The Gospels—History or Myth?

[Iasion]

Hiya,

I didn't read your post for factual content.

Yup,
we've all seen you avoid facts like the plague -

* the FACT about that list of writers not being 1st century -
post after post you ignore that issue, until eventually you claim to TAKE NO POSITION !

How can you not take a position on a matter of FACT?


* the FACT that Suetonius did NOT write in 1st century -
post after post you ignore that issue, until eventually you thank me for me linking you to Wiki on Suetonius !

Without me, you didn't know how to use Google or Wiki, or check any book or web-site.

But then you FAILED to read the page and address the FACT that Suetonius wrote 2nd C. - what was the point of thanking me for linking you to the page, if you didn't READ it !?


* The FACT that G.Matthew has "genealogy", NOT "history".

We see you have dropped that subject, I expect you will NEVER address that fact.


* The FACT that G.Luke does NOT have the word "facts" at all.

We see you have dropped that subject TOO, I expect you will NEVER address the fact that you lied.


Yes Saquist,
we have all seen that you
neither READ for factual contect,
nor WRITE for factual content.


Iasion

 

[snake river rufus]

I think that saquist also prefers to ignore challenges, or perhaps just mine.

 

[snake river rufus]

For the record, I believe the gospels ( as is the rest of the bible) to be myth. Not only do they contradict each other, what roman records that are available show that they did not crucify Jesus of Naz. A source with some 20,000 mistakes (as I'm told kj has) is far too flawed to place any belief in.

 

[Saquist]

Hiya,



Yup,
we've all seen you avoid facts like the plague -

* the FACT about that list of writers not being 1st century -
post after post you ignore that issue, until eventually you claim to TAKE NO POSITION !

There is no position to take as I have insuffiecent knowledge to offer a position. Thus this is not an avoidence of Fact but an avoidance of criticism and discriination based the lack of knowledge. This draws your accusation as ineffectual.

* the FACT that Suetonius did NOT write in 1st century -
post after post you ignore that issue, until eventually you thank me for me linking you to Wiki on Suetonius !

Without me, you didn't know how to use Google or Wiki, or check any book or web-site.

It unreasonable to dictate a time frame for discovery. The very thread is an effort to a fact finding mission. That which you resisted forcefully from the outset. It would reasonable to assist or to cease the line of demands.

But then you FAILED to read the page and address the FACT that Suetonius wrote 2nd C. - what was the point of thanking me for linking you to the page, if you didn't READ it !?

I did read it. So you're not stating a fact.

* The FACT that G.Matthew has "genealogy", NOT "history".

We see you have dropped that subject, I expect you will NEVER address that fact.

The weight of your expectation is directly contingent upon your lack of reason Isaon. According to the dictionary and every common frame of refrence History- the aggregate of past events; Ergo I do not disagree with Genealogy as genealogy, Family history, historial record and history are all synonymous.

By stating the above you are Failing to acknowledge that history is the recognition of the total of past events whether it refers family history, national history, scientific history or geologic history. History is history.
No leg to stand on still. You were indeed caught in a lie. Summarizing you lie doesn't erase it.

I think that saquist also prefers to ignore challenges, or perhaps just mine.

It depends on the reasonableness of the challenge. Certainly I would jump off a cliff for the sake of a dare.

For the record, I believe the gospels ( as is the rest of the bible) to be myth. Not only do they contradict each other, what roman records that are available show that they did not crucify Jesus of Naz. A source with some 20,000 mistakes (as I'm told kj has) is far too flawed to place any belief in.

One of the reasons I presented the thread was so individual may present this sort of information. The goal was to have a complete perception of both sides of the argument. For instant several...many...historical figures and historians say just the opposite of you.

They say they don't contradict each other at all.

Sir Isaac Newton once said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” (Two Apologies, by R.*Watson, London, 1820, p.*57)
Arthur C Clarke and C.S Lewis, H.G Wells and others who represnt the majority concur that there is only a perspective difference in the accounts which equates to omissions and actually avoid direct oppositioin to each other. Even one person above stated that they're actually too close to each other, refering it to plagerism but that was the standard of confirming oral tradition that the Jews had been brought up with. They never let up from the strict telling of word of mouth
I would have to concur with these gentlemen's statements as they concur with the facts available.

Roman records fragmentary as you know.
Rome burned not 31 years later. Unfortunantly the only historian confirming this was Tacitus

And due to modern translating we need not rely on the King James which has at least 7,000 counts of the removal and substitution of the tetragrammaton. It also has a slue of grammatical errors suchs as at John 1:1 which is easily correct with an propper article.

 

[snake river rufus]

Saquist, I believe I asked you to provide the biblical value of 'Pi' from Kings 1, 7:23

 

[Saquist]

Is there are reason why?
How would this relate to the thread topic?
I'd suggest creating another thread but...Skinwalker doesn't like people educating other people on the bible.

 

[snake river rufus]

Is there are reason why?
How would this relate to the thread topic?
I'd suggest creating another thread but...Skinwalker doesn't like people educating other people on the bible.

It was on another thread. about 1 month ago, you were posting something about the "great truths" in your bible. I provided a small challenge to you and another poster. Suddenly, the thread cooled. Soooo, instead of starting a new thread, why don't you finish the last one?
I think that I know the answer to that one.

 

[SkinWalker]

Snake River Rufus, you'll find that anti-science posters like Saquist will avoid answering questions which they realize are embarrassing to their superstitions. The reason is that he has no answer that doesn't reveal that pi is grossly misrepresented by biblical mythology, which is supposed to be the "inerrant word" of his god(s).

This is the same god(s) that supposedly informed Noah how to build a ship that would house two of every land species on the planet for more than a month. One wonders how such a ship might have functioned without a more accurate version of pi.

Of course, there was no such ship as this is an absurd myth stolen from much earlier myths of Mesopotamia. Nor could it have functioned as described any more than the lizard that eats the moon each month could have actually functioned in Native American myths.

And, of course, biblical mythology was written by Bronze and Iron Age people who were largely ignorant of things like pi -they simply regurgitated oral stories they were already exposed to, adding things they liked -omitting things they didn't, creating a myth that supported the conclusions they already harbored about the world and their place in it.

Saquist's trolling jab at me not liking anyone "educating other people on the bible" must only be because his definition of "educating" includes proselytizing or witnessing since an objective and reasoned education of the bible is completely within the rules of this forum. It's preaching and sermoning that isn't allowed.

 

[Saquist]

=SkinWalker;1724505]Snake River Rufus, you'll find that anti-science posters like Saquist

With that he Welcomes you to trolling 101

Actualy I've no idea what "pi" is. Contrary to popular myth I don't know everything.
So people like you "skinwalker" who read into everything, jump to conclusions about simple questions. And I told it like is. Proselytizing is one thing. Education is completely another. You've shut down threads just for explaining the contradictions behind a so called blasphemy. So sorry if that brought you out of the wood-work but you're the one that didn't return the PM so obviously didn't care then but you do care now. Why don't you just let him answer the question.

(flame removed)

 

[SkinWalker]

I'm finding it hard to believe you are not aware of what pi is.

The ratio of the circumference of a circle? 3.14159....

You've got to be kidding us. I find such feigned ignorance to be disingenuous. Please confine metadiscussion (that would be off-topic discussion about having a discussion) to PMs or the Sitefeedback forum.

By the way, your last sentence is considered flaming/trolling. Consider this a formal warning.

 

[Saquist]

oh...PI the circumfrence of a circle. Yes I know what that is. What does it have to do with the scripture?
(I thought you were talking about a pagan God.)

(you called me anti-science)
But I do applogize for the flame it return.

 

[Myles]

Is there are reason why?
How would this relate to the thread topic?
I'd suggest creating another thread but...Skinwalker doesn't like people educating other people on the bible.

Which version of the Bible are you referring to ? Kings James, the Vulgate or the Greek NT.? Or is it perhaps your own private copy which shows all others to be in error? As you educate your students "on the Bible", I imagine it must be an extra large copy.

Anyway, can you explain why god made pigs and why Noah took two into the Ark, given that scripture refers to them as unclean animals ?

 

[Saquist]

It was on another thread. about 1 month ago, you were posting something about the "great truths" in your bible. I provided a small challenge to you and another poster. Suddenly, the thread cooled. Soooo, instead of starting a new thread, why don't you finish the last one?
I think that I know the answer to that one.

Okay...gotcha...so I think I know what you're talking about.
There seems to be two circles in my translation it places a comma after the comment about the 10 cubit circle and the it talks about "a circle all around" and " a height of 5 cubits and it took a line of 30 cubits all around" again.

But that's the fist time I've seen.
That may not be right. I'd have to review the construction.

 

[snake river rufus]

Per KJ, your bible, that you claim is "full of truths", describes an impossible circle.
From KJ " And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: and it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits cubits did compass it round about"

 

[Saquist]

In my field understanding a set of plans requires a common ground of standards that is the foundation for every set of plans. I have found that one of the most difficult task is interpreting what someone wants you to design through verbal means alone. It might make sense to them yet there may be a communicative missing link. Considering these direction are through a different language and the standards of building are a couple of thousand years removed there is definitely room for mis understanding.

Mentally I see a ditch. O/S Diamter of 30, I/S Diamter of 10, 5 high. That's the best I can offer you. It just depends whether your objective is to make sense out of it or nonsense. Interpretation is everything when designing from verbal instruction.

 

[snake river rufus]

Heighth is irrelevent in this instance.