The Gospels—History or Myth?
- Thread starter Saquist
- Start date
Greetings all,
It's not grammar at all.
It's YOU being caught trying to tamper with the evidence.
You claimed G.Matthew said this :
The book of history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham
But,
it does not.
YOU inserted the word "history".
The Greek does NOT have "history" (Greek historia.)
It has "geneseos" ("genealogy", sometimes translated "generations", or "family", or similar.)
When it comes to NT studies, you MUST go to the Greek.
Now you quote all sorts of versions, none of which say "history", (as if a translation matters anyway.)
Yup, "generations".
NOT "history" as you falsely claimed.
Really?
Please cite the translation and date and publisher.
(My interlinear Greek NT has "genealogy".
"The Greek English Interlinear New Testament"
A translation of the Greek New Testament UBS 4th edition.
Translated by Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort
Edited by J.D. Douglas. Tyndale. 1990.)
Origins would be a reasonable literal translation.
Still not "history" as you falsely claimed.
Yup, genealogy, like I said.
NOT "history", like you falsely claimed.
Yup, ancestry (genealogy), like I said.
NOT "history", like you falsely claimed.
Yup, family history, like I said.
NOT "history", like you falsely claimed.
Yup, a "roll of the birth" is a good literal translation.
NOT "history", like you falsely claimed.
Finally,
a version which ALMOST has YOUR version- amazing.
What does the footnote say, Saquist?
Does it explain why they translate "geneseos" as "historical record"? No Greek scholar would agree.
What ?
So now it's "history AND genealogy" ?!
What nonsense. You just make it up as you go.
The Greek word is "geneseos" which means "genealogy".
And what comes next in G.Matthew ?
Surprise !
A GENEALOGY of Jesus :
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2
Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
3
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
4
.......
Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
16
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17
It's plain as day :
"Here is the genealogy of Jesus"
followed by the genealogy of Jesus, begat, begat, begat...
It says genealogy, because it IS a genealogy.
But Saquist has his own version of G.Matthew which starts :
The Gospel of Matthew according to Saquist. Chapter 1.
"The book of history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham"
Sadly, Saquist can NOT produce ONE single version of the Bible which has these words.
Not.
One.
Because there isn't one.
Saquist just made it up on the spot.
But he will never admit it.
Even though he cannot find a single translation which has that wording.
Iasion
It's not grammar at all.
It's YOU being caught trying to tamper with the evidence.
You claimed G.Matthew said this :
The book of history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham
But,
it does not.
YOU inserted the word "history".
The Greek does NOT have "history" (Greek historia.)
It has "geneseos" ("genealogy", sometimes translated "generations", or "family", or similar.)
When it comes to NT studies, you MUST go to the Greek.
Now you quote all sorts of versions, none of which say "history", (as if a translation matters anyway.)
Yup, "generations".
NOT "history" as you falsely claimed.
Really?
Please cite the translation and date and publisher.
(My interlinear Greek NT has "genealogy".
"The Greek English Interlinear New Testament"
A translation of the Greek New Testament UBS 4th edition.
Translated by Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort
Edited by J.D. Douglas. Tyndale. 1990.)
Origins would be a reasonable literal translation.
Still not "history" as you falsely claimed.
Yup, genealogy, like I said.
NOT "history", like you falsely claimed.
Yup, ancestry (genealogy), like I said.
NOT "history", like you falsely claimed.
Yup, family history, like I said.
NOT "history", like you falsely claimed.
Yup, a "roll of the birth" is a good literal translation.
NOT "history", like you falsely claimed.
Finally,
a version which ALMOST has YOUR version- amazing.
What does the footnote say, Saquist?
Does it explain why they translate "geneseos" as "historical record"? No Greek scholar would agree.
What ?
So now it's "history AND genealogy" ?!
What nonsense. You just make it up as you go.
The Greek word is "geneseos" which means "genealogy".
And what comes next in G.Matthew ?
Surprise !
A GENEALOGY of Jesus :
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2
Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
3
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
4
.......
Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
16
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17
It's plain as day :
"Here is the genealogy of Jesus"
followed by the genealogy of Jesus, begat, begat, begat...
It says genealogy, because it IS a genealogy.
But Saquist has his own version of G.Matthew which starts :
The Gospel of Matthew according to Saquist. Chapter 1.
"The book of history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham"
Sadly, Saquist can NOT produce ONE single version of the Bible which has these words.
Not.
One.
Because there isn't one.
Saquist just made it up on the spot.
But he will never admit it.
Even though he cannot find a single translation which has that wording.
Iasion
Last edited:
Greetings all,
False.
It is clear you just made that up on the spot.
It is clear you have no interlinear.
You just lied outright.
How do I know?
There simply is NO word in the original Greek to be translated as "facts".
I have the interlinear Greek right here.
It does not say "fact" or any other word, because there is NO NOUN present in the Greek.
In English, Luke goes like this (a direct literal word-for-word translation of the Greek) :
Since Many Attempted to-Compile a-Narrative About The
having-been-Fulfilled Among Us.
The key word is "having-been-fulfilled" - Greek "peplerophoremenon", whose root is "full measure".
He is saying :
"Many have written stories about us being fullfilled".
Nothing to do with facts, or history.
The sentence revolves around the verb Being Fulfilled - there is no noun present to even be translated by "facts" here. An interlinear is word-for-word translation, it CANNOT have the word "facts" present.
Saquist just got caught in an outright lie.
Saquist - what is the Greek word you CLAIM is translated as "facts" there at the begining of Luke?
Iasion
False.
It is clear you just made that up on the spot.
It is clear you have no interlinear.
You just lied outright.
How do I know?
There simply is NO word in the original Greek to be translated as "facts".
I have the interlinear Greek right here.
It does not say "fact" or any other word, because there is NO NOUN present in the Greek.
In English, Luke goes like this (a direct literal word-for-word translation of the Greek) :
Since Many Attempted to-Compile a-Narrative About The
having-been-Fulfilled Among Us.
The key word is "having-been-fulfilled" - Greek "peplerophoremenon", whose root is "full measure".
He is saying :
"Many have written stories about us being fullfilled".
Nothing to do with facts, or history.
The sentence revolves around the verb Being Fulfilled - there is no noun present to even be translated by "facts" here. An interlinear is word-for-word translation, it CANNOT have the word "facts" present.
Saquist just got caught in an outright lie.
Saquist - what is the Greek word you CLAIM is translated as "facts" there at the begining of Luke?
Iasion
Last edited:
You so funny, Saquist.
The Scientific Method is apathetical to what it is used on.
The "Historical Method" is a method of determining, to the best of one's abilities, whether a document is "historical" or not etc - but this is a far cry from being able to claim such as fact or not.
It is because history has difficulty in being tested that lesser means of enquiry are used - and as a result the conclusions drawn can not be claimed as fact - only at best a reasonable possibility.
So continue to use whatever method you want, Saquist, as long as you appreciate the weaknesses of what you use and do not for one moment believe that your method will tell you for certain one way or another.
It is the most suitable for ANY form of intellectual enquiry where one wishes to establish truths.
The Historical method can NOT do that.
Other than the odd translation that you are using...
And so HG Well's "The History of Mr. Polly" is to be taken as a valid historical account? You have yet to answer this.
And this is evidence that they merely used the same primary source for the story. The fact that 2 of the Gospels are near identical is more indication of plagirism rather than anything else.
But you have yet to supply any evidence that these accounts are what they claim.
You have made the assertion and are expecting others to knock you off that perch.
It DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.
YOU ARE ASSERTING - YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
So far all you have done is claimed "Well, it says 'History' in the translation I'm using."
I am using it - and you, as the one making the assertion of History, have yet to supply evidence to support your case. I need do nothing more until you can be bothered to provide some decent evidence and actually argue your case. This is how enquiry works - even Historical enquiry - rather than make an assertion and say "look - no one can dispute it - it must be fact."
:wallbang:
If your claim can withstand your idea of the "Historical Method" but is unable to stand up to the Scientific Method - what does that say about the relative strength of such enquiry, and what conclusions that enquiry can actually come to.
So - post your evidence (currently your incorrect translation of the Greek as "History") and let's see you support your claim.
You appear to be beyond sensible discussion if you are only prepared to use your own methods of enquiry and not more robust ones. "I will only discuss with those people that agree with me!"
Unfortunately the use of real names and places is NOT evidence of truth.
Many a novel uses real names, places, geography - unsurprisingly it adds an air of authenticity. So according to you all the novels that do this should be taken as fact???
You need to support the claims of the bible with other sources, if possible.
Please do so.
Bollocks, Saquist. Please note that I have made NO CLAIM.
I am merely waiting for you to support YOUR CLAIM that the Bible is more than mere writing.
You have put your claim up for testing - and yet you have supplied no evidence.
I have not put any evidence to counter you as I do not yet need to as there is NOTHING TO COUNTER.
You have made an assertion with no evidence.
It remains a statement of confidence - seemingly in your flawed translation of Matthew 1:1.
Don't bother Saquist - I can tell you now that it is fiction. It is well documented that it is fiction, including by Mr Wells himself.
The point is that your evidence (the word "History" in Matthew) is insufficient by itself.
Provide more.
At the moment your intellectual endeavour is one of the laziest I have ever come across - and from one who it is clear does not know how to formulate a case.
You believe that you can waltz on to the stage, proclaim "XYZ" and walk off, leaving it for others to counter the claim.
If I could use more smilies I would roll my eyes at you again.
Support your claim, Saquist.
This is what the Historical Method requires of you.
This is what the Scientific Method requres of you.
Otherwise please leave quietly by the back door.
You mean the method that runs along the lines of: "Here's my unsupported claim. Knock it down if you can." ?
Yep - it appears he is.
Caught, nothing Iasion. Grammar is all about being understood. The history of Israel is firmly rooted in it's line of Kings. There are at least two translations which use the word history or historical record.
The books in question are certainly presenting themselves as history.
Their relation I've stated from the begining. You're struggling to show a falsehood or intent to tamper with evidence when there was none.
This is indeed what my Translation says and it does not disagree with the others. You've not leg to stand on. You're still wrong...
Quite the opposite really. The ranting you've dedicated yourself too has been distracting but I wouldn't call my efforts lazy. I'm sure this suits your perspective entirely forturnantly I have no sense of obligation to live up to your expectation.
You were wrong Iasion. I'm not going to force that down you conscious you'll never accept it. It is more than accepted that the gospels have a historical accuracy and they do live up to the requirements of the Historical Method.
The hilarious thing is that I've 'claimed' anything other than what the experts have determine except for a small minority who you've drawn from for your religious conspiracy theory.
Use the right method Iason. Stop covering over your errors.
You have said nothing of any consequence." It is more than accepted that the gospels have a historical accuracy......." Evidence please from a disinterested source.
"The Book of the History of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham" Which translation are you referring to ? I suggest the "history" bit is an unwarrranted addition.
Why is the word history absent from the King James version and from the Greek original, both of which I told you I have checked, as has Iasion.
As your Bible differs from The King James version and the Greek one, please explain why your version is more accurate than these
To paraphrase what you said, it is more than accepted by scholars that the King James version and the original Greek are accurate. Who claims they are wrong ?
Mega biblion, mega kakon.
"The Book of the History of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham" Which translation are you referring to ? I suggest the "history" bit is an unwarrranted addition.
Why is the word history absent from the King James version and from the Greek original, both of which I told you I have checked, as has Iasion.
As your Bible differs from The King James version and the Greek one, please explain why your version is more accurate than these
To paraphrase what you said, it is more than accepted by scholars that the King James version and the original Greek are accurate. Who claims they are wrong ?
Mega biblion, mega kakon.
Last edited:
You're reaching for what you don't know again.
It is also rooted in the search for truth, belief and justification.
That would fall under the history of myth category to.
So you're wrong again.
No. Nothing that is determined by either method can be classified as certain.Whether it be the Scientific Method or the Historical Method the truth may still elude us. But the purpose of the Historical methods is to find that which is creditable and historical in value.
Nothing really can establish truth so you're right from a philosophical stand point by the Method it's self is a determining factor about what we can confirm. That does suit the Method propperly
You are hard-headed aren't you? Having problems understanding that some people don't rush to conclusions about that which they've never read? I'm not going to throw out discriminations untill the investigation is complete and I'm not going to come to a decision on "Mr. Polly." untill I've read it. So you can swallow your tongue and die for all I care.
Very Good you've finally stopped reading into the post and started reading it for what it is. That's a change. I've stated it over and over again and some how you think I'm here to prove something. I'm not.
A couple of pages back you asked "Why did I start the thread?" I made that clear. Somehow you missed it and you likely still miss the point. I've noticed that when ever you guys get to this point and you bring debate you're always demanding proof. Yet you never offer any. NEVER...And you're so busy chopping up post and interpreting synonyms to prove your point you've forgotten or didn't know...that I was looking for what you had say.
You accused me of knowing nothing and yet posting. I'm like "so what." This was my thread guys. I was asking you for the information. I said loud and clear that "I do not know the other side of this arguement."
Your...answer? or reply was to demand proof, evidence and postive reinforcement for the validity of the gospels. I told you I knew of what the historian Josephus and Tacticus have said on the issue, that I was familar and that apparently most of the world accepts the scriptures as a historical account even if some of those think there is a mythical interpretation invovled.
What astounds me is that for you and Sarkus not to mention Iceaura, for you this was about making me prove that Gospels position of history was true. Theres more than enough connection. You've brought up fictional works of our day to relate as propper measures of their day. Honestly I tell you I already know there is no relation. It's an utterly irrelevant prosecutional ploy. I've seen it a dosen time. And that's why I brought up equal work form the same time and place.
However...I've already researched one...(not fully). I still can not find certain aspects necessary under the Historical Method such as location for the Apocalypse of Abraham. Intrestingly enough you present this as "FICTION" and I have come across no such determination so once again you've either missread or mis interpreted, or just plain lied again and I suspect I'll find this true on issue of more of these text.
It's intresting the way you see and interpret information with your particular spin on the matter. I ask for fiction you give me what you interpret as fiction. I offer text that allagree on the word history, facts, belief and geneaology and you see it as a lie and tampering when I'm just typing text from my own translation of the scriptures. You're desprate for a contradiction here. I already knew you had no choice but to see a contradiction because what you said was so wrong and so off base sending a flare in the sky illuminating you as a person that hasn't even read what you're discriminating about, whatt you're hotly contesting..
I've gone through personally more than a few dozen words of Greek and Hebrew to come to the propper understanding of the scriptures. I long ago realised that as the dominance of language changed hands for the Hebrews they had to find the propper equals in the Greek...often the Greek's translations was slightly off and that's what happens in translation. It maybe psyche' in Greek but it's nephesh in Hebrew....They don't mean the exact same thing because they have two different etymologies But they're appropriate substitues. The Jews didn't believe in an underworld but they used the term Hades in place of Sheol. It happens even in the modern day. You're so stuck in the Greek litteralness you can't see we're talking Hebrew. Whose history are we considering? Hebrew. Who's line is the most important/. David. The line of kings to which Hebrew history is linked for quite awhile back down to Abraham. That's the entire history of Israel, comlete... We're talking history and that narrows down whos and what location the history started. Birth right was everthing. To prove your birthright was to prove who you were, it's lineage. It decided what you were entitled to and what inheritence you were given. Where else is the Hebrew history if not right here in the history and lineage?
I scrabble to understand your erractic logic You can't just bulldoze your way through the facts, Iason. I don't know as much as you do on the externals but I'll wager I know scores more about the bible and the scriptures witing. I've got far to much information at my disposal. I've been pretty consisent here but you've taken every opportunity to present information as an chance to distort them. I can't trust you at all and I can see that Revolvr was right to deny indulgiing your in this particular pursuit.
Me, I'm not that mature or at least I don't want to be in this instance. I'll fight you with objectivity to a deadlock if I have to. I don't even know all the facts but I can tell there is something wrong with your approach your ,information and how you see it. It reeks of false hood and I hate falsehood.
As I have said and stood by the Gospels themselve have asserted history you've nothing apparently to counter this. I'm prepared to accept this as a lack of evidence on your part and Sarkus. Thus far you have present "the graph of disbelif" as bonified evidence. Dismissed on the the basis of circumstantial status and completely inconclussive.
The Scientific Method can not establish truth or Fiction as concerns past events.
I can not concur. There is translation precedent supporting the word "history" and you admited to it.
My goodness don't get full of yourself. I don't require your agreement or disagreement. It wasn't a stipulation of the threads conception that you agreed or disagreed. Nor was it stated that I was going to debate the issue to this length altough I certainly don't mind at all. I'm pretty sure you're just posturing for the sake of your audience. It's Dramatic and pedantic and very entertaining but what you've offered as 'sensible discussion' will hardly distinguish you in the anals of diplomacy.
Don't get me wrong. I've got my sharingan on at max strength and I asure you I've seen through everything you're attempting and the smoke screen and technique of distraction. You started off strong but you've simppered down to a dull hiss. All I sense from you is venomous hostility now and to be truthfull it was always there. Your sensible debate as you call it was lacking in all luster and sincerity the whole time. You took the only strong point you had which was Revolvr's apparent error and you captialized on it. You then accused me of making the error when clearly your target was Revolvr, so I know you're suffering from some sort of dementia based on that alone. You see the world as a projection of what's on the inside of your. At this point that is dishonest. Will you contend that I was the propper target? Of course you will but it's not true. You couldn't find the quote if your life depended on it. Too bad doesn't.
If you show me a fictional novel from the past history of the Hebrews I'll believe you. Lets go ahead and define fictional as "confirmed" at least by a major consensus and the historians of the time to remove any doubt about what is actually fictional and not just what you've decided to classify as fictional. Picking ouff geography, real names and places identifies that you want no way of truely considering the facts. Otherwise why blow off the information? The anser is that you know what it will say. It will be verified on almost all the counts that the Historial Method applies. Shucks, historians have said as much and I have ample quotes to prove that true.
It's nice that you see fit to ask but I have no need to support the claim yet. The ball is in your court. If the Wiki is indeed correct that the majority of the concensus applies these as accounts of a real man named Jesus then it is actually you who are going against the status quo.
Then you have truely wasted your time here in a witless pursuit of what you haven't confirmed nor decided on a claim.
Ah but you still must address the scriptures assertion. You must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the History of provided by the Gospels in terms of Jesus conection to Hebrew history is fictional. You did claim by default that Matthew 1:1 is not talking about the history of the Hebrews. Your assertions create a claim that you must prove. That being that this lineage is false and has no relation to the history of Israel.
I have supported the statement of history or if you prefer family history that the Gospels testify to. If you can not address the plea then there is no prosecution to pursue...Oh darn there goes that legal jargon again. I'm sure you'll throw a hissy fitt again.
Luke 20:30
To be sure, Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. 31 But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,
This is acknowledging the medium, the very parchment being written on, that it will be reread and understood for the future for understanding the very purpose of it being written.
Luke 1:1-4
1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·oph′i·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.
I'm sure I'll be slapped again with a mighty claim of 'tampering' but I really don't care. This is my families translation and I'm going to stick by it. So there. I really don't care about what's statifactory to you in a translation.
The scriptures above and which I quoted in part before show that this is classic claim to authenticity. The Text is litteral stating a reason for the writing and motivatioin just as the forward of any personal account may. It states he seeks to accurate in chronological order because he's analyzed tthe events from tthe begining.
The New Intertaioinal
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
They all say the same thing. It's a preface. This book stands alone on it's own as an account on to itself. It is obvious to anyone who's read the Gospels that they take themselves serious that you'd have to go out of your way to make the suggestion that it's all just a story. It starts off like a letter states that it is giving an account to events and it proceeds as an account of events. Litteral it is a foward or preface:a short introductory essay preceding the text of a book. That's two distinct signs and every sign after that makes such an assertion can be taken just as well.
As the physican we'd expect a well thoughtout approach such as this and then he then refers tot he resurrection of Jesus as a fact. The new International saying that it "it is true"
Heres the Break down we have four gospels as accounts of the same event. The narratives are not exactly the same. There wasn't enough time to create a legend out of these events in the 30 years that past so as to distort the events. Normally done in hundreds of years. You still haven't challenged the oral tradition at the time which pretty much confirms that these are not just stories for entertainment. By your standard it appears that anything that came out of the Jewish system will be percieved as fiction.
You try to take an objective posture but you've been anything but.
Last edited:
You still have not answerd my questions, so can I assume you cannot do so. You may choose to ignore me but that will not alter the facts you are denying.
I have just checked the Vulgate and guess what. Matthew 1.1 makes no mention of history; rather it is a Latin word for word translation of the Greek.
So the Greek does not mention history, the Latin does not mention history and the King James does not mention history. You are no longer just arguing against us , but a large body of scholars past and present.
You are either obtuse or disingenuous, I cannot decide which. In any event if you cannot make a case for your particular Bible in the face of the evidence which has been presented to you, you should hold your peace. Don't you realize you are questioning the validity of three versions of Matthew which are in agreement , each of which precedes whatever version of the Bible you are using to support your argument ? All the waffle , posturing and evasion which is characteristic of you is of no avail.
The only way out of your dilemna is to explain why Iasion and I are wrong in our reading of Matthew in three languages. That is what you must address because it is all that is relevant
Tu es asinus ad lyram.
I have just checked the Vulgate and guess what. Matthew 1.1 makes no mention of history; rather it is a Latin word for word translation of the Greek.
So the Greek does not mention history, the Latin does not mention history and the King James does not mention history. You are no longer just arguing against us , but a large body of scholars past and present.
You are either obtuse or disingenuous, I cannot decide which. In any event if you cannot make a case for your particular Bible in the face of the evidence which has been presented to you, you should hold your peace. Don't you realize you are questioning the validity of three versions of Matthew which are in agreement , each of which precedes whatever version of the Bible you are using to support your argument ? All the waffle , posturing and evasion which is characteristic of you is of no avail.
The only way out of your dilemna is to explain why Iasion and I are wrong in our reading of Matthew in three languages. That is what you must address because it is all that is relevant
Tu es asinus ad lyram.
Last edited:
None of which had the benefit of the strict oral tradtion thought by the Jews, Iceaura. That the same obsticale Iason kept walking around instead of facing.
Again inconsistent with thousands or years or written history before and certainly after...you're turning into a conspiracy theorist. Just because it could be true down't mean it is.
It's not as though there is any reason to believe other wise there are far too many historical correlations gentleman and nothing of value to offer in the negative. You've shown that effectively.
I only pay attention to that which I play with when I'm in a playful mood.
I just don't take you seriously. Sorry. It's what happens when you speak in dishonest terms. Maybe it's change maybe it won't.
I'ma bet on won't....
You have my permission to assume bunny's make your bed in the moring or anything else you wish.
If you behave seriously I'll treat you seriously.
I'm thoroughly pleased Sarkus that your only answer to your perspective has always been "you prove yours first." You're nothing if not consistent.
I assure you I have much more information behind me and I'm sure you already known what it is. This debate has been there and done that thousands of times before. I mean really. I don't care if you think i have no support. I haven't offered up much since my opening post of the thread which you refere to as no proof at all. And I asure you there is more.
this was about you guys...And you wasted all those post running circles, informing me I needed to prove my post first. Well I did in the first post and offered some stiff rejoinder and you're still reapeating the same broken phrase.
It was about you Sarkus...Myles...Iason...
I offered my side and you joined my thread....
my thread....
As soon as you answered the first post it was atleast you obligation to state your position and why as I did. You have done the most extreme amount of backpedalling so that you claim plausible deniability concerning whether you even made a claim or not. It's like your playing a childhood game of tag. So...Shall we go around again....I'm just waiting for you to make the next mistake. I've got the info at my disposal and the will to use it. You're really making this too easy.
Come on Iason prove it too me one more time.
"Geneaology, Family history, and history and historical record are not same" RIGHT? They can't be interchaned RIGHT? English is that inflexible, RIGHT? Family is not real History RIGHT? Espeically when we're dealing with an entire nation and the person that started that nation....RIGHT?
TWO completely different things....That's what you're saying...RIGHT?
Not only do you not know translation you don't know English either.
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't know anything about Polynesian oral traditions, do you.saquist said:
Were all the Gospel writers Jews, Saquist?
You stated that it takes hundreds of years to build up the kinds of legends we read in the Gospels. I pointed out that we have many examples of it taking no more than ten or fifteen years.
It takes only ten or fifteen years.
It might take even less, with so many similar legends around to borrow from, as were available.
But what would have proven in relation?
Will you have proven that this is indeed a departure from the strict oral tradition? Because that's what I'm asking. So feel free to enlighten me on Polynesian oral traditions Iceaura but you've done nothing for the establishing that the tradition was-indeed-broken.
As for the writers, I know that of the 40 writers of the bible 8 authors made up the Gospels. I however do not know there individual histories but Ii suspect you will inform.
But I'm betting on more speculation.
Will you have proven that this is indeed a departure from the strict oral tradition? Because that's what I'm asking. So feel free to enlighten me on Polynesian oral traditions Iceaura but you've done nothing for the establishing that the tradition was-indeed-broken.
As for the writers, I know that of the 40 writers of the bible 8 authors made up the Gospels. I however do not know there individual histories but Ii suspect you will inform.
But I'm betting on more speculation.
Really? Because you don't agree?
"Rooted in the search for" is hardly grounds for calling it as robust. The reason the "historical methods" are used is because they can NOT satisfy the requirements of the scientific approach - but still feel the need to be able to come up with some answer, even if that answer is not as robust as that obtained through other methods. It is more a case of "let's get the best answer we can, knowing that we can't get the ideal answer".
Clearly.
"Certain" in the context of scientific fact.
If you doubt something can be "certain" - feel free to walk off a cliff to show how uncertain something like gravity is.
Yes - in "value". It is after that point that you fall down.
We can value the Bible all we want as an historical document - claiming it to be written 100AD or so, with accurate places, names, georgraphy etc.
But given the nature of other elements of the same books: the miracles etc; it is clear that merely claiming the document of historical value is insufficient.
And demonstrates its weakness.
Feel free. I can wait. Even though I'm telling you it is fiction, it is still worth a read.
Please make sure you know who you're replying to before throwing out abuse. I'm sure Iason will appreciate an apology from you.
You are claiming history over myth.
That requires supporting evidence on your part.
Is this beyond your comprehension?
You say you understand - but clearly you do not.
If you can not support your claim that the Bible is history over myth then we are happy to sit here quietly, offering no evidence, and be happy that no conclusion will be drawn.
We are not here saying "it is myth!"
We are here saying "You have not provided support for your claim it is accurately recorded history" etc.
And you clearly do not know your own side.
Yep. Care to offer any?
And we've demonstrated how mere names and places known to exist is not sufficient - precisely because even modern authors of today set works of fiction in authentic locations!
Do you not understand this???
I think you'll find I have done no such thing. Please provide evidence of this.
I believe you might be confusing me, Sarkus, with someone else.
However, as you are clearly answering my post I can only assume you are deliberately putting words in my mouth, and calling me a liar.
Just to pick up on some more of the flaws / logical fallacies in your arguments...
Any "substitute" can be deemed appropriate if it suits their own argument to make the substitution.
If you can not find a word that means the EXACT same thing then the substitute is subjective, and thus bias.
I scrabble to understand your erractic logic You can't just bulldoze your way through the facts, Iason.Who??
You are resorting to guesses of knowledge levels?
And to information at disposal?
Saquist - you are now arguing from a "My house is bigger than your house" standpoint. It's truly pathetic.
Arguments are not won or lost by comparing knowledge bases but by using that knowledge IN THE ARGUMENT.
I have seen one small piece of knowledge topple an argument built on vast swathes of information before.
You've been consistent - that's certainly true. Not sure necessarily at what, though.
:bawl:
When you learn how to debate, and what constitutes rational and logical argument, and on where the burden of proof lies, maybe you should come back to all this.
And your "History Method" can????
Is that what you're claiming?
No. I didn't. Again you lie.
Discussion can probably proceed when you post some evidence to support your case.
As stated previously - standing there and making claims is not worth discussing.
Your what???
And what error was this supposed to have been?
Keep going. I want to see how you get out of this...
I'm not asking you to believe me - merely pointing out that mere real names and places is insufficient to conclude on the accuracy of the acts performed within the same work.
If you can not see this then I truly pity you.
You just do not listen, do you.
You are making the assertion.
You support the case.
If you can not do so you might as well stop now.
There is, as yet, no ball in play as you have not offered any evidence supporting your case.
Argument from consensus is another logical fallacy. But you seem to be happy to use these.
I am making no claim. Merely seeing if your the evidence to support your claim can stand up to scrutiny. So far there is precious little evidence to even look at - and that which you have supplied appears to be rather dubious.
NO I DO NOT!!!!!!!!!
I AM MAKING NO CLAIM.
YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM.
YOU SUPPORT THE CLAIM.
EITHER THAT OR STFU!
You demonstrate time and time again, despite being told, that you do not understand rational argument.
Again - this was NOT ME!!
Argue with me against what I say.
Do not attribute other people's comments to me!
Especially after your rant about me doing the same.
It's just not worth it, Saquist.
If you truly believe you have supported the statement... great.
Again - please understand that there are a vast number of books that do the same - to try to give an air or authenticity.
Merely saying "well, the book says it's authentic, so it must be!" is insufficient.
I refer you to how filling a book / story with accurate details can help give the impression that the plot is also true:
http://www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.html
And I feel pity for you that you honestly think that this is sufficient evidence to claim the book as an authentic retelling of events and is more than fiction.
It doesn't matter how many times the Gospels claim to be true - you need to find supporting evidence.
Otherwise, as I have stated, you are suggesting that any book at all that claims to be true should be accepted as such. Preposterous. Irrational.
Really? 30 years isn't sufficient to create a Legend? Where's the evidence for this assertion?
Not at all. But as you clearly do not understand that my position is not one of claiming the opposite to you but one of merely asking you to support your own claim, I guess you'll carry on thinking that.
You claim - you support the claim.
That's how it works.
Not taking the claim as truth does NOT equate to taking the opposite of the claim as truth.
Consistently rational.
When I make a claim I will support it.
There is NO obligation at all.
To think otherwise is ridiculous and rather pathetic.
Grow up, Saquist.
"Ooh - my house is bigger than yours! I win!"
Really? Because you don't agree?
"Rooted in the search for" is hardly grounds for calling it as robust. The reason the "historical methods" are used is because they can NOT satisfy the requirements of the scientific approach - but still feel the need to be able to come up with some answer, even if that answer is not as robust as that obtained through other methods. It is more a case of "let's get the best answer we can, knowing that we can't get the ideal answer".
Clearly.
The scientific approach can nott determine historical proof. You're misrepresenting the Scientific Metod.*grief*
Neither can.
Negative: I can not concur with your view of mircales and etc. We will hold our contention here less you understand that it does not weakenn is credibitily. We can not determine if these evernts did not occur. You view of weakness is prejudicial and nothing more, Sarkus.
I disagree because I'm being objective to these eents where as you passed a judgement. You've shunted the reallity of the facts. You can't determine the true but you can state your belief. That's the biggest differece between you and me. I don't prejudge on this I could never alone or don't know.
yeah...I think I corrected that...already
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm claiming Status quo you're claiming against it. it's a minor difference but effectual.
First post check some of the details but that's about all I've given.
Then why are you here, Sarkus. your position has been given a dozen times. You're wasting your own time.
To offer reading material to the blind would be senseless. It's like talking to wall. Besides that not the purpose of the thread.
No it's a totall consideration not just names dates and locations. You must understand that this is not an emliminating factors events people accurate time keeping and the understanding of the information as history all play a part. You haven't eliminated any of them...We stand at a deadlock again.
meant for Iason. But I'm not stingy help yourself to some that.
Of course it's subjective it's Hebrew reading Greek to English. The propper consideration is what did the Hebrews understand Not the Greek. Do you not understand this???
Fits perfectly from the equally pathetic "tag your you're it" show proof method.
I argee. But here we are in arguement you started...
Telling the truth for one.
And that's where you went wrong.
And your "History Method" can????
Is that what you're claiming?
Then you didn't read for comprehension if you're eeking on that.
Not reallly. I aleady know exactly what your first post said....multiquote can be a bear....
I'm sorry you fell under this preconception but I also no it's no mere preconception
I'm not saying your wrong I'm saying it's part of the equation.
I think I'm talking to Sarkus...right...okay. I believe it is you who are hard of hearing. I've only stood by and watched you chase your tail on the evidence issue. Do you understand Enlish, Sarkus? I'm not here for you or to justifiy ANYTHING to you and I frankly never will. Your posture is too agressive and you've not using simple reasoning skills your not even using your eyes.
Oh I know...
That not what the thread is for though. If you knew how discussions worked you would know that and you wouldn't be wallowing in your own fustration constipated on an issue of facts that I've never concieded i would relent to on a thread....yes...on a thread from which I was asking for facts from you.
Yes I understand everything you've said. I just haven't agreed with it. We don't have the same standards of investigation and you've been think headed to understand that.
Perfect example....I suspect...on some lelvel you're entertaining yourself. You've commited a fair amount of emotional energyjust in the caps and exclamation points alone.
Really...I would ask the same of you...
There isn't supposed to be an arguement but I understand this for peole that do nothing but argue.
My appologies I didn't mean to confuse your post.
However it is clear at any case what your position is. I'm not an unreasonable man. I see that you're trying not to make a claim but I can clearly see your position anyway despite the dancing to the contrary.
Merely one part of the puzzle. Try looking at the picture.
I understand what you're saying. Truely I do despite what you might think. We're just working from to different perspecitives... Mine is deductive you's is prosecutional scientific reasoning.
Well i thank you. Pity is never a bad thing.
I concur that is not enough there is more. but there is a reasonable presentation of evidence which the Gospels enjoy.
Most of this I wrote in which I in error believed I was responding to the multi quote forgive me If I have "overslighted" or have not chastised you to the propper degree.
But to you I've already said. "I'm not here to answer your inqueries but to ask my own." You have done that to the best of your ability by stating, "I have no claim"
You alievated your self from answering...what more is there to say. I think you're done here. Really you're just in the way. We've had this conversation before and it will always be the same, Sarkus. I work from superior judicial standards whether you like it or not. You didn't disagree when i said that the Scientific Method can not establish historical truth or fiction. I must conclude you agree but you stick by it still the same.
An admision. Even when you know you're not using the right tool you wear it and the object of your attention untill both are unworkable. If the Scientific method can't give us the answers we seek use a different tool.
yes...In the Scientific Method. At what point did I state I was pplying this method or did you miss this point for the last half dozen times?
Not taking the claim as truth does NOT equate to taking the opposite of the claim as truth.[/QUOTE]
It's clear you have opposite position that you are unwilling to reveal because you would then have to prove you claim. I know how this works Sarkus. You can believe that I don't but that doesn't make it so.
Well that pathetic response says everything about you. I have personally checked the Greek NT, the Vulgate and the King James version and found them all in accord. I have not had to access Wiki as you did because I have some Latin and Greek.
In what sense am I being dishonest ? Unlike the rubbish you come up with, you have been given my sources which you are free to check. You show a distinct fear or reluctance to inform yourself which is why you remain woefully ignorant.
Last edited:
Saquist - you remain delusional [Insult Deleted].
If you ever manage to escape from the thick walls of the asylum you have built around you, feel free to come back to us.
You only appear to want to discuss with those who agree with you, or can stroke your ego.
You have been called out on your inability to support the claims you make - and you now freely admit that you have no intention of doing so.
Thus hopefully draws to a close the pointlessness that is this thread.
If you ever manage to escape from the thick walls of the asylum you have built around you, feel free to come back to us.
You only appear to want to discuss with those who agree with you, or can stroke your ego.
You have been called out on your inability to support the claims you make - and you now freely admit that you have no intention of doing so.
Thus hopefully draws to a close the pointlessness that is this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh Sarkus I know you mean well but that delusion you percieve is merely a different perspective you're seeing . Believe it or not the world doesn't revovle around the Scientific Method. Don't worry about the insane asylum I'd get to work on busting down the doors of that science lab your're stuck in. Breathe som old fashion unrarified air and see the world as it really is.
You've proven nothing and I've proven...a little bit. "very small amount."
I think its Ironic you don't understand the meaning of a "fact finding venture."
I 'll tell you what...If I want endless speculation and a circle of finger pointing I'll head your way again. Wasn't that great. I manage to waste 15 pages of your time just so you could repeat the words "support your claim" over and over and over.... It's like you've been locked in a temporal paradox for three days.
You've proven nothing and I've proven...a little bit. "very small amount."
I think its Ironic you don't understand the meaning of a "fact finding venture."
I 'll tell you what...If I want endless speculation and a circle of finger pointing I'll head your way again. Wasn't that great. I manage to waste 15 pages of your time just so you could repeat the words "support your claim" over and over and over.... It's like you've been locked in a temporal paradox for three days.