At What Point?

Obtenebrator said:
I have talked about Q from the start.
Click to expand...
You wrote that you "recall" hearing about the Gospel of Q.

What you are "recalling" is recollections of reading my posts about Q, which date back years. I first heard about Q and other pre-Gospel written sources from Bart Ehrman and Luke Timothy Johson.


Let's face facts: the standard atheist argument is, and always has been, that nobody wrote anything about Jesus until 60 or 70 years after he was dead. Which atheists always cite as "evidence" a historical Jesus either may not have existed, or that most of the stories about him were later fabrications.
 
Cypress said:
You wrote that you "recall" hearing about the Gospel of Q.

What you are "recalling" is recollections of reading my posts about Q, which date back years. I first heard about Q and other pre-Gospel written sources from Bart Ehrman and Luke Timothy Johson.


Let's face facts: the standard atheist argument is, and always has been, that nobody wrote anything about Jesus until 60 or 70 years after he was dead. Which atheists always cite as "evidence" a historical Jesus either may not have existed, or that most of the stories about him were later fabrications.
Click to expand...

Look, Cypress, if you can't discuss the topic on the merits without making it into a pissing match who knows more I'm going to have to bail on you for a while.

I'll come back when you are in a perhaps more adult mood and can get past your enormous overinflated ego.

You mischaracterize and lie so often it is getting hard to talk to you now.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Jesus Christ...Everyone! See how smart Cypress is? He's smarter than all of you! Listen to Cypress. He's the smartest and he will tell you so.
Click to expand...
Another emotional meltdown?

I do not know jack shit about the stock market, professional baseball, macroeconomics, and a host of other topics. That's why I keep my mouth shut about them.
 
Cypress said:
I think the inconsistencies are interesting too, and are evidence that the Gospels are independent sources reflecting different strands of oral and written traditions about Jesus circulating at the time.

The Jewish Talmud seems to possibly have an oral tradition claiming Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier. Pregnancy out of wedlock would have been scandal in first century Jewish society, and if it's true, the creation of divine birth stories to sweep it under the rug would be understandable
Click to expand...

Obtenebrator said:
Because no one can be as smart or knowledgeable as the mighty CYPRESS.

STop.being.a.dick.

it's pretty simple. Even for someone as ethically challenged as you.



I have talked about Q from the start. Sorry you have to continually lie about my position. It is sad.

You really are eaten up with your hatred of me and you can no longer be honest in your posts.

I am sorry for you. I wish you could learn from Jesus and try to be a better person, but hey, that's your path.

No one can be a smart as the mighty Cypress.
Click to expand...
they don't believe in being better people.
 
Commander Dutch said:
Possible. Still, it leaves open the question about the lingeage of a carpenter crucified by the Romans and written about decades later.

Occam's Razor should be applied here. :) IMO, Mary wasn't as chaste or sexually pure as some like to believe.
Click to expand...

No, preposterous to conceive of the virgin birth rationally. The was obviously a theological device, and possibly a literary device to explain away the scandalous fact of an unwed pregnancy in conservative first century Jewish society.
 
Cypress said:
Another emotional meltdown?

I do not know jack shit about the stock market, professional baseball, macroeconomics, and a host of other topics. That's why I keep my mouth shut about them.
Click to expand...
nor much about religion.

you don't even know what's important, or what's objective and what's Catholic propaganda.
 
Cypress said:
No, preposterous to conceive of the virgin birth rationally. The was obviously a theological device, and possibly a literary device to explain away the scandalous fact of an unwed pregnancy in conservative first century Jewish society.
Click to expand...
or just more mudslinging at Christians with no real proof.
 
Cypress said:
No, preposterous to conceive of the virgin birth rationally. The was obviously a theological device, and possibly a literary device to explain away the scandalous fact of an unwed pregnancy in conservative first century Jewish society.
Click to expand...
...or the myth is both the virgin birth and the "unwed pregnancy". These stories seem to be attempts at backfilling Jesus's history. His birth and age up 12 and his last year of existence. It's not the first attempt to either make his history fit a prophecy or to denigrate it as being the son of a whore.
 
Commander Dutch said:
...or the myth is both the virgin birth and the "unwed pregnancy". These stories seem to be attempts at backfilling Jesus's history. His birth and age up 12 and his last year of existence. It's not the first attempt to either make his history fit a prophecy or to denigrate it as being the son of a whore.
Click to expand...
"well, you're free to believe in a virgin birth, idiot." --Cypress
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
^^^
eats old tampons for breakfast....

is that because you love them or you think its what cool kids do?
Click to expand...
^^^
Still can't say what he posted.
8GJ91G0.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top