On Feb 8, 10:45Â pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
getnet.net>
wrote:> Suzanne wrote:
> | "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
getnet.net> wrote in message
> |news:8v2f75-fp1.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
> | and probably before his 2nd year of age. The wise
> | men knew, according to what the Bible information
> | says they told Herod, to look for a child that was
> | from 1 to 2 years of age.
> |
> The information I have comes direct from the antiquities and history
> department of the University at Tel Aviv, Israel.
Unfortunately this poster has made this claim before, in support of
his claims, but went all abusive when queried. It's almost certainly
bogus.
> BTW,Josephus, the Jewish/Roman historian records Herod and his lineage
> and family. Â Guess what he does not record?
> Herod's order to KILL all the male children under 2.
> Strange how a historian that is quoted regularly by the believers,
> missed that little event, even some 60 years after it was supposed to
> have happened.
>
> He also missed the two very important events in Matthew 27. Â No, not the
> last supper, crucifixion, earthquake and darkness. Â I'm talking about
> inside the temple and what came out of the graves.
>
> Funny how the contemporaries andJosephusfailed to record the walking
> dead. Â Hmmm, must have been so common place, they saw no need to record it.
The insinuated argument here is that nothing can have happened in
antiquity unless it was recorded by Josephus and (unspecified and
probably non-existent) contemporaries. It's a curious argument, but
hardly one that need detain us. People write their books for their
own purposes. Given that 99%% of ancient literature is lost, arguments
from silence of this kind are pretty threadbare once you think about
them.
> Again, archaeologists from the University at Tel Aviv can find NO
> evidence to support the story of the Exodus. Â And they should know, it's
> their story.
Interesting appeal to authority, but note the vagueness. Who,
precisely, is being quoted as an authority?
Isn't this the poster who claimed that a first century copy of
Antiquities existed, on this same 'authority'? (It doesn't, as far as
I know, and he certainly showed no sign of knowing)
> Read the book "The bible unearthed". Â Please. Â
Why on earth would any rational person trust a piece of hate
literature?
> It really does not matter. Â As I stated, I am dissecting the mythology,
> since there are no facts to pick apart.
Certainly none offered by you, anyway.
> |> | Yes, there is evidence. You may not believe that evidence,
> |> | but many of us do, and that is the Bible.
> |>
> |> Then present it, the objective evidence. Â Not opinions, not theology.
> |> Real objective, physical, testable, repeatable evidence.
> |>
> | The evidence I was speaking of is the Bible. Archaeology
> | bears out what the Bible says.
> |
> No it does not. Â See above.
Unfortunately the same demand can be made right back. You made
demands of others; so now produce your position -- conformity to the
values of late 20th century America. Produce objective evidence that
this happens to be correct. Not opinions, not authority -- not vague
appeals to some department of which you know nothing. Real objective,
physical, testable, repeatable evidence.
> Care to try some other? It's a book of mythology, deal with it.
Nonsense. This is a pathetic excuse for a position you can't state or
defend rationally. Deal with it.
> You refuse to see what is right in front of you.
I doubt anyone fails to see a collection of excuses for moral failure.
> Adam and Eve, in the story, and many children, AFTER Cain and Able.
> There is nothing in either the translated text, or the original text to
> doubt that the story does not flow in a linear telling. Â A to B to C to
> D to end. Â A straight line, beginning, middle, end.
> You don't want it to because that upsets your faith in what you want it
> to say.
The person being upset would seem to be you. Your faith in values you
cannot state or defend rationally is strong, it seems.
> ~ The deity loves blood and that is why there is still a blood cult today.
> |
> |> This set forth a very bad precedent in the mythology for thousands of
> |> pages. Â That precedent was carried out of the mythical tales in to the
> |> real world on the swords of the believers. Â They appeased their blood
> |> god by blade and stake, rack and garrote.
> |>
> | You are only speculating.
> |
> No, I am not. Â
Yes you are.
> Read your history. Â The blood god of the bible has been
> used down through the ages to justify the horrors that men do to each
> other with they don't agree on deities.
You mean all the atheists inflicting horrors on Christians now in
China are doing so because Jesus tells them to? Please.
After this, it is no surprise that atheists feel all virtuous when
they inflict injury on believers, is it?
> The Thirty Year war is one massive example. Â Go read about it.
Is that the best you can do? Appeal to something centuries ago? Why
not tell us about your friends Stalin and Hitler. Neither was
Christian. They murdered millions. Your friends are still doing it
NOW. Your hands are stained with innocent blood.
> Sorry to again burst a bubble, but HISTORY tells a different story. Â The
> Catholic Church, which is were the first translations and collections of
> bible stories came from, is the original xitan church. Â Rome became the
> church. Â Prior to that, even the early xtians could not agree on what
> they believed. Â Constantine changed all of that by making xtianity the
> STATE religion. Â Thus began the codification of that religion and the
> beginnings of the RCC.
Wouldn't it be better to learn some history before pontificating so
positively? (What is it about atheists that makes them assert as fact
whatever bit of hearsay they find convenient?)
The modern RCC is not the same as the original Catholic church, since
it has evolved its doctrine during the middle ages. Christianity in
antiquity was never diverse, as the bible and the fathers show.
Constantine legalised Christianity; it was Theodosius who made it
official.
> Again, it's the Jewish book, and I take my information from the Jewish
> historians and archaeologists. Â
Until they say something inconvenient? But of course you have no idea
what Jewish historians and archaeologists say.
> |> I have been told many, MANY times by believers to not take the bible out
> |> of context and that, "Well the original language says this and that".
> |> So, I read the thing, in the original languages, completely.
Really. You're fluent in Hebrew and Greek? I don't think so,
somehow.
> | And what did Moses say when he handed over the Book
> | of Law?
> |
> It does not matter what he said, he was a MYTHICAL character constructed
> to help fill in a story.
(endless repetition snipped)
I notice that this post contains the same sloganising whenever Taylor
has nothing to say. But is incessant repetition of the same words a
rational response?
> | The Bible is essential to telling people what moral
> | guidlines people need, and it is accurate, and has
> | been proved so many times.
> |
> Since when?
Certainly since 1963.
> It doesn't even condemn slavery.
And where precisely do you get your value that slavery is wrong? From
societal values. If society decided it was OK, you'd sneer at
Christians for opposing it.
> Where are the moral guidelines in a book that tells you that you can
> sell your daughter into slavery? Â What morals do you derive from a book
> that teaches you that if your daughter is raped, the rapist pays a fee
> and becomes her husband? Â How can you get a moral sense from a
> collection of myths that tells you that you should be killed for eating
> crab and lobster? Â How can you justify a morality from a book where the
> newest teacher tells people that they must hate their own families in
> order to follow him?
Misrepresentation noted. But where precisely do you get your value
that any of this is wrong? From societal values. If society decided
it was OK, you'd sneer at Christians for opposing it.
> No dear lady, the bible is far FAR from a moral guide to human existence.
Try not to catch AIDS while posturing, hey?
> And I think you willfully refuse to even entertain the possibility that
> you are wrong because you faith can't handle it. Â Just the thought that
> other people existed outside the garden and were NOT under the control
> of a regional blood god, puts a huge kink in the fabric of your faith.
That appears to describe you, not anyone else. If your religious
position wasn't so feeble, you wouldn't have to hide it. But we all
know that nothing whatever can be said for it, which is why your post
consists entirely of vituperation rather than rational argument.
> |> Who ever told you this lied to you. Â Elohim is a descriptive word for
> |> "the gods" Â It is not as you claim a singular pronoun. Â It is a noun. Â A
> |> proper noun describing a thing, in this case, a collection of deities.
> |>
> | Nobody told me this, Karl, I can read. I can look things
> | up and research. It's a fact. Get over it. The Elohim is
> | a plural word that is treated in the text as a single thing.
> |
> And where did you get that from? Â Hebrew linguistics would argue with
> you very hard about that. I know, they did with me.
Then instead of making assertions, you can offer some evidence.
THAT, I think, will be a long time coming.
> Tel Aviv, university, history departments. You are wrong. Â It's their history. Â Do you plan to tell an entire
> people that they got their own history wrong?
This must be about the fourth or fifth repetition of the same vague
appeal to authority. Note the vagueness; note the dishonesty.
Intelligent people rely on evidence and reason, not bogus appeals to
vague authority.
> I have nothing against the bible. Â ....
You have enough against the bible to prowl the internet telling lies
about it.
> You want the thing to be true. Â You need the thing to be true. Â
You want the thing to be false. You need the thing to be false.
> You fail to see that life is for living ...
Which part of 'living' are you doing, while you're sitting online
posting hate about the bible? As if any of us were not 'living'!
What you mean, I imagine, is that there are vices you wish to
indulge. No doubt!
> You can't deal with the fact that life is transient and you only get
> this one shot.
Which makes it peculiarly ironic that you spend it thus.
> How can I say this? Â Because I was there. Â What you see above is the lie
> I lived and you are living. Â There is no after life dear woman. Â
You know this how? Honestly, the lack of self-critical ability in all
this is staggering. This is merely sloganising, of a very
unintelligent kind.
Atheists do have some rational arguments to make for their position.
But these are never deployed. Instead they rely on bombast, like
this.
> And you can deny this all you want, but if you are truly honest with
> yourself you'll know I'm right.
Every other religious position says the same. What makes your
position different?
The only certainty you display is that you find your belief
*convenient*.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
