- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Forums > Social Discussion > Danish Cartoons of Mohammed
Login/Join to ParticipateRouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
![Rouge Dragon]()
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...
Total posts: 13215
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...
Total posts: 13215
Posted:I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this yet. For those who don't know;
For an article (note the date):
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/382
br>
Some other interesting points to add;
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/287
br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
br>
Feel free to discuss.
EDITED_BY: Rouge Dragon (1139216786)
For an article (note the date):
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/382
br>
Some other interesting points to add;
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/287
br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
br>
Feel free to discuss.
EDITED_BY: Rouge Dragon (1139216786)
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Posted:Written by: dream
its a birth control thing. condoms are birth control. bible says no to birth control. so charities who promote said heathen ways have US funding removed.
I was of the undertanding that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control was due to misinterprating several passages in the Bible, namely where god says to 'go forth and populate the Earth' and that one where he kills a guy for not impregnating his dead friend's wife (or something like that).
its a birth control thing. condoms are birth control. bible says no to birth control. so charities who promote said heathen ways have US funding removed.
I was of the undertanding that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control was due to misinterprating several passages in the Bible, namely where god says to 'go forth and populate the Earth' and that one where he kills a guy for not impregnating his dead friend's wife (or something like that).
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Delete
Posted:Written by:
I was of the undertanding that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control was due to misinterprating several passages in the Bible
It all comes back to the Death of Author. Interpretation is subjective and dependent on inter and extra textual experiences of the reader.
For example Christianity as a religion is perceived as a misinterpretation of the torah by Jews. Is this percieved misinterpretation right or wrong? It all depends on your subjective stance.
Interpretations of texts, particularly ones which have gone through multiple translations to arrive in English (these translations will necessarily not be identical to the original... language is not an accurate enough tool for that), work in metaphor (in most readings anyway, there are those who take the words literally?!) and are thousands of years old cannot really be judged as right or wrong.
I was of the undertanding that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control was due to misinterprating several passages in the Bible
It all comes back to the Death of Author. Interpretation is subjective and dependent on inter and extra textual experiences of the reader.
For example Christianity as a religion is perceived as a misinterpretation of the torah by Jews. Is this percieved misinterpretation right or wrong? It all depends on your subjective stance.
Interpretations of texts, particularly ones which have gone through multiple translations to arrive in English (these translations will necessarily not be identical to the original... language is not an accurate enough tool for that), work in metaphor (in most readings anyway, there are those who take the words literally?!) and are thousands of years old cannot really be judged as right or wrong.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:jeff(fake) is on the right track with this one. Actually, Catholics forbid birth control because their church forbids it, not because the Bible does. The Bible speaks of children as being a blessing, but never forbids birth control. The story of Onan (mentioned by jeff) was not about birth control, it was about the inheritance laws (the guy had agreed to marry the wife of the dead brother in order to give her an heir to carry on the family name, then cheated her).
Sethis, your point is rediculously unwarranted and objectively wrong. Both women and men are called unclean in the Bible when they have bodily emmissions. It's not because the Bible is sexist, it's because people are dirty.
Sethis, your point is rediculously unwarranted and objectively wrong. Both women and men are called unclean in the Bible when they have bodily emmissions. It's not because the Bible is sexist, it's because people are dirty.
Delete
Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005
![Sethis]()
Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 1762
BRONZE Member since May 2005
Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 1762
Posted:My point is unwarranted? Here, I'll explain it again:
1. The Bible is SEXIST. If you don't agree with me, read it again. Then look at the entirity of Christian history and tell me it's not sexist with a straight face.
2. I find it offensive and disturbing that people can take what it says literally/seriously when it is so blatantly derogatory towards 50% of the human race.
3. It was a JOKE in the first place. Christ. Laugh or ignore it, don't cry.
1. The Bible is SEXIST. If you don't agree with me, read it again. Then look at the entirity of Christian history and tell me it's not sexist with a straight face.
2. I find it offensive and disturbing that people can take what it says literally/seriously when it is so blatantly derogatory towards 50% of the human race.
3. It was a JOKE in the first place. Christ. Laugh or ignore it, don't cry.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Gelfling
BRONZE Member since Jul 2004
![Gelfling]()
Watcher of 80s cartoons
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kin...
Total posts: 665
BRONZE Member since Jul 2004
Watcher of 80s cartoons
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kin...
Total posts: 665
Posted:Sethis - the Bible is not sexist - the people who later interpreted it are. The early church had both male and female priests but since men feared women in power this changed. I think you should find offence with people's interpretations rather than the whole Bible in general. Personally I find a book that promotes tolerance ("...turning the other cheek...",""...do unto others as you would have done unto you..." etc) rather inspiring. Maybe that is why half the Christian community are in fact women who do not find the Bible the offensive.
To bring this back on topic unlike other faiths Christians take a lot of abuse (check out the latest G&G work) without as much reaction as they are entitled to. I think this is due to the teachings of forgiveness preached throughout the New Testament. Although other faiths are hot on Charity, forgiveness is not high on the list of charitable pursuits - possibly because it may be seen as uncharitable to allow people to cause offence.
To bring this back on topic unlike other faiths Christians take a lot of abuse (check out the latest G&G work) without as much reaction as they are entitled to. I think this is due to the teachings of forgiveness preached throughout the New Testament. Although other faiths are hot on Charity, forgiveness is not high on the list of charitable pursuits - possibly because it may be seen as uncharitable to allow people to cause offence.
>What do you think about the state of the Earth?
>I'm optimistic.
>So why do you look so sad?
>I'm not sure that my optimism is justified.
Posted:The Bible isn't sexist, its designed to stop being getting ill. So yes, a woman is unclean after she had given birth, while she is on her period etc. But so is a man if he kills something or touches a dead body. We wandered the desert for 40yrs with no showering system - its was merely G-ds way of keeping us from getting diseased.
Same reason for kosher salting and curing and draining of blood.
Same reason for kosher salting and curing and draining of blood.
'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)
DeletePosted:Written by:
Sethis - the Bible is not sexist - the people who later interpreted it are. The early church had both male and female priests but since men feared women in power this changed. I think you should find offence with people's interpretations rather than the whole Bible in general.
Actually the book and institution are not so easy to separate.
The Christian Bible is the cannon that the Roman Catholics chose. They (a bunch of powerful men - who by modern western standards would have undoubtedly been sexist) decided which Christian sciptures to include and which to remove from history. As a result, the Gospel of Mary (Magdelane) was removed (as it was written by a woman), and its author was subjected to a political smear campaign that saw her accused of being a whore.
Instead the Roman (men) decided to include the testimony of four men, none of whom had ever met Jesus - they all lived a few generations later.
So implicit in the modern Christian bible is Roman sexism. The book was not written by God, it is a cultural work, and should be held to the same sorts of cultural, gendered, political and philosophical scrutiny as any other text.
Sethis - the Bible is not sexist - the people who later interpreted it are. The early church had both male and female priests but since men feared women in power this changed. I think you should find offence with people's interpretations rather than the whole Bible in general.
Actually the book and institution are not so easy to separate.
The Christian Bible is the cannon that the Roman Catholics chose. They (a bunch of powerful men - who by modern western standards would have undoubtedly been sexist) decided which Christian sciptures to include and which to remove from history. As a result, the Gospel of Mary (Magdelane) was removed (as it was written by a woman), and its author was subjected to a political smear campaign that saw her accused of being a whore.
Instead the Roman (men) decided to include the testimony of four men, none of whom had ever met Jesus - they all lived a few generations later.
So implicit in the modern Christian bible is Roman sexism. The book was not written by God, it is a cultural work, and should be held to the same sorts of cultural, gendered, political and philosophical scrutiny as any other text.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:That's incorrect, the Gospels were written by men who lived at the same time as the Messiah. Two were his disciples who not only met Him, but lived and learned from Him during his teaching years. Another gives a perspective that is suited for a Roman to read (Mark), while Luke gives a historical perspective that a Greek would find easiest to identify with.
Delete
Posted:Written by:
In reality, the four gospels selected for inclusion in the New Testament do not make any appearance in the literary and archaeological record until the last quarter of the 2nd century, between 170 and 180 ce, and even then they are not much mentioned for a couple of decades. In this regard, Church father and archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) stated that the names traditionally attached to the canonical gospels were first designated at the end of the second century. The orthodox dating, of course, attempts to put the gospels a century earlier, between 70 and 110 ce. However, it should be kept in mind that the current mainstream dating was heretical when first propagated, over 150 years ago, causing apoplexy in the faithful, who believed the texts were composed shortly after Jesus's death. Over the centuries, because of increasingly scientific scholarship, the date of the canonical gospels has been continually pushed to later decades, as it has long been accepted that there is absolutely no evidence, internal or external, for such an early date.
The early dating is mere wishful thinking on the part of those who truly believe that Jesus Christ existed and that his words, deed and life were faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses, i.e., his disciples. Such a scenario is not reality, however, and the most scholarship can offer in bending the dates to fit the alleged advent of Jesus Christ in the time of Herod is that the gospels were composed during the last decades of the first century. The internal evidence cited for this "late" a date is that the gospel writers were aware of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce. Therefore, Mark, considered by most mainstream authorities to be the earliest of the gospels, could not have been written any earlier than 70 ce. The others followed, with John appearing perhaps as late as 110 ce. That is where mainstream scholarship ends. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the gospels are conspicuously absent from the writings of the Church fathers and apologists until the end of the second century.
Written by:
The fact is that scholars have gone back and forth on the order, as did the early Church fathers. As the Catholic Encyclopedia relates ("Synoptics"):
The order: Matthew, Luke, Mark, was advanced by Griesbach and has been adopted by De Wette, Bleek, Maier, Langen, Grimm, Pasquier. The arrangement: Mark, Matthew, Luke, with various modifications as to their interdependence, is admitted by Ritschl, Reuss, Meyer, Wilke, Simons, Holtzmann, Weiss, Batiffol, Weizscker, etc. It is often designated under the name of the "Mark hypothesis", although in the eyes of most of its defenders, it is no longer a hypothesis, meaning thereby that it is an established fact. Besides these principal orders, others (Mark, Luke, Matthew; Luke, Matthew, Mark; Luke, Mark, Matthew) have been proposed, and more recent combinations (such as those advocated by Calmel, Zahn, Belser, and Bonaccorsi) have also been suggested.
Despite claims to the contrary, little in New Testament scholarship is set in stone, including not only the priority of the gospels but also the dating. In reality, the majority of modern bible scholars have simply gone along with the dates of c. 70-110 ce, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of the gospels' existence until a century later, as evinced by such notables as Bronson Keeler, author of A Short History of the Bible; the Christian Judge Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred; and Walter Cassels in Supernatural Religion. Cassels 's knowledge on the subject was so startlingly profound that, when his book was first released anonymously, other scholars--including Christian detractors--believed him to be a bishop. Regarding the orthodox dates (70-110), which were already established by his time at the end of the 19th century, Cassels states, "It is evident that the dates assigned by apologists are wholly arbitrary."
In reality, the four gospels selected for inclusion in the New Testament do not make any appearance in the literary and archaeological record until the last quarter of the 2nd century, between 170 and 180 ce, and even then they are not much mentioned for a couple of decades. In this regard, Church father and archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) stated that the names traditionally attached to the canonical gospels were first designated at the end of the second century. The orthodox dating, of course, attempts to put the gospels a century earlier, between 70 and 110 ce. However, it should be kept in mind that the current mainstream dating was heretical when first propagated, over 150 years ago, causing apoplexy in the faithful, who believed the texts were composed shortly after Jesus's death. Over the centuries, because of increasingly scientific scholarship, the date of the canonical gospels has been continually pushed to later decades, as it has long been accepted that there is absolutely no evidence, internal or external, for such an early date.
The early dating is mere wishful thinking on the part of those who truly believe that Jesus Christ existed and that his words, deed and life were faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses, i.e., his disciples. Such a scenario is not reality, however, and the most scholarship can offer in bending the dates to fit the alleged advent of Jesus Christ in the time of Herod is that the gospels were composed during the last decades of the first century. The internal evidence cited for this "late" a date is that the gospel writers were aware of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce. Therefore, Mark, considered by most mainstream authorities to be the earliest of the gospels, could not have been written any earlier than 70 ce. The others followed, with John appearing perhaps as late as 110 ce. That is where mainstream scholarship ends. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the gospels are conspicuously absent from the writings of the Church fathers and apologists until the end of the second century.
Written by:
The fact is that scholars have gone back and forth on the order, as did the early Church fathers. As the Catholic Encyclopedia relates ("Synoptics"):
The order: Matthew, Luke, Mark, was advanced by Griesbach and has been adopted by De Wette, Bleek, Maier, Langen, Grimm, Pasquier. The arrangement: Mark, Matthew, Luke, with various modifications as to their interdependence, is admitted by Ritschl, Reuss, Meyer, Wilke, Simons, Holtzmann, Weiss, Batiffol, Weizscker, etc. It is often designated under the name of the "Mark hypothesis", although in the eyes of most of its defenders, it is no longer a hypothesis, meaning thereby that it is an established fact. Besides these principal orders, others (Mark, Luke, Matthew; Luke, Matthew, Mark; Luke, Mark, Matthew) have been proposed, and more recent combinations (such as those advocated by Calmel, Zahn, Belser, and Bonaccorsi) have also been suggested.
Despite claims to the contrary, little in New Testament scholarship is set in stone, including not only the priority of the gospels but also the dating. In reality, the majority of modern bible scholars have simply gone along with the dates of c. 70-110 ce, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of the gospels' existence until a century later, as evinced by such notables as Bronson Keeler, author of A Short History of the Bible; the Christian Judge Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred; and Walter Cassels in Supernatural Religion. Cassels 's knowledge on the subject was so startlingly profound that, when his book was first released anonymously, other scholars--including Christian detractors--believed him to be a bishop. Regarding the orthodox dates (70-110), which were already established by his time at the end of the 19th century, Cassels states, "It is evident that the dates assigned by apologists are wholly arbitrary."
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Posted:What is your source here?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:Written by:
Dating Early Christian Gospels
While some extraordinary claims have been made about precisely when early gospels (and parts of them) were written,[14] it is impossible to determine the dates of gospel origins with much certainty. An absolute date can be assigned to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be established between the text and another writing or event from a specific, known time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely lacking from the time period when the gospels were written.
Terminus post quem. Only two known events are helpful for determining how soon early gospels may have been written after the death of Jesus: the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) and the martyrdom of Peter (ca. 64 C.E.). Yet, these events are useful for dating only two gospels and a portion of a third. Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44, 21:20-24), but it is not clear that Mark was aware of the event.[15] John 21 must have been written after Peters death,[16] but the final chapter may have been added to the gospel long after the rest had been written.[17] There are no certain references to any datable historical events in John 1-20.[18] The same is true for the eight non-canonical early gospels.[19]
On the basis of literary relationships, only one gospel must have been written after Matthew, Luke, or the datable portion of John: the Gospel of the Ebionites presupposes Matthew and Luke.[20] The remainder lack the extensive verbal correspondence necessary to establish a literary relationship. It is not at all clear that the Gospel of Thomas,[21] Gospel of Peter,[22] or Unknown Gospel of P.Egerton 2[23] is dependent upon the canonical gospels for their material. The accusations of the church fathers do not establish that Marcion actually abridged (mutilated) Luke.[24] Too few fragments of the Gospel of the Nazareans and Gospel of the Hebrews have been preserved to allow for a definitive judgment of their sources.[25] It is not even possible to determine which came first: Mark or Secret Mark.[26]
Terminus ante quem. Trying to determine the latest possible dates for gospel origins is also a difficult task. Certainly, all early gospels were completed before the end of the second century, but how much earlier is unclear. On the basis of manuscript evidence alone, it is only possible to determine that two gospels were in circulation before the middle of the second century, one non-canonical gospel (Unknown Gospel, P.Egerton 2)[27] and one canonical gospel (John, 52).[28] All additional information about which gospels were in use by the early decades of the second century comes from ambiguous patristic testimonies.
There are two writers who at first glance appear to be potentially useful for determining which (canonical)[29] gospels were in circulation by the early second century. First, it appears possible that Ignatius of Antioch was familiar with Matthew when he wrote his letters around 110 C.E. In various passages, Ignatius seems to allude to the gospel, although he does not mention it explicitly.[30] Most of these passages, however, are vague references at best and could easily be the result of oral tradition.[31] Also, careful examination of the Matthew-Ignatius parallels reveals an interesting trend. Ignatius has an overwhelming preference for material found in Matthew, but not the other synoptics.[32] This excessive familiarity with special M material has suggested to some that Ignatius may have known a source of Matthew rather than the gospel itself.[33]
Second, Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark in his five volume Oracles of the Lord Explained around 130 C.E. However, his comments, known only second-hand through Eusebius, are not at all clear. His brief description of a writing of Matthew as logia in the Hebrew dialect is too vague to be a certain reference to the canonical text (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16).[34] Further ambiguity surrounds Papias comments about Mark. Papias states only that Mark wrote down notes of Peters preaching (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). Yet, it is difficult to believe that so carefully constructed a narrative as Mark could have been regarded as a mere chaotic collection of unordered notes.[35] Further, Papias does not actually state that these notes were the canonical gospel (nor does Eusebius imply that he did).[36] Thus, it is not certain that Papias was describing either canonical Matthew or Mark in the excerpts of Eusebius.
All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybodys guess. Two gospels[38] must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybodys guess. With such chronologically distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such divergent dates of origins for early gospels. The dates are based on nothing more concrete than each scholars impression of precisely when small stories, sayings, or phrases might or might not have been meaningful to a particular writer or community. There is considerable room for differences of opinion with such subjective analysis.[39]
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
br>
the journal of biblical studies... its a piece of academic work
...wikipedia suggests that jesus death was sometime between 27 and 36AD.
Dating Early Christian Gospels
While some extraordinary claims have been made about precisely when early gospels (and parts of them) were written,[14] it is impossible to determine the dates of gospel origins with much certainty. An absolute date can be assigned to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be established between the text and another writing or event from a specific, known time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely lacking from the time period when the gospels were written.
Terminus post quem. Only two known events are helpful for determining how soon early gospels may have been written after the death of Jesus: the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) and the martyrdom of Peter (ca. 64 C.E.). Yet, these events are useful for dating only two gospels and a portion of a third. Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44, 21:20-24), but it is not clear that Mark was aware of the event.[15] John 21 must have been written after Peters death,[16] but the final chapter may have been added to the gospel long after the rest had been written.[17] There are no certain references to any datable historical events in John 1-20.[18] The same is true for the eight non-canonical early gospels.[19]
On the basis of literary relationships, only one gospel must have been written after Matthew, Luke, or the datable portion of John: the Gospel of the Ebionites presupposes Matthew and Luke.[20] The remainder lack the extensive verbal correspondence necessary to establish a literary relationship. It is not at all clear that the Gospel of Thomas,[21] Gospel of Peter,[22] or Unknown Gospel of P.Egerton 2[23] is dependent upon the canonical gospels for their material. The accusations of the church fathers do not establish that Marcion actually abridged (mutilated) Luke.[24] Too few fragments of the Gospel of the Nazareans and Gospel of the Hebrews have been preserved to allow for a definitive judgment of their sources.[25] It is not even possible to determine which came first: Mark or Secret Mark.[26]
Terminus ante quem. Trying to determine the latest possible dates for gospel origins is also a difficult task. Certainly, all early gospels were completed before the end of the second century, but how much earlier is unclear. On the basis of manuscript evidence alone, it is only possible to determine that two gospels were in circulation before the middle of the second century, one non-canonical gospel (Unknown Gospel, P.Egerton 2)[27] and one canonical gospel (John, 52).[28] All additional information about which gospels were in use by the early decades of the second century comes from ambiguous patristic testimonies.
There are two writers who at first glance appear to be potentially useful for determining which (canonical)[29] gospels were in circulation by the early second century. First, it appears possible that Ignatius of Antioch was familiar with Matthew when he wrote his letters around 110 C.E. In various passages, Ignatius seems to allude to the gospel, although he does not mention it explicitly.[30] Most of these passages, however, are vague references at best and could easily be the result of oral tradition.[31] Also, careful examination of the Matthew-Ignatius parallels reveals an interesting trend. Ignatius has an overwhelming preference for material found in Matthew, but not the other synoptics.[32] This excessive familiarity with special M material has suggested to some that Ignatius may have known a source of Matthew rather than the gospel itself.[33]
Second, Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark in his five volume Oracles of the Lord Explained around 130 C.E. However, his comments, known only second-hand through Eusebius, are not at all clear. His brief description of a writing of Matthew as logia in the Hebrew dialect is too vague to be a certain reference to the canonical text (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16).[34] Further ambiguity surrounds Papias comments about Mark. Papias states only that Mark wrote down notes of Peters preaching (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). Yet, it is difficult to believe that so carefully constructed a narrative as Mark could have been regarded as a mere chaotic collection of unordered notes.[35] Further, Papias does not actually state that these notes were the canonical gospel (nor does Eusebius imply that he did).[36] Thus, it is not certain that Papias was describing either canonical Matthew or Mark in the excerpts of Eusebius.
All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybodys guess. Two gospels[38] must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybodys guess. With such chronologically distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such divergent dates of origins for early gospels. The dates are based on nothing more concrete than each scholars impression of precisely when small stories, sayings, or phrases might or might not have been meaningful to a particular writer or community. There is considerable room for differences of opinion with such subjective analysis.[39]
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
br>
the journal of biblical studies... its a piece of academic work
...wikipedia suggests that jesus death was sometime between 27 and 36AD.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005
![Sethis]()
Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 1762
BRONZE Member since May 2005
Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 1762
Posted:But it's all Off Topic... which is why I didn't respond to the comments myself 
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:The primary evidence for placing certain books after A.D. 70 is based on the fact that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem. If you assume that it was impossible for Jesus to have actually predicted a future event, then you must assume that the authors lied and wrote it after A.D. 70.
This is unconvincing, however, if you believe that Jesus was actually the son of God and could have accurately predicted it. However, I agree with Sethis that this is OT. We should return to the subject of the cartoons and Muslims... not trying to criticize the Bible.
This is unconvincing, however, if you believe that Jesus was actually the son of God and could have accurately predicted it. However, I agree with Sethis that this is OT. We should return to the subject of the cartoons and Muslims... not trying to criticize the Bible.
Delete
Posted:This makes European 'free speech' sound like a huge joke!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4710508.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4710508.stm
Delete
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
That's incorrect, the Gospels were written by men who lived at the same time as the Messiah. Two were his disciples who not only met Him, but lived and learned from Him during his teaching years. Another gives a perspective that is suited for a Roman to read (Mark), while Luke gives a historical perspective that a Greek would find easiest to identify with.
as often as i agree with you-that is absolutely not true...i was never taught that in all my years of religious education, nor have a read any but one gospel having been suggested to have been written at the time of Christ-mark or luke i forget which
sorry
That's incorrect, the Gospels were written by men who lived at the same time as the Messiah. Two were his disciples who not only met Him, but lived and learned from Him during his teaching years. Another gives a perspective that is suited for a Roman to read (Mark), while Luke gives a historical perspective that a Greek would find easiest to identify with.
as often as i agree with you-that is absolutely not true...i was never taught that in all my years of religious education, nor have a read any but one gospel having been suggested to have been written at the time of Christ-mark or luke i forget which
sorry
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:did anyone see that they are starting to rename things now
danishes (pastries) are now the Roses of the Prophet Mohammad
freedom fries anyone?
danishes (pastries) are now the Roses of the Prophet Mohammad
freedom fries anyone?
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Freedom Fries!
I'm starving!
I'm starving!
'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)
DeletePosted:what i find most funny is the whole thing is that on theese protests they are trying to make the point that islam is not about killing...and how do they decide to show this? why write brilliant baners saying, and i quote "mock today, die 2morrow" and "people who insult islam will be killed"
ive got a fuzzbox and im not afraid to use it
R.I.P. gayfest
Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
![Birgit]()
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Total posts: 4145
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Total posts: 4145
Posted:When Americans had freedom fries we had "Friedens-Fritten" (peace fries) in Germany, with money off their sales going to a charity for kids in Iraq.
I wonder what money from counter-pastry sales could go to... maybe the guy who wrote "How to have a discussion with Fundamentalists without going mad"...
I wonder what money from counter-pastry sales could go to... maybe the guy who wrote "How to have a discussion with Fundamentalists without going mad"...
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Posted:the reaction from the muslim community has been so damn stupid, some newspapers from muslim countries print horrific cartoons depicting jews cutting their legs off with swastikas, and ive seen some proper mental anti-semitic cartoons from such publications, they have one rule for them and one rule for everyone else. sorry if this has been mentioned i havent read all the posts.
oh yeh, heres this for intelligence?: muslims tried to burn down the norweigan embassy because they couldnt find the danish one! ha ha ha and were scared of these people??
and another thing (slightly off topic) if i were to parade teh street swith signs saying "behead muslims cos quite frankly i dont like them" id get arrested in no time at all and have the book thrown at me. its sick how people can get away with those stupid signs telling people to "behead those who insult islam"... theyve got no-one to blame but themselves.
oh yeh, heres this for intelligence?: muslims tried to burn down the norweigan embassy because they couldnt find the danish one! ha ha ha and were scared of these people??
and another thing (slightly off topic) if i were to parade teh street swith signs saying "behead muslims cos quite frankly i dont like them" id get arrested in no time at all and have the book thrown at me. its sick how people can get away with those stupid signs telling people to "behead those who insult islam"... theyve got no-one to blame but themselves.
we were somewhere near barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...
DeleteSimilar Topics
Using the keywords [danish cartoon* mohammed] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Danish Cartoons of Mohammed [110 replies]
2. Forums > Long Lost and Forgotten About Cartoons [155 replies]
3. Forums > Cartoon Network - King of television [10 replies]
4. Forums > Cool cartoon conversation [11 replies]
5. Forums > Cute cartoon game. [14 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.