XXXXXX

124 results
1
2
3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#101 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]
It's certainily greater than random Gamespot poster.
Devil-Itachi

I presented evidence for my proposition. you did not provide evidence for your assertion of a post-70 AD date.

Um..no you didn't, you said some stuff. If I assumed it was all true then it would hold water but since I did not. You provided no evidence.

actually yes I did. Acts was written after all the synoptic Gospels were written, that's a fact. Acts' omission of the death of Peter and paul is very strong evidence that the author did not know about it, which means that this had to have been written before Peter and Paul died in 64 AD.

How is that evidence that the others were written before Peter and Paul died?

certainly you know what the "synotpic problem" is right?

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] 1: in history, eye-witnesses are the best we got. 2: the qu'ran was written by one person. 3: the traditions about eye-witnesses in the hadiths date to several decades after the events to my knowledgeWelkabonz

There are different degrees of credibility among eye-witness testimony, and it is certainly more compelling to have archaeological evidence to support events described.

can you name a specific event of antiquity that has archaeological evidence to support it? but regardless, many events of antiquity do not have eye-witness or even contemporary evidence backing them up (Hannibal barkr)

Troy.Snefru built three pyramids.

hannibal was carthage. there were dozens of writers who commented in Hannibal, but none were contemporary.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]you made the proposition that these documents were fabricated. its your job to prove that they were fabricated. foxhound_fox

Fabricated in the sense that they are non-factual. You still have to prove them to be factual before I have to prove them to be fabricated.

my bad. but regardless, they are still evidence because they were written when the original witnesses were still alive or they were themselves written by eye-witnesses.

16 years ago

4387

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#103 Devil-Itachi

Member since 2005 • 4387 Posts

[QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]
It's certainily greater than random Gamespot poster.
fanofazrienoch

I presented evidence for my proposition. you did not provide evidence for your assertion of a post-70 AD date.

Um..no you didn't, you said some stuff. If I assumed it was all true then it would hold water but since I did not. You provided no evidence.

actually yes I did. Acts was written after all the synoptic Gospels were written, that's a fact. Acts' omission of the death of Peter and paul is very strong evidence that the author did not know about it, which means that this had to have been written before Peter and Paul died in 64 AD.

How is that evidence that the others were written before Peter and Paul died?

certainly you know what the "synotpic problem" is right?

No, I don't see any problem.

16 years ago

deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts

Notconspiracy, were you replying to the correct post when you quoted my links to Troy and King Snefru?

16 years ago

9005

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 9005 Posts

Jesus's own family saw Jesus as servant of God :o

16 years ago

3820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 blackmagesm

Member since 2006 • 3820 Posts

Notconspiracy, were you replying to the correct post when you quoted my links to Troy and King Snefru?Welkabonz

He is notconspiracy's doppelganger

16 years ago

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#107 foxhound_fox

Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

my bad. but regardless, they are still evidence because they were written when the original witnesses were still alive or they were themselves written by eye-witnesses. fanofazrienoch

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of something actually happening. I can claim that I saw a T-Rex walking by my house yesterday and convince others that it happened.

For something to be "factual" it requires physical, empirical evidence to prove that it happened (footprint, photo or whatever). Saying something happened only makes it a slim chance that it might have happened.

The Bible has as much history and fact in it as it does pizza.

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#108 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

No, I don't see any problem.
Devil-Itachi

The Synoptic problem is the apparent similarity between the first 3 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There have been many solutions, and the one that is by far most popular today is the QM hypothesis, that Mark was an independent work, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from another source scholars call "Q" which is short for the german word "Quelle" which means "source" auf deutsch. now there is an even larger amount of similarity between Luke and Matthew. Luke said that there were several Gospels written before his Gospel was written, so the most probable explanation is that Luke borrwoed from Matthew, Mark and "Q" while Matthew borrowed from "Q" and Mark and Mark and "Q" were independent works. what exactly "Q" was cannot be known, it really is whatever you want it to be. now that being said, Acts is a sequel to Luke, the last of the synoptics.

16 years ago

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 EMOEVOLUTION

Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts

Here is the problem I have with any argument concerning anything. Majority of humans do not know enough about science/religion/anything for that matter to present a logical argument. What happens is people skip over things and leave blanks and come to broad or irrelevant conclusions based on very little information. The reality is most of us don't know enough of anything to make any kind of logical conclusion about anything. Yet... we do it all the time.

If' you're an expert in mathematics but have no idea about biology... This is just a small example. Some humans are proficient in a few areas but definitely not all areas. And with this limited grasp majority of us have.. why are we so eager to trust our own conclusions to begin with.

The truth is that very few of us actualy know anything other than what we're trained to know.

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#110 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] my bad. but regardless, they are still evidence because they were written when the original witnesses were still alive or they were themselves written by eye-witnesses. foxhound_fox

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of something actually happening. I can claim that I saw a T-Rex walking by my house yesterday and convince others that it happened.

For something to be "factual" it requires physical, empirical evidence to prove that it happened (footprint, photo or whatever). Saying something happened only makes it a slim chance that it might have happened.

The Bible has as much history and fact in it as it does pizza.

there are very many critical events of history which do not have physical evidence. I submit to you the assassination of Julius Caesar. for the vast majority of ancient history, all we have is writing and oral/written traditions.

welkabonz (wierd, I've never seen you before. are you related to CptJSparrow?), how do we konw that those pyramids were built by Querfu? writings on papyrus and/or stone and clay tablets. the digs at troy however are not evidence for the trojan war. we know about the trojan war and figures like agamemnon from people like Homer, but the actual city only confirms the existence of that city. it doesn't quite stand as evidence for the war because it was destroyed some dozen times.

16 years ago

4387

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#111 Devil-Itachi

Member since 2005 • 4387 Posts

[QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]
No, I don't see any problem.
fanofazrienoch

The Synoptic problem is the apparent similarity between the first 3 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There have been many solutions, and the one that is by far most popular today is the QM hypothesis, that Mark was an independent work, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from another source scholars call "Q" which is short for the german word "Quelle" which means "source" auf deutsch. now there is an even larger amount of similarity between Luke and Matthew. Luke said that there were several Gospels written before his Gospel was written, so the most probable explanation is that Luke borrwoed from Matthew, Mark and "Q" while Matthew borrowed from "Q" and Mark and Mark and "Q" were independent works. what exactly "Q" was cannot be known, it really is whatever you want it to be. now that being said, Acts is a sequel to Luke, the last of the synoptics.

lol, I really don't get the point to this "problem"

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]
No, I don't see any problem.
Devil-Itachi

The Synoptic problem is the apparent similarity between the first 3 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There have been many solutions, and the one that is by far most popular today is the QM hypothesis, that Mark was an independent work, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from another source scholars call "Q" which is short for the german word "Quelle" which means "source" auf deutsch. now there is an even larger amount of similarity between Luke and Matthew. Luke said that there were several Gospels written before his Gospel was written, so the most probable explanation is that Luke borrwoed from Matthew, Mark and "Q" while Matthew borrowed from "Q" and Mark and Mark and "Q" were independent works. what exactly "Q" was cannot be known, it really is whatever you want it to be. now that being said, Acts is a sequel to Luke, the last of the synoptics.

lol, I really don't get the point to this "problem"

basically "how the **** do we explain the similarity between matthew mark and luke?"

16 years ago

3820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#113 blackmagesm

Member since 2006 • 3820 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]
No, I don't see any problem.
Devil-Itachi

The Synoptic problem is the apparent similarity between the first 3 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There have been many solutions, and the one that is by far most popular today is the QM hypothesis, that Mark was an independent work, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from another source scholars call "Q" which is short for the german word "Quelle" which means "source" auf deutsch. now there is an even larger amount of similarity between Luke and Matthew. Luke said that there were several Gospels written before his Gospel was written, so the most probable explanation is that Luke borrwoed from Matthew, Mark and "Q" while Matthew borrowed from "Q" and Mark and Mark and "Q" were independent works. what exactly "Q" was cannot be known, it really is whatever you want it to be. now that being said, Acts is a sequel to Luke, the last of the synoptics.

lol, I really don't get the point to this "problem"

It makes the 3 snoptics non independent sources

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#114 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]
No, I don't see any problem.
blackmagesm

The Synoptic problem is the apparent similarity between the first 3 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There have been many solutions, and the one that is by far most popular today is the QM hypothesis, that Mark was an independent work, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from another source scholars call "Q" which is short for the german word "Quelle" which means "source" auf deutsch. now there is an even larger amount of similarity between Luke and Matthew. Luke said that there were several Gospels written before his Gospel was written, so the most probable explanation is that Luke borrwoed from Matthew, Mark and "Q" while Matthew borrowed from "Q" and Mark and Mark and "Q" were independent works. what exactly "Q" was cannot be known, it really is whatever you want it to be. now that being said, Acts is a sequel to Luke, the last of the synoptics.

lol, I really don't get the point to this "problem"

It makes the 3 snoptics non independent sources

its 3 independent attestations of extremely early tradition, though they themselves aren't quite independent.

16 years ago

deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#115 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts

welkabonz (wierd, I've never seen you before. are you related to CptJSparrow?), how do we konw that those pyramids were built by Querfu? writings on papyrus and/or stone and clay tablets. the digs at troy however are not evidence for the trojan war. we know about the trojan war and figures like agamemnon from people like Homer, but the actual city only confirms the existence of that city. it doesn't quite stand as evidence for the war because it was destroyed some dozen times.
fanofazrienoch

Er, I never said that this was a confirmation of the Trojan War --- you added that in on your own.

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#116 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]
welkabonz (wierd, I've never seen you before. are you related to CptJSparrow?), how do we konw that those pyramids were built by Querfu? writings on papyrus and/or stone and clay tablets. the digs at troy however are not evidence for the trojan war. we know about the trojan war and figures like agamemnon from people like Homer, but the actual city only confirms the existence of that city. it doesn't quite stand as evidence for the war because it was destroyed some dozen times.
Welkabonz

Er, I never said that this was a confirmation of the Trojan War --- you added that in on your own.

so what event do they provide evidence for?

16 years ago

4387

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#117 Devil-Itachi

Member since 2005 • 4387 Posts

[QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]
No, I don't see any problem.
blackmagesm

The Synoptic problem is the apparent similarity between the first 3 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There have been many solutions, and the one that is by far most popular today is the QM hypothesis, that Mark was an independent work, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from another source scholars call "Q" which is short for the german word "Quelle" which means "source" auf deutsch. now there is an even larger amount of similarity between Luke and Matthew. Luke said that there were several Gospels written before his Gospel was written, so the most probable explanation is that Luke borrwoed from Matthew, Mark and "Q" while Matthew borrowed from "Q" and Mark and Mark and "Q" were independent works. what exactly "Q" was cannot be known, it really is whatever you want it to be. now that being said, Acts is a sequel to Luke, the last of the synoptics.

lol, I really don't get the point to this "problem"

It makes the 3 snoptics non independent sources

Yeah I see that but I don't see how this is any sort of problem. Non-independent and independent wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about the timeframe in which they were written.

16 years ago

deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#118 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts

so what event do they provide evidence for? fanofazrienoch

Evidence for the existence of the city of Troy.

welkabonz (wierd, I've never seen you before. are you related to CptJSparrow?),fanofazrienoch

Well, if we all share a common ancestor then I must be.

how do we konw that those pyramids were built by Querfu? writings on papyrus and/or stone and clay tablets.

We have the papyrus and/or stone and clay tablets, and then we have the three pyramids to corroborate them.

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#119 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

Evidence for the existence of the city of Troy. Welkabonz

that's not an event

Well, if we all share a common ancestor then I must be.Welkabonz

you don't know who i'm talking about do you?

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#120 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

We have the papyrus and/or stone and clay tablets, and then we have the three pyramids to corroborate them.Welkabonz

3 pyramids is evidence that some people decided to build 3 pyramids. the papyrus and stone tablets lets us know who actually built these, but papyrus is just as good evidence as the Gospels and epistles.

16 years ago

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#121 foxhound_fox

Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

[QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Evidence for the existence of the city of Troy. fanofazrienoch

that's not an event

No but the event in the literature associated with it is.

16 years ago

8068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#122 omfg_its_dally

Member since 2006 • 8068 Posts

Why would we worship a teapot? :|

16 years ago

deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#123 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts

3 pyramids is evidence that some people decided to build 3 pyramids. the papyrus and stone tablets lets us know who actually built these, but papyrus is just as good evidence as the Gospels and epistles. fanofazrienoch

Their existence substantiates the claim that Snefru had them built.

[QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Evidence for the existence of the city of Troy. fanofazrienoch

that's not an event

The setting of alleged events, which adds to the claim that they may have historical roots.

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#124 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Evidence for the existence of the city of Troy. foxhound_fox

that's not an event

No but the event in the literature associated with it is.

two can play that game. the works of Luke contain references to several dozen islands and cities. archaeology has confirmed each and every single one of them to exist.

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#125 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

Their existence substantiates the claim that Snefru had them built. Welkabonz

it may corroborate this claim, but it in of itself is not quite enough evidence for snefru built them. without the writing about these, it'd be anyone's guess as to who had them built.

16 years ago

deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#126 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts

[QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Their existence substantiates the claim that Snefru had them built. fanofazrienoch

it may corroborate this claim, but it in of itself is not quite enough evidence for snefru built them. without the writing about these, it'd be anyone's guess as to who had them built.

The claim stands tenuous without the pyramids, however.

16 years ago

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#127 fanofazrienoch

Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Their existence substantiates the claim that Snefru had them built. Welkabonz

it may corroborate this claim, but it in of itself is not quite enough evidence for snefru built them. without the writing about these, it'd be anyone's guess as to who had them built.

The claim stands tenuous without the pyramids, however.

that is because if true, then we should expect to see some pyramids. however, not very many events of antiquity left behind physical evidence.

16 years ago

124 results
1
2
3

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment