At What Point?

Damocles said:
"Most likely" based on your "feels" for how much you think you are "right" rather than what you actually have in evidence is just random baseless circular logic. "I said they were illiterate and demand you to believe me because I said it is so, ignore that evidence, it isn't enough for me to change my feels!"

You argue like leftists think "Trumpets" argue.

Again, this isn't about who wrote the gospels, it is telling you that it is unlikely that every disciple was illiterate and why it is very unlikely. You used two strawmen, first circular logic and ending with the same strawman pointed out to you earlier.

I give your argument a -5 on a scale of -5 to 5. It doesn't even taste good in your own mouth, your face gives you away.

Geebus.... "Here's some of my poor opinion of others that live contemporarily to us! That means disciples couldn't read even if they were from a group of people who taught their children to read as part of their religion!"

Even people who haven't read this argument from you are rolling their eyes just from being nearby to someone else reading it, that much silliness cannot be contained on a single message board, it spreads..
Click to expand...
The only one you can possibly point to is the “tax collector”, who you laughably claim was good at “mathing”. Fucking hilarious! Only one reference to him being a tax collector, which was probably a muscle man, not accountant. The other references were that he was at the table. Better indication he was an enforcer.

Now, back to the facts. The literacy of rural Galilee was next to zero. So, now you’re trying to claim that it is very likely someone WAS literate. You just aren’t very good at arithmetic, are you Festus.

What was the other claim? That they needed help writing the gospels or some such gibberish?

And where the fuck did you get the bullshit that illiterate parents could teach their children to read? The Torah was read to them at the temple or by a literate scribe.

I tried to dumb down the analogy as much as I could. Obviously, stick figures and crayons are as much as you can absorb.
 
domer76 said:
The only one you can possibly point to is the “tax collector”, who you laughably claim was good at “mathing”. Fucking hilarious! Only one reference to him being a tax collector, which was probably a muscle man, not accountant. The other references were that he was at the table. Better indication he was an enforcer.

Now, back to the facts. The literacy of rural Galilee was next to zero. So, now you’re trying to claim that it is very likely someone WAS literate. You just aren’t very good at arithmetic, are you Festus.

What was the other claim? That they needed help writing the gospels or some such gibberish?

And where the fuck did you get the bullshit that illiterate parents could teach their children to read? The Torah was read to them at the temple or by a literate scribe.

I tried to dumb down the analogy as much as I could. Obviously, stick figures and crayons are as much as you can absorb.
Click to expand...
Geebus...

Again with this made up numbers and your opinion of what is possible ignoring that current scholars state that the 10% estimate is not supported by the evidence and that it ignores aspects of some cultures where folks were taught to read as an aspect of religion...

Anyway, I didn't claim they "needed help" I was recognizing that the disciples didn't publish that work by stating they clearly had help... It's conversational.

Basically I made one point. That tax collectors hired by the Romans, as evinced by the records we have found, had to keep records of who they collected from and how much they collected from them ( conversational... hence my attempt at humor by calling the math "mathing"). Your, "he was just muscle" is just a feels moment where you just want to be right so badly you ignore logic and evidence and just repeat that you are "right" because you said so (circular logic).

Anyway, have fun with your insane insistence that your ignorant stance is "better" than learning something from someone else.

Basically...

My only assertion was that not all of the disciples were illiterate.

Amazingly your insanity that you are "always right" even had you insisting that one of the disciples called by Jesus wasn't a disciple.... I would be embarrassed by that alone, let alone the inability to learn from your mistakes.
 
Damocles said:
Geebus...

Again with this made up numbers and your opinion of what is possible ignoring that current scholars state that the 10% estimate is not supported by the evidence and that it ignores aspects of some cultures where folks were taught to read as an aspect of religion...

Anyway, I didn't claim they "needed help" I was recognizing that the disciples didn't publish that work by stating they clearly had help... It's conversational.

Basically I made one point. That tax collectors hired by the Romans, as evinced by the records we have found, had to keep records of who they collected from and how much they collected from them ( conversational... hence my attempt at humor by calling the math "mathing"). Your, "he was just muscle" is just a feels moment where you just want to be right so badly you ignore logic and evidence and just repeat that you are "right" because you said so (circular logic).

Anyway, have fun with your insane insistence that your ignorant stance is "better" than learning something from someone else.

Basically...

My only assertion was that not all of the disciples were illiterate.

Amazingly your insanity that you are "always right" even had you insisting that one of the disciples called by Jesus wasn't a disciple.... I would be embarrassed by that alone, let alone the inability to learn from your mistakes.
Click to expand...
I insisted that “one of the disciples called by Jesus wasn’t a disciple”? What orifice did you pull that from?
 
domer76 said:
I insisted that “one of the disciples called by Jesus wasn’t a disciple”? What orifice did you pull that from?
Click to expand...
You told me Matthew was not a disciple, I then quoted the verse where Jesus called him. Then you said he was "just muscle"... SMH.... Seriously, at this point I have no reason to continue to converse with you. You have demonstrated that no amount of information will change what you feel about this subject and you will not be swayed regardless of the information.

I'll probably just start copying and pasting a standard response where I do not engage with someone that demonstratively will not engage their brain when holding a conversation.
 
Damocles said:
You told me Matthew was not a disciple, I then quoted the verse where Jesus called him. Then you said he was "just muscle"... SMH.... Seriously, at this point I have no reason to continue to converse with you. You have demonstrated that no amount of information will change what you feel about this subject and you will not be swayed regardless of the information.

I'll probably just start copying and pasting a standard response where I do not engage with someone that demonstratively will not engage their brain when holding a conversation.
Click to expand...
That was poorly worded. The person who wrote the gospel Matthew was not one of the disciples. Scholars are pretty unanimous when they conclude that none of the disciples were authors of the gospels.

Every one of those gospels were written anonymously. Nobody identified themselves as “I, Matthew, am writing these accounts….”, etc.

In fact, none of the gospels were even named for 100 years or so later.

Again, I don’t think you addressed this bullshit. Who EXACTLY was “they” when you claim “they clearly had help writing their gospels.”?
 
domer76 said:
That was poorly worded. The person who wrote the gospel Matthew was not one of the disciples. Scholars are pretty unanimous when they conclude that none of the disciples were authors of the gospels.

Every one of those gospels were written anonymously. Nobody identified themselves as “I, Matthew, am writing these accounts….”, etc.

In fact, none of the gospels were even named for 100 years or so later.

Again, I don’t think you addressed this bullshit. Who EXACTLY was “they” when you claim “they clearly had help writing their gospels.”?
Click to expand...
who do you think it was?

you're the one who's positive they couldn't read.
 
it means something when all the trump supporters are honest debaters, and all the Biden supporters are word-mangling, gaslighting hacks.
 
domer76 said:
That was poorly worded. The person who wrote the gospel Matthew was not one of the disciples. Scholars are pretty unanimous when they conclude that none of the disciples were authors of the gospels.

Every one of those gospels were written anonymously. Nobody identified themselves as “I, Matthew, am writing these accounts….”, etc.

In fact, none of the gospels were even named for 100 years or so later.

Again, I don’t think you addressed this bullshit. Who EXACTLY was “they” when you claim “they clearly had help writing their gospels.”?
Click to expand...
Again, when I said they "had help" I was noting conversationally that they didn't write them. I think most folks are capable of understanding that.

You, however, have claimed all softs of crap that is not in evidence from "he was just muscle" to claiming that a religion that pretty much requires reading during some ceremonies ignores the education of their children in that aspect because they lived near a particular sea that you didn't want folks living near to be able to read because it was inconvenient to your narrative.

I get wanting to be right, but seriously, the only thing I was telling you is that not all the disciples were illiterate and telling you why we all know this to be a fact.

I had a pastor from my mother's church, the same church where I was forced to attend their, actually accredited, Bible College as a youngster when I told them I didn't believe in their religion. This pastor told me that "the only literate disciple was Matthew". He was wrong too though... for the reasons I related. At the Bible College I studied American Sign Language and was forced to interpret during services (twice Sunday Morning, once every Sunday evening, and services on Thursday evenings)... though I did enjoy learning the language. And I studied the bible in Greek and Hebrew.... two more languages I "chose" to study through my disbelief. I believe that these language studies opened many doors for me later in life, but they also cemented my disbelief and anger.... I remained angry until sometime in my 20s when I was finally able to forgive...

All those folks wanted to do was "save" my soul... I couldn't remain angry forever.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
you did say it.

and then you said it again.

you believe it's impossible a disciple was literate.
Click to expand...
Go ahead and find the word impossible, faggot.

The points that you stupid fucks can’t seem to grasp is that the disciples were rural, uneducated men from Galilee, where the literacy rate was extremely low. The original context, which you fucks have strayed from, is that they would have been unable to write the texts, IN GREEK, that their names are attributed to. Not to even mention their own language. There is not one instance in the gospels where any of them either read or wrote anything. To say they did is pulling it out of your ass. To say that it was “highly likely” they were able to is the same. If Christ’s message was so fucking important to them for all of them to just drop everything and follow him, why didn’t they write this shit down? One mention of even Jesus himself writing ANYTHING was in John, which apparently was added much later and not in the original.

I even used an analogy which also seems to be lost on you. That they had a rudimentary understanding of written text does not mean they were actually literate.

Comprendé, Rufus?
 
domer76 said:
Go ahead and find the word impossible, faggot.

The points that you stupid fucks can’t seem to grasp is that the disciples were rural, uneducated men from Galilee, where the literacy rate was extremely low. The original context, which you fucks have strayed from, is that they would have been unable to write the texts, IN GREEK, that their names are attributed to. Not to even mention their own language. There is not one instance in the gospels where any of them either read or wrote anything. To say they did is pulling it out of your ass. To say that it was “highly likely” they were able to is the same. If Christ’s message was so fucking important to them for all of them to just drop everything and follow him, why didn’t they write this shit down? One mention of even Jesus himself writing ANYTHING was in John, which apparently was added much later and not in the original.

I even used an analogy which also seems to be lost on you. That they had a rudimentary understanding of written text does not mean they were actually literate.

Comprendé, Rufus?
Click to expand...
Your reasoning is fallacious and proves nothing.
 
Damocles said:
Again, when I said they "had help" I was noting conversationally that they didn't write them. I think most folks are capable of understanding that.

You, however, have claimed all softs of crap that is not in evidence from "he was just muscle" to claiming that a religion that pretty much requires reading during some ceremonies ignores the education of their children in that aspect because they lived near a particular sea that you didn't want folks living near to be able to read because it was inconvenient to your narrative.

I get wanting to be right, but seriously, the only thing I was telling you is that not all the disciples were illiterate and telling you why we all know this to be a fact.

I had a pastor from my mother's church, the same church where I was forced to attend their, actually accredited, Bible College as a youngster when I told them I didn't believe in their religion. This pastor told me that "the only literate disciple was Matthew". He was wrong too though... for the reasons I related. At the Bible College I studied American Sign Language and was forced to interpret during services (twice Sunday Morning, once every Sunday evening, and services on Thursday evenings)... though I did enjoy learning the language. And I studied the bible in Greek and Hebrew.... two more languages I "chose" to study through my disbelief. I believe that these language studies opened many doors for me later in life, but they also cemented my disbelief and anger.... I remained angry until sometime in my 20s when I was finally able to forgive...

All those folks wanted to do was "save" my soul... I couldn't remain angry forever.
Click to expand...
 
Hume said:
Funny.
People think philosophy is useless.

Is there anything about these religion discussions that is not just mindless trivia?!
Click to expand...
^^^^Actual troll trolling.

Not sure why Hume feels the need to come on these threads and just tell people how little they care about religion. I guess that is what trolls do.
 
Cypress said:
Death rituals in ancient Judaism: They would put the body in the tomb and check on it periodically for a few days to make sure he or she was really dead. When Mary Magdelene and her companions went to check on Jesus and annoint the body at the end of Sabbath, Jesus' body was gone. A rational explanation is that he was only mortally wounded and comatose from the crucifixion, but recovered enough to be able to walk away from the tomb.
Perhaps eventually succumbing to his injuries months later.
Click to expand...
The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that he knew of two people who survived crucifixion.

In gospel of Mark, Pontius Pilate is surprised at how rapidly Jesus died on the cross. Only six hours. Death by crucifixion could sometimes take days.

A rationally credible and medically plausible explanation for the resurrection is that Jesus was only comatose and mortally wounded when he was taken off the cross, and recovering three days later - which might have seemed to him as if being resurrected from the dead.
 
Cypress said:
The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that he knew of two people who survived crucifixion.

In gospel of Mark, Pontius Pilate is surprised at how rapidly Jesus died on the cross. Only six hours. Death by crucifixion could sometimes take days.

A rationally credible and medically plausible explanation for the resurrection is that Jesus was only comatose and mortally wounded when he was taken off the cross, and recovering three days later - which might have seemed to him as if being resurrected from the dead.
Click to expand...
That is my belief as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top