Mike Shoesmith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVBR3TKjpZg
As you can see, I missed certain items in what can be compared to the Gish Gallop Atheists feel they can accuse Christian Apologists to specialise in. To readers, those here, I try to make up for it by adding comments not in the comboxes in youtube under video. I also insert an afterthought or two.
- Nehemiah Scudder
- So where is your collection of NASA pictures of the Earth being a flat disc with corners, sides and ends. Floating freely on its foundation pillars fixed at the centre of the universe. Exactly which mountain is it that you can stand on to see "all the kingdoms of the world? Where exactly are the storehouses of the snow and hail?
What *evidence can you provide that separates your preferred skybeard form Anoia, Benzeiten, Cronus, Dionysus, Eros, Freya, Geb, Hera, Isis, Jupiter, Kephri Loki, Marduk, Nemesis, Osiris, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Saturn, Tengri, Uller, Vesta, Wadjet, Xanthe, Yakshini, or Zeus. None of whom, I assume, you worship - Mike Shoesmith
- The Bible teaches a spherical planet with four main direction points and established foundational laws of physics. Good grief... learn something! The Bible is a love-letter from God to his children and not understanding it is what atheists get for reading other people's mail.
- Nehemiah Scudder
- +Mike Shoesmith
"The Bible teaches a spherical planet"
Exactly where does this fascinating revelation occur?
Isaiah 40:22 refers to a circle as in a disc, not a sphere. Job 26:10 also refers to a circular horizon.
However what you describe as the four directions are clearly listed as corners as in Isaiah 11:12 , or Revelation 7:1. - Break for Bible study
- Job 26:
10 He hath set bounds about the waters, till light and darkness come to an end.
11 The pillars of heaven tremble, and dread at his beck.
Ver. 10. End. Till the end of the world, the ocean will respect these limits. (Haydock) --- The ancients looked upon it as a continual miracle that the world was not deluged, as the waters are higher than the earth, Jeremias v. 22., and Amos v. 8. (St. Basil and St. Ambrose, Hexem.) (Cicero, Nat. ii.) --- Philosophers have explained this phenomenon. But it is still certain that the power and wisdom of God preserve the equilibrium, without which all would return to the ancient chaos. (Calmet)
Ver. 11. Heaven. The mountains are so styled by Pindar; and the poets represent them supporting the heavens. Totum ferre potest humeris minitantibus orbem. (Petronius) --- Yet others understand that power which keeps all things together, (Calmet) or the angels, to whose rule the ancients attributed the celestial bodies. (St. Gregory; Ven. Bede, &c.
- Isaiah 11:
12 And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four quarters of the earth.
No Haydock comment given on verse 12. But "four quarters" is something other than "four corners". It means "all of".
Isaiah 11 was fulfilled 2000 years ago, nearly. This verse for instance on Pentecost Day.
- Apocalypse 7:
1 After these things, I saw four Angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree.
Ver. 1. I saw four Angels, &c. Though some understand here evil spirits, whom God may make use of as instruments to punish the wicked, yet we may rather, with other interpreters, understand good angels sent from God to guard and protect his faithful servants both from evil spirits and wicked men. (Witham)
Considering how huge earth is, one can consider how huge the four angels are. And from thereon credibility that even huger ones may carry celestial bodies.
As to four corners, one may think of the Four Corners of the Old World, the Afro-Eurasian "supercontinent", namely clearly identifiable in SW as Cape of Good Hope and in NE as some corner of Sakhalin and somewhat more fluent in NW and SE whether the corner is in Great Britain or in Iceland, or even in Scandinavia or Belgium or the other one in Singapore, Australia or between in New Guinea.
Or one can say my Western frontier is too far East and one should instead take the corners of Alaska and Tierra del Fuego.
Atlantic is far narrower than Pacific, which by itself alone nearly covers the "water hemisphere" of the globe.
- Isaiah 40:
22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: *he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Ver. 22. Locusts, compared with the greatest animals. --- Nothing. Hebrew, "a curtain." Septuagint, Syriac, "vault, (Calmet) or chamber," kamaran.
- Job 26:
- Resuming "Nehemiah Scudder's" words
- Note that while there are a selection of "Norths" available (Celestial, Magnetic etc) there is no definite Easternmost, or Westernmost point. Hardly a "corner" if you can just keep going in the same direction.
Add to that the "ends" referred to in Jeremiah 16:19 and Daniel 4:11 [he is referring to 8], and you clearly have a book describing a flat object of indeterminate shape. Further evidence comes from Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?"
Note the use of the word across and not around.
- Break for Bible study
- First Job 38:
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? tell me, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Upon what are its bases grounded? or who laid the corner-stone thereof,
7 When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
Ver. 4. Foundations. The Hebrews placed the earth in the centre of the universe, resting upon nothing, (chap. xxvi. 7., and xxxvi. 30.) or upon itself. See Hesiod, Theog. 325. (Calmet) --- These questions seem intended to shew, that if God has created all things for man, he will not surely neglect to watch over him. (Menochius)
Ver. 5. Upon it. He speaks of the world as of a vast house, (Calmet) or palace, (Menochius) in which the Architect has shewn his art. (Haydock)
Ver. 7. Sons. Septuagint, "all my angels." Hence it appears that the angels were among the first of God's works, formed probably at the same time with the heavens, (Calmet) or light, Genesis i. 3. (Haydock) --- The praise of the stars is figurative, (Calmet) as they tend to raise our hearts to God by their beauty, (Haydock) whereas that of the angels is real. (Calmet)
The word cited in KJV as "across" is cited in DRV as "upon".
As to verse 7, St Thomas Aquinas and I hold it means angels really praising God personally are holding the stars:
En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2014/05/terra-et-astra-secundum-aquinatem-in.html
Quod autem dicuntur astra matutina Deum laudare potest uno modo intelligi materialiter, inquantum scilicet propter sui claritatem et nobilitatem erant materia divinae laudis, etsi non hominibus qui adhuc non erant, saltem Angelis qui iam erant; alio modo secundum illos qui dicunt corpora caelestia animata, astra in suae institutionis initio Deum laudabant non laude vocali sed mentali; quod etiam potest referri ad Angelos quorum ministerio caelestia corpora moventur, ut quod subditur et iubilarent omnes filii Dei referatur ad Angelos supremae hierarchiae, quos Dionysius dicit esse collocatos in vestibulis deitatis: et ideo signanter illis tamquam inferioribus laudem, istis autem tamquam superioribus attribuit iubilationem quae excellentiam quandam laudis importat.
And as to Haydock comment to verse 4, I have nothing against the Geocentrism of the Ancient Hebrews.
- Daniel 4:
8 The tree was great and strong: and the height thereof reached unto heaven: the sight thereof was even to the ends of all the earth.
No comment in Haydock to this verse, but look at chapter heading:
Nabuchodonosor's dream, by which the judgments of God are denounced against him for his pride, is interpreted by Daniel, and verified by the event.
Oh, so, Bible author is not saying in his own words the sight of the tree was to the ends of all the earth? He is only saying a not very bright person, elevated to his "level of incompetence" (Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor) dreamed that?
RIGHT.
Even so, "ends of the earth" may have as reasonable meaning "land's end". The rumour of Nabucco's greatness was perhaps not reaching across the Ocean.
- Jeremiah 16:
19 O Lord, my might, and my strength, and my refuge in the day of tribulation: to thee the Gentiles shall come from the ends of the earth, and shall say: Surely our fathers have possessed lies, a vanity which hath not profited them.
Ver. 19. Them. After the captivity many were converted, Esther viii., and 1 Esdras vi. 21. Edom was forced to receive circumcision. But this was nothing in comparison with the crowds which embraced the gospel.
And indeed, from Finisterrae in Spain, people have turned to God, but not exactly from the Ocean floor ten miles outside Finisterrae. So, St James the Apostle has helped fulfilling these words.
- First Job 38:
- Resuming Nehemiah Scudder's words
- "and not understanding it is what atheists get for reading other people's mail."
So feel free to explain how a "young child" can emigrate to Egypt at least ten years before being born. - sHake zOOLA
- Also, how about when the bible says that bats are a bird?
The bible is a retelling of other myths that existed for hundreds of years prior. The bible is not perfect. It says bats are birds, they are mammals and that the world had a global flood, how do we account for plant life today? It's total nonsense meant to control you. - Zap074
- +Mike Shoesmith 2 Kings 2:23-25 (NKJV): "Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”. So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.Then he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria."
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Nehemiah Scudder ... what evidence I have for Freya, whom, as a Catholic I do not worship?
She was sister of Frey, a k a Yngwe. Son of Niord, Stepson of Odin, ancestor of the Ynglings, the first Swedish dynasty.
For Poseidon? He appeared to "his son" Theseus. And ruined his life by giving him the wish of killing his son Hippolytus.
"Exactly which mountain is it that you can stand on to see "all the kingdoms of the world?"
Satan may well have given some virtual imagery on the mountain, and it might itself have been piece of such imagery, without for that deceiving Our Lord.
His saying to His disciples it was a mountain from which one could see all the kingdoms may have been an accurate description of imagery He knew was unreal.
"Where exactly are the storehouses of the snow and hail?"
Whereever angels find it nice to bring waterdrops so as to observe them making snow flakes, I presume. - sHake zOOLA
- Then he wouldnt have said it.....
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No. The fact that Satan took him there was indication enough it might be unreal. He was a liar from the beginning.
"Also, how about when the bible says that bats are a bird?"
If BIRD means anything with feathers, bats are no birds. If BIRD means anything with wings, they are. Bible used that earlier classification.
"the world had a global flood, how do we account for plant life today"
Trees grew up after the flood, from seeds present since before it. - sHake zOOLA
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl If their were an H20 monolayer across the planet it would not be possible for life to exist.
- Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl "Trees grew up after the flood, from seeds present since before it."
So how long will it take for an olive tree to grow from seed in ground contaminated by salt water enough to sprout leaves? Don't forget that these seeds have supposedly sat under about five miles of water for a year.
And while there was a global flood two more advanced civilizations near the ancient Hebrews were unaffected by the rising water as is shown from pyramid texts of Teti's pyramid, and the cuneiform documentation of the rise of the Akkadian Empire.
[Dealt with saltiness of Flood and dating of "Flood-contemporary" civilisations elsewhere.] - sHake zOOLA
- "bible uses earlier classification." So god didnt know what makes a bird a bird? The perfect word of god is wrong?Or at the very least has changed? But he is unchanging and eternal? what?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Both classification systems have their uses. Neither is wrong in relation to the other, only by mistaking a classification from one of them as being from the other system would one have something wrong.
God knew the classification scientists would make for their purposes, and didn't care. - sHake zOOLA
- So god also knew that doves blood could cure lepers? By the way, lets see if you have read the bible....how many of each animal was Noah told to take on the ark?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- God never said that dove's blood was a cure for lepers, do you take your info from Sceptics Annotated [Bible]?
God said a leper that HAD been cured should be sprinkled with dove's blood before being considered as ritually pure.
Each ANIMAL is one. My cat (once, years ago) was only one, so only one of her could hae gotten on the Ark, if it had been so recently. As it is, two of her ancestors were on the Ark.
Of each KIND of animal, there were different numbers according to whether it could be sacrificed (seven) or not (one couple). Btw, I consider kinds may very well be broader than today's species. Nandus and ostriches are one kind, I would say. For instance.
And the Ark ancestors of my cat may also be ancestors of Lynx cats. - Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
The "Wholly Babble not only incorrectly assumes that the Earth is flat And it incorrectly assumes that there is no difference between avians and mammals, its creation mythologies are also mutually contradictory.
Can you tell me where chickens come from? Here are your options.
Gen1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
Which came first, the Chicken, or the man?
Gen1:20 Chicken Gen1:27 Man
Gen2:7 Man Gen2:19 Chicken
What was made to keep the first man from being alone? I will let you research that one for yourself.
Then you can explain how and why the principal boy in your puerile presuppositional pantomime gets to emigrate to Egypt at least ten years before supposedly being born. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Genesis 1 gives chronological order. Genesis 2 gives order in which Adam saw things. No contradiction. Ground consists of both soil and water.
Then you can explain how and why the principal boy in your puerile presuppositional pantomime gets to emigrate to Egypt at least ten years before supposedly being born.
Nice try, except you give no sources for the alleged contradiction.
The page where I think you might have got your analysis of Bible assuming flat earth:
- is a collection of memes (correct me if I am wrong)
- gives analyses as bright as this one:
"speaks of unicorns and dragons, never mentions dinosaurs"
What if - as Kent Hovind more than once pointed out - the same creature is called dragon in Bible and dinosaur by moderns, behemoth in Bible and dinosaur by moderns, leviathan in Bible and dinosaur by moderns, and for that matter unicorn in Bible and triceratops (a k a dinosaur) by moderns?
The place where you get your arguments is not a very good one if it is "the wholly babble" on Pinterest.
Or a face like God on a painting in Sixtine Chapel:
"Warn humans about bacteria and viruses? nah, I'll just tell them demons cause sickness."
God does warn Israelites very carefully to take only running water as opposed to stagnant ones. Plus a lot of other measures that make perfect sense considering bacteria and viruses exist. Demons are usually relevant for other conditions. Plus can have some role as guardian angels of bacteria and viruses too - I've heard Orthodox say that a sign of the cross over a bacterial culture can kill off the germs. - is a collection of memes (correct me if I am wrong)
- Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Genesis1 states that the fowls of the air were created from the WATERS while Gen2 has them created from the ground.
Genesis1 has all of the animals completed before the assembly of the humans *male and female together
Gen2 has Man first, then all of the animals, and only when none of them was a suitable "help meet for him" did Eve get thrown together from spare parts.
"Nice try, except you give no sources for the alleged contradiction."
It is in a book of plagiarised myths and fairytales called the "Wholly Babble".
Matthew sets his collection of lies, including a detour through Egypt as happening during the reign of Herod. Luke however sets his fantasy at least ten years later when Judaea (but not Galilee) was annexed by Rome when Archelaus was deposed after ten years of rule. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Genesis1 states that the fowls of the air were created from the WATERS while Gen2 has them created from the ground.
And there is no such thing as waters on the ground?
One can also consider it a possibility God created an extra example of each animal before the eyes of Adam, and used the ground for birds too this time.
Genesis1 has all of the animals completed before the assembly of the humans *male and female together
Gen2 has Man first, then all of the animals, and only when none of them was a suitable "help meet for him" did Eve get thrown together from spare parts.
From one part that is not really spare, if you please.
As to animals created between Adam and Eve, either as said they were created before Adam but shown him before creation of Eve, or God created an extra example of each before the eyes of Adam.
Genesis 2 is largely a close up on Day 6 as earlier described.
Matthew sets his collection of lies, including a detour through Egypt as happening during the reign of Herod. Luke however sets his fantasy at least ten years later when Judaea (but not Galilee) was annexed by Rome when Archelaus was deposed after ten years of rule.
You are now presuming the "secular" sources about when Quirinus (was it?) was procurator of Syria are really reliable in saying it was after Herod's time.
If I had been procurator of Syria, had taken some kind of census about a vassal king's principal subjects, and that vassal king started murdering babies, I might want to have the memory of when I was procurator of Syria a bit reschedualled too.
First Century Roman historiography is so much of a mess that for the years of Christ's adult ministry, no Roman contemporary historian exists except the 4 Gospellers. - Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"And there is no such thing as waters on the ground?"
Gen 1 specified the waters as the source for the birds but the ground as the source for the animals. Gen 2 has everything except eve made from the ground.
"One can also consider it a possibility God created an extra example of each animal before the eyes of Adam, and used the ground for birds too this time"
So you are now re-writing the book for your own convenience. Gen 1 has the manufacture on animals concluded before moving on to the next stage. Then it has the humans manufactured together
Gen2 is a far less well planned project, more of an ad-hoc making it up on the fly sort of affair.
"You are now presuming the "secular" sources about when Quirinus (was it?) was procurator of Syria are really reliable in saying it was after Herod's time."
I am not presuming anything. Herod died in 4BC and was succeeded by his sons. Archelaus became Ethnarch of Judaea, and ruled for ten years before being deposed by the Roman Emperor and Judaea being added to the province of Syria. It is a matter of historical record.
"First Century Roman historiography is so much of a mess that for the years of Christ's adult ministry, no Roman contemporary historian exists except the 4 Gospellers."
Philo of Alexandria lived in Jerusalem for most of the time that "Jesus" was supposedly carrying out his miracles. Josephus was active shortly after, and was governor of Galilee for a while. There are in fact over a dozen historians and diarists who were in a position to make notes of any unusual happenings, and yet all were silent. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I am not presuming anything. Herod died in 4BC and was succeeded by his sons. Archelaus became Ethnarch of Judaea, and ruled for ten years before being deposed by the Roman Emperor and Judaea being added to the province of Syria. It is a matter of historical record.
Hm, hm ... Herod was alrady a vassal king.
That is, his part in Syria was not equal to other simple subject of Quirinus, he had some kind of autonomy, but he was not altogether independent.
I had said:
First Century Roman historiography is so much of a mess that for the years of Christ's adult ministry, no Roman contemporary historian exists except the 4 Gospellers.
Now you try to give two answers:
Philo of Alexandria lived in Jerusalem for most of the time that "Jesus" was supposedly carrying out his miracles.
Philo of Alexandria was not a historian. Especially not a contemporary historian. He may qualify as historian due to his comment on Genesis, but that means matters nearly two thousand years before his time - the latest of them.
Josephus was active shortly after, and was governor of Galilee for a while.
Josephus was active as a writer after the Jewish War. After year 70. Btw, he mentions Jesus.
He was born same year Philo died, i e after the Death and Resurrection of Our Lord.
There are in fact over a dozen historians and diarists who were in a position to make notes of any unusual happenings, and yet all were silent.
I have gone through all of the name list. As given through Acharya and presumably in Zeitgeist as well.
My resumé stands: as far as we are concerned with contemporary historians and in the Roman Empire as opposed to Chinese Historians or Historians of Next Generation or Contemporary Students of Older History (Philo did a comment on Genesis, for instance) or Contemporary Complete Non-Historians, the only ones for the time of the Gospel excepting the time of the childhood narratives are the authors of the New Testament, insofar as they were historians rather than commenting on other things (St James commented on morals and Church Practise, and in St Paul the references to Gospel History - as well as to Older History - do not form longer continuous narratives but are always brought up for a reason).
If you have any interest in coming back to me, you can go through what I have written on the subject in these nine blog posts, of which this is the first one:
somewhere else : The Question of Contemporary Evidence
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/03/question-of-contemporary-evidence.html
And here is the list:
A What were the texts? 1) somewhere else : The Question of Contemporary Evidence [link above], 2) No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ..., 3) What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!, 4) 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category, 5) HGL's F.B. writings : Critiques of Testimonium Flavianum, 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on "Contemporary Historians Not Mentioning Jesus" (Answering aekara1987), 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Challenged Again on Testimonium Flavianum,
B How were they transmitted? 1) somewhere else : Laci Green likes strawmen?, 2) Variation on the Scriptoria Game
"somewhere else", "HGL's FB Writings", "Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere" and "Φιλολoγικά/Philologica" are not post titles, but names of my several blogs on which I straddled this double series.
Now, Genesis 2:
19 And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature, the same is its name.
Note two things:
- "having formed" means God had already done so before bringing them to Adam, and the text gives a verb form not indicating that God did this forming after creating Adam, i e not indicating continuous narratvie. Hebrew here probably has a perfect form - both used for continuous narrative AND as pluperfect.
- Genesis 2:19 gives "ground" for both birds and land animals, Genesis 1 distinguishes "water" from "earth" as to their origins. Both water and earth in question are "on the ground" as oppsed to "high up in the clouds".
Supposed contradiction resolved. As it has been done over and over again, but your set as a collective never learns, even if some individuals of you do. - "having formed" means God had already done so before bringing them to Adam, and the text gives a verb form not indicating that God did this forming after creating Adam, i e not indicating continuous narratvie. Hebrew here probably has a perfect form - both used for continuous narrative AND as pluperfect.
- Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
- " "having formed" means God had already done so before bringing them to Adam,"
That is all very well, but the more accurate translation would be that used in the KJV
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Note the use of the simple past tense that matches the Septuagint and the original Hebrew text. not the pluperfect as is asserted by dishonest "translations" procured by apologists who seek to obfuscate the contradictions.
Genesis2 has the supposed creator decide to make "an help meet for man" and he then assembles and names ANIMALS.
Eve only gets built after the omnipotent and omniscient deity ... [gross idiocy about an unfallen man deleted] - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You call translations using the pluperfect dishonest.
In Hebrew there is a simple past and a continuous past, and the simple past is also used for - pluperfect.
Same case with Arabic language, btw.
That an Omnipotent and Omniscient God could enjoy poking fun at Adam about the helpmate is of course beyond you. Which makes Kent Hovind, Protestant though he be (and he used the KJV he recommends and you recommend and concluded God made extra examples of each non-aquatic creature kind, so Adam could verify He was the Creator), a somewhat more intelligent person than you. - Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Firstly I do not recommend the KJV I do not recommend that anybody poison their minds with primitive superstition, or limit their thought processes to remain within the constraints of bronze age ideologies.
I am however aware that the KJV has a more accurate translation into English of the original texts used by a bunch of howling savages to justify their genocide misogyny, and child-raping activities.
For a better insight into what the original Hebrew texts stated I use the Septuagint, which was the original Hebrew texts translated into Greek after the conquest of the Hebrews by Alexander of Macedonia, when the Hebrew "scholars" realised that the Greek language was superior to their own, especially when it came to the written language as Hebrew had _no vowel letters, and a primitive use of sequence to indicate the various uses of different past tenses.
Kent Hovind, like all Christian dominionists, apologists, and "liars for christ" makes shit up on the spur of the moment. He has no EVIDENCE for his assertion, he merely makes a blank statement in order to try to obfuscate the issue.
Incidentally the two myths refer to the deity doing the creating in different ways as well.
In the first myth the creating is done by the "Elohim" (the sons of El) while the second of the contradictory myths has it all done by "JHWH Elohim" (JHWH of the sons of El) So "Who's the Daddy?" - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Why would you be aware that KJV is more accurate than DRV (Douai-Reims according to modern spelling of the cities, or Douay-Rheims as in name of the version)?
What is the exact reason an Atheist purporting to be neither Anglican nor Catholic would prefer the Anglican scholarship over the Catholic? Is it that Western Atheism (not to be lightly confused with other atheistic schools of thought) is a radical Protestantism?
So you claim the Septuagint here has an Aorist Indicative - meaning consecute narrative - rather than an Aorist Participle, meaning previous action, as DRV translated it?
[About Hovind] I am not sure if you have heard about CONJECTURE.
It means making an explanation up "on the spur of the moment" without having as yet any evidence for it.
That a conjecture is only a conjecture and has no evidence is not a refutation of its being possible.
Elohim does NOT mean "sons of El", that would be recent para-Jewish occult disinformation. Elohim means God. Adonay Elohim means The Lord God. - Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"What is the exact reason an Atheist purporting to be neither Anglican nor Catholic would prefer the Anglican scholarship over the Catholic?"
I couldn't give a monkeys about which of the over 42,000 versions of the Christian myth the translator followed, the producers of the KJV were better scholars and translators than those who produced the DRV.
"Is it that Western Atheism (not to be lightly confused with other atheistic schools of thought) is a radical Protestantism?"
There is a very subtle clue in the word Atheist.
It derives from the Greek α θεος, meaning "without gods". Protestantism is one of the 42,000 different denominations, persuasions, movements, communities, schisms, sects, orders and cults within the Christian religion, meaning that they follow the same imaginary friend that all of the other Christians do, even while killing (or being killed by0 the different Christians.
"So you claim the Septuagint here has an Aorist Indicative - meaning consecute narrative - rather than an Aorist Participle, meaning previous action, as DRV translated it?"
Why don't you tell me which it is
18Καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός Οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον· ποιήσωμεν αὐτῷ βοηθὸν κατ᾽ αὐτόν.
19καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς ἔτι ἐκ τῆς γῆς πάντα τὰ θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ καὶ πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὰ πρὸς τὸν Αδαμ ἰδεῖν, τί καλέσει αὐτά, καὶ πᾶν, ὃ ἐὰν ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ Αδαμ ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, τοῦτο ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.
Or can't you read ancient Greek and are merely parroting the obfuscations that are touted from time to time by various "liars for christ"
"I am not sure if you have heard about CONJECTURE.
It means making an explanation up "on the spur of the moment" without having as yet any evidence for it."
As you did when you conjectured that Hebrew probably has a perfect form
Now let me give you another contradiction.
According to the two contradictory nativity myths the principal boy in your pantomime managed to emigrate to Egypt at least ten years before being born - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- the producers of the KJV were better scholars and translators than those who produced the DRV.
I was precisly saying that you were preferring Anglican scholarship over Catholic. And I was precisely wondering at it due to your already having stated a thing like:
I couldn't give a monkeys about which of the over 42,000 versions of the Christian myth the translator followed
Now, to your next one:
Protestantism is one of the 42,000 different denominations, persuasions, movements, communities, schisms, sects, orders and cults within the Christian religion
Two faults. Protestantism is not ONE of them, it is an umbrella term for nearly all of them. The remaining ones are Roman Catholics, nearly half of all Christians or more (unless we get into who of them are Catholic no more), and the largest body outside RC Church is not Protestant either, but is often referred to as Greek Orthodox, and has about fifty versions - usually national and sometimes two rivalling factions within same nation, like recently Russian Orthodox loyal to Moscow rivalled with ROCOR. Take away these fifty bodies (or fiftyfive, if you count how RC disagree on who is Pope - perhaps one could count even twenty, so take away 70) and the rest of the bodies are ALL OF THEM Protestants.
[The remaining ones - I was going to enumerate RC, EO, Monophysite and Nestorian]
Then you said it was only WITHIN the Christian religion. Catholics do not quite agree Protestants are remaining within the Christian religion. Which means that it was not the very subtle hint in the word Atheist I missed, but an even subtler hint in the word Protestant - it refers to Protesting against the Catholic Church, and you Western Atheists are still largely doing so. You must be VERY subtle indeed to find a word about remaining Christian in the word Protestant.
So, I have still heard no valid foundation for your claim that King James version of 1611 was made by better scholarship than Rheims NT of 1582 or Douay OT of 1609. This is now about the GENERAL merit of the two versions, will presently get to the passage.
I have to agree that the text you cited has eplasen which is indeed Aorist indicative.
However, Septuagint is not only old translation of Hebrew text. DRV seems to be based on Vulgate:
Formatis igitur Dominus Deus de humo cunctis animantibus terrae, et universis volatilibus caeli, adduxit ea ad Adam, ut videret quid vocaret ea: omne enim quod vocavit Adam animae viventis, ipsum est nomen ejus.
[My translation:] "Then the Lord God, all animals of earth having been formed out of the soil, all flying things of heaven too, brought them to Adam ..."
So, St Jerome seems to have disagreed with Septuagint and taken the Hebrew perfect in another sense - as denoting previous action. Had he translated into Greek, he would have taken the ford form into active aorist participle, eplasas (the form that your Septuagint text has not, it has instead eplasen, which is indicative). Since Latin lacks an active past participle, he used the passive past participle about the creatures.
One point in your favour - humus means soil. However, the Vulgate says the animals of the earth were formed of the soil, and gives another phrase, a bit tacked on, about the birds, which were certainly formed, but it does not specify out of the soil.
As you did when you conjectured that Hebrew probably has a perfect form
I never said probably about Hebrew having as a language a perfect form. I conjectured Hebrew text had a perfect form there - both the Septuagint version you gave and the Vulgate confirm that conjecture.
If you have in Hebrew perfect of "to form" (don't ask me what that is in Hebrew!) and the "ve/we" (meaning literally "and"), Greek could translate it two ways. "Eplasen ... kai ..." . And "Eplasas ... "
Like St Jerome, I conjecture that "eplasas" would be the better translation into Greek (is there no LXX manuscript which has eplasas?) from context. As to what St Jerome thought, it is obvious from his translation, he used an ablative absolute, as I explained (without calling it so).
BUT if we read as you cited the LXX, and do not invoke a looser use of the phrase context for second half, the explanation is given by a conjecture of Hovind: God created an extra example before the eyes of Adam. Not in immediate vicinity, since after doing so he brings them closer to Adam. But still, so Adam has no reason to doubt.
So, in that case each kind of animal would have been created more than once, and the bird kinds and insect kinds - it is winged creatures rather than birds - were created once on day five from water and once over again on day six from the soil in Paradise.
God could have done that, no problem. And no contradiction.
According to the two contradictory nativity myths the principal boy in your pantomime managed to emigrate to Egypt at least ten years before being born
I have already answered that allegation, get back through the thread if you have nothing new to add. - Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I have already answered that allegation,"
You answered NOTHING, you simply made up some apologetics shit
[which "Nehemiah Scudder" didn't bother to fact check?]
"Hm, hm ... Herod was alrady a vassal king."
Herod was a king who was client to the Roman Empire, however the people of his kingdom were not subject to direct Roman rule of taxation. The first census of the population of Judaea occurred as a result of Archelaus being deposed and Judaea becoming a district of the province of Syria. This didn't happen until ten years after the death of Herod. And the census organised by Quirinius didn't apply to people living in Galilee, which didn't come under Roman taxation until AD37.
"Philo of Alexandria was not a historian. Especially not a contemporary historian."
Philo of Alexandria was a diarist who kept meticulous records of everyday life and events. He was actually living in Jerusalem at the time Pilate was governor of Judaea, and a man who will give a long and detailed review of how the music affected different members of the audience at a performance of a play by Euripides, is not going to ignore eclipses, earthquakes and a zombie apocalypse when the opportunity arises. In fact his silence on these matters speaks volumes.
"Josephus was active as a writer after the Jewish War. After year 70. Btw, he mentions Jesus."
Josephus was the commanding general for the Jewish forces in Galilee during the Jewish revolt and during that conflict neither he nor his Roman counterpart made any mention of a place called Nazareth even though it stands over the graveyard of the village of Japha.Interestingly enough when Herod Antipas founded a new city no Jews would live there because it was built on the site of old graves. This lack of any mention even of the "unclean" status of Nazareths synagogue is the best indication that Nazareth wasn't built until some time later.
And incidentally, the "Testimonium Flavinium" is a known forgery, inserted by, or on behalf of Bishop Eusebius. The content does not match Josephus' writing style, it breaks the natural progression of the narrative, and the following paragraph makes no sense until the "Testimonium" is removed allowing the paragraph to flow naturally from the one before the insertion.
Also the "Testimonium" appears to have been invisible to the Christian apologists that preceded Eusebius.
[It seems one of them only used Josephus and implicitly denied TF: Origen. Or, if there are more, "Nehemiah Scudder" does not list them.]
Both the Roman bureaucracies and the Jewish temple authorities kept records of all kinds of trivial details, and were there any truth in the location of Nazareth the religious authorities would have been as forthright in their comments as they were with the statues of the Roman emperors, or the desecration of graves in Tiberias, and the sales of sacrificial animals for ritual cleansing and purification after the crucifixion would have gone through the roof. Having dead people wandering the streets is just so unhygenic, and the average first century Jew was a bit fussy about having dead people wandering through the shops and markets making the place look untidy. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ver. 1. By the whole world, is understood the Roman empire. (Witham) --- This decree was promulgated in the 752nd year of Rome, in the 3970th year of the world, and the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus, when there was universal peace, and the temple of Janus remained shut for 12 years. (Jansenius, concord. Evan.) --- It was the custom among the Jews to be numbered according to their tribes and families. Hence arose the necessity of the journey of the Holy Family to Nazareth [to Bethlehem?]. This enrolment probably included the number, as well as the property of each family, that the taxes might be proportioned. (Jansenius, concord. Evan.)
Ver. 2. By Cyrinus, or Publius Sucp. Quirinus. (Witham) --- This was the first census made by Quirinus, governor of Syria: nine years after the birth of Christ, this same Quirinus was charged to make a second, when Judea was reduced to a Roman province, by the deposition and exile of Archelaus.
"Herod was a king who was client to the Roman Empire, however the people of his kingdom were not subject to direct Roman rule of taxation."
Your source of that being?
Not meaning modern study, but what ancient historian is that based on?
"The first census of the population of Judaea occurred as a result of Archelaus being deposed and Judaea becoming a district of the province of Syria. This didn't happen until ten years after the death of Herod."
As I just quoted Haydock comment, what you refer to was the SECOND census.
"And the census organised by Quirinius didn't apply to people living in Galilee, which didn't come under Roman taxation until AD37."
1) source among ancients again?
2) even if true, St Joseph was a Jew residing in Galilee, not strictly speaking a Galilean. Being proud of his Davidic ancestry he would have taken the census according to his being a Jew with roots in Bethlehem, even if no one else had done so in Galilee.
"and a man who will give a long and detailed review of how the music affected different members of the audience at a performance of a play by Euripides, is not going to ignore eclipses, earthquakes and a zombie apocalypse when the opportunity arises. In fact his silence on these matters speaks volumes."
Except it is equivocal.
Was he silent because nothing happened? Or because he did not want to be involved?
And, btw, what exact works of his include the diaries like these?
Here is one list:
ECW : The Works of Philo Judaeus
The contemporary of Josephus, translated from the Greek
By Charles Duke Yonge
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/
Here is another one:
Wikipedia : Philo's Works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo's_works
I would say his comment about how the music affected the audience can be from a rarely contemporary work or can be an illustration taken from his autobiography but inserted into his works on other matters, like something on Abraham or Noah.
As to his contemporary work, about the embassy to Gaius, it is only preserved in fragments.
"Josephus was the commanding general for the Jewish forces in Galilee during the Jewish revolt and during that conflict neither he nor his Roman counterpart made any mention of a place called Nazareth even though it stands over the graveyard of the village of Japha.Interestingly enough when Herod Antipas founded a new city no Jews would live there because it was built on the site of old graves. This lack of any mention even of the "unclean" status of Nazareths synagogue is the best indication that Nazareth wasn't built until some time later."
Not mentioning Nazareth as such can mean two things - he mentioned it by another name, or not at all. Either thing could be a tactic if he wanted to avoid references then and there to Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.
"And incidentally, the "Testimonium Flavinium" is a known forgery, inserted by, or on behalf of Bishop Eusebius. The content does not match Josephus' writing style, it breaks the natural progression of the narrative, and the following paragraph makes no sense until the "Testimonium" is removed allowing the paragraph to flow naturally from the one before the insertion.
Also the "Testimonium" appears to have been invisible to the Christian apologists that preceded Eusebius."
Known forgery is exaggerated. I have dealt with the forgery allegation already, more than once, actually.
"Both the Roman bureaucracies and the Jewish temple authorities kept records of all kinds of trivial details, and were there any truth in the location of Nazareth the religious authorities would have been as forthright in their comments as they were with the statues of the Roman emperors, or the desecration of graves in Tiberias, and the sales of sacrificial animals for ritual cleansing and purification after the crucifixion would have gone through the roof. Having dead people wandering the streets is just so unhygenic, and the average first century Jew was a bit fussy about having dead people wandering through the shops and markets making the place look untidy."
You still believe the fairy tale we have direct access to the records of the Roman bureaucracies and Jewish temple authorities. Some information we have comes from there - in selections.- Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"As I just quoted Haydock comment, what you refer to was the SECOND census."
How many American citizens still pay their taxes to King George III?
How many German citizens pay tax to the USA as a result of America defeating Germany in WWII?
The first census ordered by Augustus was of the territory that he had just added to the Roman republic. It was a census of the population of Egypt It did not include the populations of Russia, Britain, India, or China, because, just like Judaea, they were not Roman provinces.
When Judaea was added to the Roman posessions it became necessary to carry out a head count of the people living in the newly acquired district not the entire populations of Galilee, Britannia, Russia, India, China, and MesoAmerica.
"Not mentioning Nazareth as such can mean two things - he mentioned it by another name, or not at all. Either thing could be a tactic if he wanted to avoid references then and there to Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews."
And what excuse are you going to invent for the Roman general Trajan not mentioning a town full of Jews in the middle of his encampments around Japha. Jews who would most likely have been sympathetic towards those that he was besieging.
Both Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington made lengthy comments on the Hougoumont farmhouse and its influence on the outcome of the battle of Waterloo. If one building can attract that much attention in a battle that lasted for one day, how many comments should a town accrue during a short but bloody siege of a fortified town on whose graveyard it stood.
"Known forgery is exaggerated. I have dealt with the forgery allegation already, more than once, actually."
So let us take a quick look at how you supposedly deal with the question of the legitimacy of the "Testimonium"
First of all, it is noticeably out of context with the surrounding material.
Which the writer conveniently enough does not quote
[What writer is he referring to? Me and my links on TF? Did he not get I had written them?]
Easily solved
2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews[8] were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.
So now you have the words in their correct context, aren't i kind to you.
If you look at the original Greek text, the phrase ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής is used. It translates to do "for he was a doer of wonderful works". The "doer" term is ποιητής. However, this is the only time that Josephus uses this word in this way. Elsewhere in Josephus, it means "poet"
[While looking up the Greek, in this comment of "Nehemiah Scudder", it strikes me that the word for "wonderful" os "paradoxos" ... paradoxical, enigmatic, mind boggling ... un-orthodox? contradictory? - Josephus may have been in two minds or even critical of Our Lord when writing that!]
Also Origen had access to the Antiquities while writing his work "Contra Celsus" and yet makes no mention of this paragraph. In fact in chapter 25 of Contra Celsus, Origen openly affirms that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus at all, let alone as the messiah, or a worker of miracles.
"You still believe the fairy tale we have direct access to the records of the Roman bureaucracies"
We have access to all sorts of trivial information from all sorts of sources. And a set of events that include a solar eclipse at the time of a full moon, a large earthquake and a zombie invasion would get noticed and recorded, and something would survive. There was no report of a successful nuclear strike on Washington carried out by ISIS yesterday. Was that because the US government was too embarrassed to admit it, as you postulate for the absence of commentary on your fictitious character, or perhaps it could be because it never happened. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- How many American citizens still pay their taxes to King George III?
Some Anglican parishes have actually paid a tax in pepper grains to Elisabeth II. But apart from that the parallel won't do. George III was beaten by the other George precisely OVER taxation.
How many German citizens pay tax to the USA as a result of America defeating Germany in WWII?
If giving land to American troops inside Germany counts as a tax to USA, I would say pretty many.
The first census ordered by Augustus was of the territory that he had just added to the Roman republic. It was a census of the population of Egypt It did not include the populations of Russia, Britain, India, or China, because, just like Judaea, they were not Roman provinces.
What exact ancient source do you have for that statement?
When the text says "the whole world" I suppose it means "the whole ecumene".
Egypt was added (or added back) to Rome after Actium. But Judaea was made a nominal ally and real vassal by Pompey, 60 B. Chr.
That is not exactly like China or Russia, let alone Meso-America.
And what excuse are you going to invent for the Roman general Trajan not mentioning a town full of Jews in the middle of his encampments around Japha. Jews who would most likely have been sympathetic towards those that he was besieging.
Where exactly do you find Trajans collected writings?
Both Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington made lengthy comments on the Hougoumont farmhouse and its influence on the outcome of the battle of Waterloo.
I know we have at least some writings preserved by Napoleon in archives, since a Military Historian had access to his notes. Possibly we even have published notes by Napoleon, I am not sure, I am more into Ancient and Medieval documentation and more on the Latin than the Greek side.
Now, if Trajan wrote accounts of it all in Greek and that is preserved, you would actually be stumping me, since I can only speak with so much assurance for Latin. But if he did, why has my Greek professor not mentioned it? He knew there were Christians in the class.
The "doer" term is ποιητής. However, this is the only time that Josephus uses this word in this way. Elsewhere in Josephus, it means "poet"
If you just say ποιητής, it means poet. If you say it with the genitive of something like an act or a work, it means "doer" or "maker". If you look at all the examples in Josephus of ποιητής meaning poet, I presume it is either with no genitive, or with a genitive referring to a poem.
If you think 4 talking about other calamities to the Jews makes more sense if 3 about Jesus is taken away, you miss that Jews regarded - and still regard - Jesus and Christianity as a calamity.
Also Origen had access to the Antiquities while writing his work "Contra Celsus" and yet makes no mention of this paragraph. In fact in chapter 25 of Contra Celsus, Origen openly affirms that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus at all, let alone as the messiah, or a worker of miracles.
He might have done a sloppy reading, or he might have had a manuscript doctored by Jews omitting that paragraph. Such versions exist.
[You still believe the fairy tale we have direct access to the records of the Roman bureaucracies]
We have access to all sorts of trivial information from all sorts of sources.
Sure, but not to any great percentage of the sources available back then.
Archives we have not. Information from them we have by selections of historians who had access to them. Which [access to archives] we have not.
And a set of events that include a solar eclipse at the time of a full moon, a large earthquake and a zombie invasion would get noticed and recorded, and something would survive.
As to solar eclipse during full moon, we have Dionysius of the Areopagus - which antichristian scholars have declared as fraudulent as they did with the Gospels.
There was no report of a successful nuclear strike on Washington carried out by ISIS yesterday. Was that because the US government was too embarrassed to admit it, as you postulate for the absence of commentary on your fictitious character, or perhaps it could be because it never happened.
Not a parallel. We are discussing whether a purported report is genuine, so in our case something has survived. In our case the question is not "why has nothing survived" but "why has nothing ELSE survived".
When events spell out in BIG letters "Jesus is Christ and King and God", these events will tend to be ignored by those who refuse to make that conclusion.
If we get back to your parallel, I agree ISIS did not strike Washington yesterday. But why is no one making a fake report on it?
Perhaps because Washington is still standing and the guy would be too easily refuted? Why was no one refuting St Matthew back then? Why were the later three Gospels silent about details?
My take is non-Christians denied what they had seen themselves and called Christians mad for not denying it. So Mark and Luke and John had to omit stuff to give Christians a break.
Nevertheless, it happened and we know it through the testimony of St Matthew who was accepted as writing a genuine account by the Church the next year or next few years just after events.
On your terms the solution would be Matthew did not write the Gospel. Does that give an explanation? No. If the Gospel of St Matthew came only later, how did it come to be accepted by Christians as a contemporary account by an eywitness? - Nehemiah Scudder
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If giving land to American troops inside Germany counts as a tax to USA, I would say pretty many."
Does that involve them going to the USA and putting their name on a census form held by the IRS?
Does that involve them having an entry on their monthly wages slip?
Ceding bases to America renders Germany a "client kingdom" but until America removes Angela Merkel from office, takes over the running of the German government and its foreign policy, Germany will not be at the state Judaea entered in AD6 and Galilee in AD37. At that point German citizens will be counted in a census run by America and will pay taxes to America.
"Where exactly do you find Trajans collected writings?"
When Trajan besieged Japha the defences had been improved by Josephus at his own personal expense making it highly resistant to a long siege so Trajan enticed the defenders in to launching an attack on himself, and then counter-atttacked trapping most of the Jewish defenders between the inner and outer defences. Trajan then sent a message to Vespasian asking him to send his son Titus to complete the victory he had just won.(currying favour with the boss) And after the battle was over he sent a full account including lists of his own and the enemy's casualties and the number of slaves taken.
"As to solar eclipse during full moon, we have Dionysius of the Areopagus - which antichristian scholars have declared as fraudulent as they did with the Gospels."
Do you actually know what causes a solar eclipse?
A Solar eclipse occurs when the moon comes between the Earth and the Sun.
Do you know what a full moon is?
It is when the suns light reflects back to the Earth from the entire hemisphere of the moon, meaning that the moon is on the opposite side of the earth to the Sun.
All solar eclipses occur during a *NEW moon and they cannot occur at any other time.
"Not a parallel. We are discussing whether a purported report is genuine,"
Exactly parallel. There was no offficial report of Washingtons destruction in a nuclear attack for the same reason as the Roman governor of Judaea did not report mass hysteria arising from eclipses earthquakes and Zombie invasions.
IT NEVER HAPPENED
"Nevertheless, it happened and we know it through the testimony of St Matthew who was accepted as writing a genuine account by the Church the next year or next few years just after events."
Nice assertion, try this for size.
Nevertheless, it happened and we know it through the testimony of Joseph Smith who was accepted as writing a genuine account by the Church of the Latter Day Saints the next year or next few years just after events.
How does that work for you? I can load any religious nutjob and his religion and the statement will neither gain nor lose credibility Try Ron Hubbard, or David Koresh, or even Charles Manson
[David Koresh and Ron Hubbard did not persuade anyone about miraculous events supposed to have happened before their eyes either.]
"On your terms the solution would be Matthew did not write the Gospel."
I accept that somebody called Matthew wrote the book, just as I accept that J. K. Rowling wrote the accounts of the life and times of Harry Potter (The boy who lived!)
And I accept that both accounts are made up stories.
Matthew 1:23 is based on a lie.
Matthew 2:5-6 is based on a lie.
Matthew 2:15 is based on a lie.
Matthew 2:17-18 is based on a lie.
Matthew 2:23 is a complete lie.
The authors of the gospels have as much honesty and integrity as Joseph Smith had, and the bible is no more true or relevant than the book of Mormon. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Does that involve them going to the USA and putting their name on a census form held by the IRS?"
No, since they put it into a census form in Germany.
St Joseph also did not go to Rome, but to Bethlehem.
"Does that involve them having an entry on their monthly wages slip?"
Certainly they have entries for taxes paid in Germany on the monthly wages slip.
By the way, St Joseph was a self employed carpenter as far as one can tell. Not a wage earner.
"Ceding bases to America renders Germany a "client kingdom" but until America removes Angela Merkel from office, takes over the running of the German government and its foreign policy, Germany will not be at the state Judaea entered in AD6 and Galilee in AD37. At that point German citizens will be counted in a census run by America and will pay taxes to America."
Now, the parallel to the first census might be closer if US had forced Germany, previously untaxed, to introduce taxation in order to get the bases.
Israel in Mosaic legislation had no taxes, except the tithe to the Temple. Rome may for instance have forced Herod to some kind of census "just in case" or Rome might have wanted some other kind of census than precisely tax related, immediately.
"When Trajan besieged Japha the defences had been improved by Josephus at his own personal expense making it highly resistant to a long siege so Trajan enticed the defenders in to launching an attack on himself, and then counter-atttacked trapping most of the Jewish defenders between the inner and outer defences. Trajan then sent a message to Vespasian asking him to send his son Titus to complete the victory he had just won.(currying favour with the boss) And after the battle was over he sent a full account including lists of his own and the enemy's casualties and the number of slaves taken."
Trajan sent a full account. Sure.
We do not have it. We have a quotation from it in Josephus, possibly, but if so we have Josephus' version of Trajan's account, not Trajan's original version.
"Do you actually know what causes a solar eclipse?
"A Solar eclipse occurs when the moon comes between the Earth and the Sun.
"Do you know what a full moon is?
"It is when the suns light reflects back to the Earth from the entire hemisphere of the moon, meaning that the moon is on the opposite side of the earth to the Sun.
"All solar eclipses occur during a *NEW moon and they cannot occur at any other time."
I said "as to solar eclipse during full moon" not "there was a solar eclipse during full moon". You were the one chosing the word "solar eclipse". I was referring back to your wording.
Dionysius of the Areopagus, who later converted because of St Paul, also knew that natural solar eclipses never occur during full moon. He knew from there that a miracle had happened. Later, when hearing St Paul, he came to undestand why.
"Exactly parallel. There was no official report of Washingtons destruction in a nuclear attack for the same reason as the Roman governor of Judaea did not report mass hysteria arising from eclipses earthquakes and Zombie invasions.
"IT NEVER HAPPENED"
As said, Washington not only had no official report, but also had no fake report. So, not a parallel.
That "IT NEVER HAPPENED" is always the only real reason why there are no official reports, note well, that have survived to us via the filtering of the real prime sources, through authors' that have been actually copied rather than lost, is to be very credulous about the honesty of officials.
"Nevertheless, it happened and we know it through the testimony of Joseph Smith who was accepted as writing a genuine account by the Church of the Latter Day Saints the next year or next few years just after events."
I can buy Joseph Smith saw Moroni. I just don't buy Moroni was an angel from God.
When Joseph Smith saw Moroni, no one else did.
Any Mormon believing him was believing him when he said "I saw Moroni". Just as any early Muslim believing Mohammed was believing Mohammed saying "I saw Jibreel". But an early Christian believing St Matthew's Gospel would not have been believing St Matthew saying "I saw an earth quake and etc." he would have been believing him saying "we all saw an earthquake and so and so many saw prophets rise again from the dead." How would that work if Matthew had made it up? Joseph Smith and Mohammed are just no parallels.
After that I will actually ignore the rest of your message till you have answered this logically rather important point. - Nehemiah Scudder (Answer deleted? I can'r find it?)
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Now, the parallel to the first census might be closer if US had forced Germany, previously untaxed, to introduce taxation in order to get the bases."
Are you really as pig ignorant as you are portraying yourself to be or is it that the truth has no meaning to you only that you and everybody else cease all logical thought processes and become sheep to be fleeced? Are you one of those idiots like William Jennings Bryan who declare that "If the bible stated that Jonah swallowed the whale I would believe it "
Prior to 4BC The people of Judaea and Galilee paid their taxes to Herod. Between 4BC and AD6 the people of Judaea paid their taxes to Archelaus, and after then to Rome. After 4BC and before AD37 the people of Galilee paid their taxes to Herod Antipas and after then to Rome. Between AD6 and AD37 what sort of dickhead would voluntarily pay taxes to a Roman neighbour as well as the taxes he was required to pay at home? Certainly no first century Jew would.
"As said, Washington not only had no official report, but also had no fake report. So, not a parallel."
OK prove that there is no platform nine and three quarters at Kings Cross station in London. I have seen Harry and Ron go through the gateway.
"I can buy Joseph Smith saw Moroni. I just don't buy Moroni was an angel from God.
When Joseph Smith saw Moroni, no one else did."
The reason no one else saw Moroni is because he was an angel of the lord. proving that you are wrong.
Well it was good enough for you to pull the "It's a miracle" deus ex machina to obfuscate Mattys lie, so I will do the same to you. Although I notice you ignored the list of other lies by Matty. What shit do you intend to pull out of your arse to try to obfuscate those?
I will tell you what since you are not willing to debate honestly I will simply declare the according to the Avestas
"*ONLY AHURA-MAZDA IS WORTHY OF WORSHIP*"
And walk away from you. - HGL (unpublished answer)
Tried to publish but couldn't: - Prior to 4BC The people of Judaea and Galilee paid their taxes to Herod.
And as they had been a vassal state to Rome since 60BC, Rome was already interested in how much tax to get later. Though very possibly it was not formulated like that.
As said, Washington not only had no official report, but also had no fake report. So, not a parallel.
OK prove that there is no platform nine and three quarters at Kings Cross station in London. I have seen Harry and Ron go through the gateway.
That also counts as no fake report, since everyone knows from the start platform nine and three quarters is fiction meant to entertain.
The reason no one else saw Moroni is because he was an angel of the lord. proving that you are wrong.
I believe the real revelations from Our Lord, if not each singly, at least cumulatively, unlike Moroni and Jibreel, are witnessed by many different persons.
You gave an explanation instead of a proof.
I was not giving a refutation of possibility which would be answered by an explanation, but a refutation of knowability, which would be answered by a proof.
Well it was good enough for you to pull the "It's a miracle" deus ex machina to obfuscate Mattys lie, so I will do the same to you.
A miracle is a perfect explanation. I am not saying Mohammed and Joseph Smith COULD NOT have been visited by angels of the Lord. I am saying their separate revelations were in fact NOT VERIFIED by others. Therein very unlike St Matthew's account for what happened at Crucifixion.
Although I notice you ignored the list of other lies by Matty.
You have still not answered my main objection to your calling St Matthew's account of Crucifixion a lie. He was telling his first audience what they could verify from their own memories. Very unlike Mohammed and JSmith. [Or, for that matter, Zoroaster]
