Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[ddt]

You know an apology will come at about the same time as the return of the Great Prophet Zarquon, don't you?

Yes. I'm also, in the meantime, aware that Christians of any stripe will resort to lying-for-Jeebus to get the two nativity stories in line with each other. See this thread.

 

[Mashuna]

To be fully aware of what it is like to be a human you must experience periods of having a lack of knowledge.

Only periods though DOC, don't get carried away.

 

[Agatha]

So, as only women of childbearing age have periods, only they know what it is to be human?

Don't mind me, I'm just practising the Law of So. How did I do?

 

[welshdean]

Only periods though DOC, don't get carried away.

I think this is too subtle for DOC. I enjoyed it though.

So, as only women of childbearing age have periods, only they know what it is to be human?

Don't mind me, I'm just practising the Law of So. How did I do?

So, so.

 

[Garrette]

To be fully aware of what it is like to be a human you must experience periods of having a lack of knowledge.

Why? Is not God (and Jesus as part of the Trinitarian God) all knowing?

And if only Jesus experienced humanity, then do God the Father and God the Holy Spirit not know what it is like?

You alternately deny and impose limitations on your perfect God as it suits your argument of the moment.

 

[catsmate]

So, as only women of childbearing age have periods, only they know what it is to be human?

Don't mind me, I'm just practising the Law of So. How did I do?

Needs more denouncing and smiting.

 

[zooterkin]

You know an apology will come at about the same time as the return of the Great Prophet Zarquon, don't you?

Well, it's just possible I might have more information on that after tonight...

 

[Mojo]

That's not true. According to the Christian religion (which is my religion), Jesus is God in the flesh and part of the Godhead. And even skeptic Bart Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed". So my God or at least part of that God has been shown to exist.

DOC, there is plenty of evidence that a 19th century American politician called Abraham Lincoln existed. Most people, even skeptics, would be happy to say that "Abraham Lincoln certainly existed".

Do you think that means that vampires exist?

 

[pakeha]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6366925#post6366925[/url]

That's hilarious, DOC.
Really, that list is amazing, especially if read in the Voice of the Book.

 

[I Ratant]

Needs more denouncing and smiting.

.
I happened on a video series on HBO..
Denouncing and smiting can be arranged for at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.

 

[zooterkin]

That's hilarious, DOC.
Really, that list is amazing, especially if read in the Voice of the Book.

Who, tonight, will be Phill Jupitus.

(Excited, me?)

 

[DOC]

...Ehrman fails to show even a human Jesus existed...

Then he shouldn't have said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 of his new book "Did Jesus Exist".

 

[DOC]

I really resent that you claimed here that I had not given sources, whereas I clearly had. An apology is due.

Show me exactly where your source and not your interpretation of your source says that Mark 13:30 can not literally be translated as "may pass" as Young's literal translation of the Bible says it is.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Then he shouldn't have said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 of his new book "Did Jesus Exist".

On which page does he say that Jesus was certainly divine?

 

[ddt]

Show me exactly where your source and not your interpretation of your source says that Mark 30:13 can not literally be translated as "may pass" as Young's literal translation of the Bible says it is.

Look up the reference I gave to Thayer's lexicon. It clearly there says the aorist subjunctive has the force of a future tense. That means that "will" is the right auxiliary to translate it with, for the grammatically illiterate. Really it's not my problem if you don't understand what I'm writing. If you want to start a discussion over the right translation, you should be prepared for that and have a basic knowledge of grammar and of Greek. I even gave you links for both.

 

[DOC]

Show me exactly where your source and not your interpretation of your source says that Mark 13:30 can not literally be translated as "may pass" as Young's literal translation of the Bible says it is.

Look up the reference I gave to Thayer's lexicon. It clearly there says the aorist subjunctive has the force of a future tense. That means that "will" is the right auxiliary to translate it with...

So you don't believe the word "may" has anything to do with the future.

 

[Hokulele]

"So" fail strikes again!

 

[DOC]

"So" fail strikes again!

So you and joobz can use "So" but I can't.

 

[RoboTimbo]

On which page does he say that Jesus was certainly divine?

So you didn't answer this question?

 

[Agatha]

You can use it, but it would be tippety-top if you used it correctly - i.e. not as part of a strawman argument or non sequitur.

Bart Ehrman's book claims that a man named Jesus existed. He definitely does not claim that any kind of divine Jesus existed. I personally don't think he's made a convincing case for the existence of the non-divine Jesus either, but then I have read the book in its entirety, and as far as I'm aware, you have not.

Every time you try to conflate Ehrman's support for the existence of "Jesus the non divine man" and your belief in the existence of "Jesus the divine Christ", you are misrepresenting Ehrman's book. It's been pointed out to you often enough that Ehrman states quite definitely that the Jesus of theologians and preachers did not exist; lying for Jesus may earn you Brownie points in church but it's frowned on here.