I'd be a poorer man...
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Why do I Look
Next: Adolph the Great
From: Vito on 8 Mar 2010 10:32 "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote |I havn't decided if you're really that ignorant. .... either one really | makes you look bad. | Learn more about Jesus | www.lds.org Tsk, tsk tsk ... Talk about ignorance making folks looking bad. Start with the fact that no-one *named* Jesus existed at the time then note that the painting looks nothing like the man you call Jesus (He looked like Osama bin Ladin). What reward did Jos. Smith promise for not smoking and drinking? | | "BrianNZ" <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote | So the 'kill em all' attitude hasn't changed since the | 'Mountain | meadows' incident then.... :) | | The next Mormon that turns up the the doorstep will have | that episode of | their past thrown in their face. Don't bother, they're taught a pat answer in missionary prep school.
From: Vito on 8 Mar 2010 10:37 "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote | From your recent posts, you're sounding very satanist. That's silly. To be a Satanist one must believe in your false god. I don't think Twibil does .....
From: Vito on 8 Mar 2010 10:41 "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote ... | Exactly. Until I found the Gospel of Christ, and then | experienced a mighty change of heart. I .... Sorry Chris, but what you have discovered is Pauline gospel.
From: I Am the Truth that You Fear on 8 Mar 2010 11:01 On Mar 8, 7:02 am, "Goat Roping Okie Midget" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Except NONE of the gosples agaree with each othere... Yes, two of them *do* agree, but it appears that the Gospel of St. Matthew was a translation of the supposedly later Gospel of St. Mark. The translator didn't seem to understand the Jewish literary use of tautological emphasis, so the individuals that encountered Yeshua were multiplied by at least a factor of two,
From: HeyBub on 8 Mar 2010 11:12
S'mee wrote: > > > Except NONE of the gosples agaree with each othere...none were written > by people who were there and most were written over 100-200 years > after the supposed facts adn then they've been twisted to suit various > political needs to the point that it's all bullshit. > There's nothing intrinsically wrong with an oral tradition. Back then, there were scholars who developed extraordinary memories. Heck, even today, there are students who memorize the Talmud, which is FAR more extensive than an encyclopedia. The entire corpus of the New Testament is smaller than any one of the 63 tractates of the Talmud. Likewise, there are, today, Islamic scholars who can recite the entire Koran flawlessly. Further, it is unfair of you to claim a twisting to "suit various political needs" without giving a dozen or so examples. Of course the earliest writing of the NT is a fragment from John dated about A.D. 75. The next oldest is about the 4th century (after the Council of Nicea where Jesus was deemed to be God). It's as if a giant vacuum cleaner sucked up all the bits in existence - possibly for political purposes. But who can know for sure? Biblical exegesis does, however, illustrate the reverse of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that when confronted with two possible explanations, the simpler is more often the correct one. In Biblical history, scholars find that the more COMPLEX text is the one closer to the original; seemingly scribes tried to simplify the text they were copying and in so doing introduced changes. As for it all "being bullshit," the Bible is no less accurate than a reporter for the New York Times interviewing eyewitnesses, then composing a story which is obviously true (because it appeared in The Times). No wait... |