Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 29
Send Topic Print
Is Religion compatible with Evolution? (Read 45540 times)
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #270 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:33pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:06pm:
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:55pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:32pm:
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:18pm:
Then how do you account for this letter from Herod to Tiberius?

The question is, how do you account for it?

It is dated from the 6th - 7th centuries CE.


Just saying it is so does not make it so... Your statement is evidential and so needs evidence.

As does yours.

However, even the Vatican does not acknowledge the authenticity of this letter nor many allegedly written by Pilate.

Also no Tetrarch would speak so brazenly towards an Emperor... That would only occur as an apocryphal document written when it was safe to be seen to address a long dead non-Christian Emperor in that manner long after the old Empire had been Christianised and the period 1CE - 3CE widely considered as corrupt and sinful.

It blatantly tries to undo the obvious irreconcilability of Jesus birth circa 4BC and in Bethlehem and his birth just prior to the Census of Quirinius (6CE), spuriously attempting to give historical credence to the Gospels' birth accounts. They should've stuck to St Mark's story.



Pfft... of course the Catholic Faith is going to question the validity of that letter... Jesus is tagged as a fake.

Otherwise, you seem to forget that Herod was a friend amongst the Roman elite... he studied with them... he played in his youth with them... so it is no surprise that he spoke in more liberal terms with them. 

What about this then....

Quote:
The Babylonian Talmud

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and God said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him." Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.

Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #271 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:41pm
 
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:33pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:06pm:
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:55pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:32pm:
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:18pm:
Then how do you account for this letter from Herod to Tiberius?

The question is, how do you account for it?

It is dated from the 6th - 7th centuries CE.


Just saying it is so does not make it so... Your statement is evidential and so needs evidence.

As does yours.

However, even the Vatican does not acknowledge the authenticity of this letter nor many allegedly written by Pilate.

Also no Tetrarch would speak so brazenly towards an Emperor... That would only occur as an apocryphal document written when it was safe to be seen to address a long dead non-Christian Emperor in that manner long after the old Empire had been Christianised and the period 1CE - 3CE widely considered as corrupt and sinful.

It blatantly tries to undo the obvious irreconcilability of Jesus birth circa 4BC and in Bethlehem and his birth just prior to the Census of Quirinius (6CE), spuriously attempting to give historical credence to the Gospels' birth accounts. They should've stuck to St Mark's story.



Pfft... of course the Catholic Faith is going to question the validity of that letter... Jesus is tagged as a fake.

Otherwise, you seem to forget that Herod was a friend amongst the Roman elite... he studied with them... he played in his youth with them... so it is no surprise that he spoke in more liberal terms with them.  

You seem to have forgotten that the Popes, by the 7th century had assumed the role and titles of the old Emperors and the Vatican had inherited the administration of the Empire. The Popes, by then, had no admiration at all for the Emperors prior to Constantine the Great, in fact they were roundly despised in the new Christian world as venal.

The Vatican would have every reason to support the validity of letters that gave credence to the ridiculous chronological errors in the Gospels, if they were authentic.

Jesus is disparaged in those letters by rulers who themselves are despised in the Gospels - The Gospels being the highest authority on Christian and temporal matters by the 7th century.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:47pm by NorthOfNorth »  

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #272 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:46pm
 
And the The Babylonian Talmud?

Sorry Helian, there are too many source documents which suggest that Jesus was real and a charlatan to boot.
Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #273 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:49pm
 
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:46pm:
And the The Babylonian Talmud?

Sorry Helian, there are too many source documents which suggest that Jesus was real and a charlatan to boot.

Documents written hundreds of years after the events of which they claim to bear witness?

Are you Lisa for the day? Grin
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #274 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:54pm
 
Just for the record :

I believe Jesus probably existed as an historical figure.

I believe he was not born in Bethlehem, so could not have fulfilled the requirements of Scripture for Messiahship.

I do not believe he considered himself the Messiah (or the 'Son of God').

I believe the Jesus story became the story of 'Christ' (Messiah) via Pauline doctrine.

I believe Jesus was virtually unknown in Palestine during his lifetime.

Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #275 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:16pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:49pm:
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:46pm:
And the The Babylonian Talmud?

Sorry Helian, there are too many source documents which suggest that Jesus was real and a charlatan to boot.

Documents written hundreds of years after the events of which they claim to bear witness?

Are you Lisa for the day? Grin


LOL... that's all you got... Just insults and personal opinion backed up with personal belief most likely born of a... oh you don't know... it's just a feeling is all.

Helian is a good name for you... reminds me of Helium... very light weight.
Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49224
At my desk.
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #276 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:21pm
 
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:46pm:
And the The Babylonian Talmud?

Sorry Helian, there are too many source documents which suggest that Jesus was real and a charlatan to boot.


You should start a new thread on that.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #277 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:21pm
 
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:16pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:49pm:
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:46pm:
And the The Babylonian Talmud?

Sorry Helian, there are too many source documents which suggest that Jesus was real and a charlatan to boot.

Documents written hundreds of years after the events of which they claim to bear witness?

Are you Lisa for the day? Grin


LOL... that's all you got... Just insults and personal opinion backed up with personal belief most likely born of a... oh you don't know... it's just a feeling is all.

Helian is a good name for you... reminds me of Helium... very light weight.

Gee, didn't pick you as the bitchy type.

So far, you've dredged up apocryphal letters, well known to be written centuries after the time to which they refer... Thought you were better than that.

Do some reading there, girl... Or... maybe you can reconcile the, now almost universally acknowledged, contradictions and errors in the New Testament books.
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #278 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:29pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:18pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:06pm:
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:55pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:32pm:
Sappho wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 3:18pm:
Then how do you account for this letter from Herod to Tiberius?

The question is, how do you account for it?

It is dated from the 6th - 7th centuries CE.


Just saying it is so does not make it so... Your statement is evidential and so needs evidence.

As does yours.

However, even the Vatican does not acknowledge the authenticity of this letter nor many allegedly written by Pilate.

Also no Tetrarch would speak so brazenly towards an Emperor... That would only occur as an apocryphal document written when it was safe to be seen to address a long dead non-Christian Emperor in that manner long after the old Empire had been Christianised and the period 1CE - 3CE widely considered as corrupt and sinful.

It blatantly tries to undo the obvious irreconcilability of Jesus birth circa 4BC and in Bethlehem and his birth just prior to the Census of Quirinius (6CE), spuriously attempting to give historical credence to the Gospels' birth accounts. They should've stuck to St Mark's story.



Even without the religious angle.....we're STILL using 2000+ yr old records, from at least three different cultures (all of which used different calendars and dating systems) to decode what happened...
There's no real guarantee that whoever first aligned the Greek, Roman and Hebrew calendars with our contemporary dating system was actually right on the money.....

Bear in mind the 'original' Roman calendar only had 10 months and 304 days...and was based on the lunar cycle...

No doubt, but there was, without doubt, a 10 year gap between the death of Herod the Great and the Census. Jesus could not have been newborn at both events.

There's an obvious reason why the Gospel writers were so desperate to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, of course (even to the point of fabricating his birth story which does not appear in Mark but in Matthew and Luke which are younger and primarily based on Mark). Messiahship... The Messiah was prophesied to come from the City of David - Bethlehem. Unfortunately for the Gospel writers, Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.


And what is the reason???

Any way you look at it...it's pretty specious to 'worry' about the birth location...
I'm sorry, but how does a religious reference to a birth location affect historical facts???

Don't sweat so much about the 'Gospel'...think more about the historical ideas...It's NOT so much about whether Jesus was 'God's' son....it's about whether Jesus ever lived AT ALL....Yes I understand the ex-catholic, 'I hate the church' concept...because I feel the same way.....that doesn't erase the idea that a man named 'Jesus' did live at the times mentioned....he may not have done the miracles or been the 'son of god'...but he most likely DID life...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 105977
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #279 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:37pm
 
Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 1:12pm:
Bobby. wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 12:08pm:
Lisa,
Quote:
Happy reading. Catch you all .. whenever.


Don't go - now I'll be forced to read through 16 pages
to find your answer to Nail's question.  Cry


There is nothing to read. Lisa just can't admit that the bible is completely wrong when it comes to explaining the origins of the Universe. She has to make stuff up and redefine the meaning of words in order to justify the relevance of her bible and yet science is quite happy to change its ideas and theories as new evidence comes to light. Isn't it ironical how no credible scientist uses the bible as a scientific reference Wink



Are you sure Nail?
Maybe the answer is hidden in there somewhere?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #280 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:38pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
And what is the reason???

The reason? New Testament writers claim that Jesus was the Messiah.

It was of paramount importance to the authors of the Jesus birth story that he had to be born in  Bethlehem - The City of David, which is why all the effort in the NT nativity stories to make sure he was born there.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
Any way you look at it...it's pretty specious to 'worry' about the birth location...
I'm sorry, but how does a religious reference to a birth location affect historical facts???

It's a worry to those ancient Pauline writers who had it in their heads that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
he may not have done the miracles or been the 'son of god'...but he most likely DID life...

Yes, I agree... He probably existed as an historical figure. (I have said so 2 or 3 times above).

Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #281 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:55pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:38pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
And what is the reason???

The reason? New Testament writers claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
It was of paramount importance to the authors of the Jesus birth story that he had to be born in  Bethlehem - The City of David, which is why all the effort in the NT nativity stories to make sure he was born there.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
Any way you look at it...it's pretty specious to 'worry' about the birth location...
I'm sorry, but how does a religious reference to a birth location affect historical facts???

[highlight]It's a worry to those ancient Pauline writers who had it in their heads that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem.[/highlight]gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
he may not have done the miracles or been the 'son of god'...but he most likely DID life...



Yes, I agree... He probably existed as an historical figure. (I have said so 2 or 3 times above).

1) The reason? New Testament writers claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
Yeah but that's a 'political' idea...and not really 'true'


2) [highlight]It's a worry to those ancient Pauline writers who had it in their heads that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem.[/highlight]
And again...it's 'political, not historical...

3) The City of David, which is why all the effort in the NT nativity stories to make sure he was born there.

Well the City of David is (possibly) important to the whole Jesus story...since Jesus WAS(apparently), the Scion of the House of David and therefore the Wearer of the Crown of Israel...

"Yes, I agree... He probably existed as an historical figure. (I have said so 2 or 3 times above)."
Which means that he wasn't the 'Son of God'...but 'may' have been a political opponent of the Roman Regime...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 105977
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #282 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:55pm
 
Helian,
As far as I know there are no Roman records of the existence of Jesus.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #283 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 6:02pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:55pm:
Helian,
As far as I know there are no Roman records of the existence of Jesus.

Correct me if I'm wrong.



Ok, you ARE WRONG....
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/pontius-pilate-faq.htm
http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html

Whether or not you accept the 'Son of God' idea....the MAN Jesus was probably 'REAL'.......according to historical sources....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Is Religion compatible with Evolution?
Reply #284 - Aug 14th, 2011 at 6:03pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:55pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:38pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
And what is the reason???

The reason? New Testament writers claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
It was of paramount importance to the authors of the Jesus birth story that he had to be born in  Bethlehem - The City of David, which is why all the effort in the NT nativity stories to make sure he was born there.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
Any way you look at it...it's pretty specious to 'worry' about the birth location...
I'm sorry, but how does a religious reference to a birth location affect historical facts???

[highlight]It's a worry to those ancient Pauline writers who had it in their heads that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem.[/highlight]gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
he may not have done the miracles or been the 'son of god'...but he most likely DID life...



Yes, I agree... He probably existed as an historical figure. (I have said so 2 or 3 times above).

1) The reason? New Testament writers claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
Yeah but that's a 'political' idea...and not really 'true'


2) [highlight]It's a worry to those ancient Pauline writers who had it in their heads that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem.[/highlight]
And again...it's 'political, not historical...

3) The City of David, which is why all the effort in the NT nativity stories to make sure he was born there.

Well the City of David is (possibly) important to the whole Jesus story...since Jesus WAS(apparently), the Scion of the House of David and therefore the Wearer of the Crown of Israel...

"Yes, I agree... He probably existed as an historical figure. (I have said so 2 or 3 times above)."
Which means that he wasn't the 'Son of God'...but 'may' have been a political opponent of the Roman Regime...

1. Yes, it was political, but was transmogrified into a spiritual status by Pauline Christians

2. Yes, the new Christian movement inherited the idea of Messianism from its direct predecessor Messianic Judaism, but it was considered a spiritual role by Pauline Christians.

3. But as the Gospel of Matthew tells us, Jesus is related to David via Joseph (not Mary), thereby putting paid to his 'seed of David' claim through descent from his father.

4. He may have been an unsuccessful political opponent of Rome who paid for his crime by the harshest known Roman punishment reserved for the worst criminals and insurrectionists - Crucifixion.
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 29
Send Topic Print