Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering (Read 10697 times)
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #45 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:14pm
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:16pm:
Both John and Peter were eyewitnesses and wrote accordingly. 


You have merely stated this.  You haven't provided any evidence to suggest this is true. 

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:16pm:
Historians - actual professionals - dont have your problem.


I have said this multiple times, most historians don't believe there are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and also that the authorship of John is unknown.  You are against the consensus on this topic, not me.  How about instead of ranting and throwing another fit you get out there and try and support your arguments with facts.
Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #46 - Dec 4th, 2015 at 7:43am
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:14pm:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:16pm:
Both John and Peter were eyewitnesses and wrote accordingly. 


You have merely stated this.  You haven't provided any evidence to suggest this is true. 

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:16pm:
Historians - actual professionals - dont have your problem.


I have said this multiple times, most historians don't believe there are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and also that the authorship of John is unknown.  You are against the consensus on this topic, not me.  How about instead of ranting and throwing another fit you get out there and try and support your arguments with facts.



I have no reason to doubt John's authorship or that he was an eye-witness. You on the other hand have provided no evident that he is not.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #47 - Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:10am
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 7:43am:
I have no reason to doubt John's authorship or that he was an eye-witness. You on the other hand have provided no evident that he is not.


Grin You are just not paying attention or being willfully ignorant.  The titles were not given to the gospels when they were written, they were added later.  So we have an anonymous authorship (or rather, a title given).  The Disciple Jesus Loved could have been anybody, and this is a far from settled debate among scholars.  To say it is John is as good a guess as any, but there is no real proof that this is the case.  Don't act like early Christian writings couldn't give authorship either, Paul did a superb job of that.

So again, you have an anonymous source, written ~60 years after the events took place, in a language different to your alleged author. 

You also didn't answer why you thought Peter was an eyewitness.

I'll also direct you to the first time in recorded history that the Gospels are referred to by their current titles: 180AD by church father by Irenaeus.  By the way, did you know that he's largely responsible for the four gospels being today's canon?

Quote:
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.


Fascinating stuff.

Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #48 - Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:54am
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:10am:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 7:43am:
I have no reason to doubt John's authorship or that he was an eye-witness. You on the other hand have provided no evident that he is not.


Grin You are just not paying attention or being willfully ignorant.  The titles were not given to the gospels when they were written, they were added later.  So we have an anonymous authorship (or rather, a title given).  The Disciple Jesus Loved could have been anybody, and this is a far from settled debate among scholars.  To say it is John is as good a guess as any, but there is no real proof that this is the case.  Don't act like early Christian writings couldn't give authorship either, Paul did a superb job of that.

So again, you have an anonymous source, written ~60 years after the events took place, in a language different to your alleged author. 

You also didn't answer why you thought Peter was an eyewitness.

I'll also direct you to the first time in recorded history that the Gospels are referred to by their current titles: 180AD by church father by Irenaeus.  By the way, did you know that he's largely responsible for the four gospels being today's canon?

Quote:
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.


Fascinating stuff.




"the disciple Jesus loved' has been consistently understood to be John.  Why did I think Peter was an eye-witness? Seriously? The fact he was a disciple and spent three years in Jesus' company didnt clue you in?


This is ultimately pointless. There is nothing that would ever prove anything to you about Jesus because His presence and existence is a massive challenge to you.  The argument is ultimately circular unless you accept that some things you cannot prove may in fact, still be true.

Your complaint is spiritual, not historical.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #49 - Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:24am
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 4:50pm:
John_Taverner wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:52pm:
Stratos,  I assume that you are basing your views on this book (and website)


I could spend hours posting on all the false claims on that website.  It's very poorly argued.  I am not part of the group who say that Jesus could never have existed.  All I'm saying is that there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus that I've ever seen.


As Maria stated, there are the Epistles of Paul, which date to about AD 69. It's difficult to dispute that.

Of the two non-Christian sources, there is Josephus, which is controversial (the original has been tampered with) and Tacitus' Annals around AD 116.

The question is one of whether you'd expect to find contemporary accounts anyway? There are very few texts from the period before the Judean Revolt around the time of Paul's Epistles. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a possible example, but there is still some dispute about their origins today. 
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #50 - Dec 4th, 2015 at 10:44am
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:54am:
the disciple Jesus loved' has been consistently understood to be John.


Which is based on zero assumptions.  The first mention of John as the author of the gospel is from ~180, 150 years after the events in question.  Why would he not just have put his name to it if it was indeed John the apostle?


mariacostel wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:54am:
Why did I think Peter was an eye-witness?


On which account are you basing this.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:24am:
Of the two non-Christian sources, there is Josephus, which is controversial (the original has been tampered with)


This is a clear forgery.  if you read it in context (both knowing the author, and the text surrounding the Testimonium, it is obvious.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:24am:
Tacitus' Annals around AD 116.


Tacitus was not an eyewitness account, so is irrelevant to the case Maria is trying to make.
Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #51 - Dec 7th, 2015 at 12:30pm
 
Atheism pre-dates any Theistic belief system
Back to top
 

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #52 - Dec 13th, 2015 at 6:55pm
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 10:44am:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:54am:
the disciple Jesus loved' has been consistently understood to be John.


Which is based on zero assumptions.  The first mention of John as the author of the gospel is from ~180, 150 years after the events in question.  Why would he not just have put his name to it if it was indeed John the apostle?


mariacostel wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:54am:
Why did I think Peter was an eye-witness?


On which account are you basing this.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:24am:
Of the two non-Christian sources, there is Josephus, which is controversial (the original has been tampered with)


This is a clear forgery.  if you read it in context (both knowing the author, and the text surrounding the Testimonium, it is obvious.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:24am:
Tacitus' Annals around AD 116.


Tacitus was not an eyewitness account, so is irrelevant to the case Maria is trying to make.


Tacitus had no hidden agenda. All he did was to publish a list of historical events based on contemporary sources which no longer exist.

This is no different to the main corpus of Roman )and Greek) literature.  Very little is extant. We know about some works because of quotations in other works.  A lot of it is fragmentary, and largely survived because it was translated into Arabic when the Arabs conquered Byzantium. 
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
mitasol
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 173
Townsville
Gender: male
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #53 - Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:48am
 
oh god!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #54 - Dec 10th, 2023 at 4:55pm
 
This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print