that?
The supreme
being idea arose in Classical times. China has survived thousands of
years without it.
You're confusing your neanderthals with your chinese.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
[/quote]
Chinese what?
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| duke... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:02:21 +0000, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote]duke wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:43:54 +0000, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com
wrote:
duke wrote:
There are no other resurrections. There are no other gods. Perhaps you can
name another "god", and then show **writings** about it that are older than 2000
years older.
If you really do not know that, you are below the threshold for rational
debate. Search for Adonis, this will probably bring up a lot of other
links.
OK, here you go - a myth thru and thru.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/adonis.html
Adonis
by Morgan Upright
Adonis is a complex figure, for the outlines of his tale were fully as a part of
the sub-Olympian Greek mythology by Greek and Roman authors, and yet he also
retains many deep associations with his Semitic origins. The name "Adonis" is a
variation of the Semitic word "Adonai", which means "lord", and which is also
one of the names used to refer to YHWH in the Old Testament.
Precisely my point, and one which reappears time and time again.
[/quote]
Cool.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| duke... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:02:48 +0000, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote]duke wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:47:55 +0000, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com
wrote:
Mankind as looked to a supreme being since man walked on 2 feet. That's not the
point. Even in Moses' time, Ramses looked to a wooded statue of a jackal as his
god. No resurrection there.
There is no evidence of this at all. Even the Neanderthals seem to have
had a vague concept of the afterlife, but so do elephants.
Neanderthals - that's what I said. Elephants - did they tell you that?
The supreme
being idea arose in Classical times. China has survived thousands of
years without it.
You're confusing your neanderthals with your chinese.
Chinese what?
[/quote]
What ever you're talking about.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:09 pm
|
|