slappy,
Sigh.
:Really? Huh, that's awfully weird then. Why would Jews write such things down 'to change history' and then completely reject them, as they have the NT? There's some logic there that I'm completely missing.
Uh, Read Genesis 36:31 and explain to us how Moses could talk in the PAST TENSE about the Kings who ruled over Edom BEFORE any Kings that ruled over Israel. Genesis was written in allegedly during the Jewish Egyptian Exodus in the wilderness. After Moses died, there was a period of 450 years of Judges BEFORE any Kings of Israel ruled over the Jews. The first King was Saul. The second was David. Exodus 36:31 specificallys "Kings of Israel", so that verse predated "Kings Ruling in Israel" by OVER 450 years while Moses was in the wilderness and talking in the past tense! We call this an "anachronism." You call it "inspired scripture."
Then again, the guys who wrote the Gospels waited about 30 to 50 years to actually write anything about Jesus. One has to wonder WHY it took them THAT long to write about the greatest human who ever lived and His accomplishments in the entire history of this planet.
:Umm...do u know anything about how history was kept in those times? It was mostly ORAL, as in spoken, NOT written. Go find a dictionary if that still doesn't clarify it enough for you. Besides 30-50 years is nothing. .... How many biographies have been written in the last 100 years alone that have a time lapse like that? And that's with all the technology we have now.
:What do you think the Gospel authors did, keep a diary and 'publish' them as soon as Jesus ascended?
Boy, if I was a witness to the raising-of-the-dead and other miracles that Jesus allegedly did, I would DEFINITELY keep a diary! Only an idiot would NOT keep a diary of the biggest and best miracles in the history of mankind. Anyone who can raise a man from the dead after 3 days of death, stinking and rotting flesh would most DEFINTELY make me keep a diary. Anyone who wouldn't keep a diary of that day would be consider a loser AND a moron.
This is what is called a "straw man" argument. Change my argument and put up another one and then demolish that one. Your argument is silly. You make the case that since history was mostly "oral" back then, then 30-50 years to write about it makes sense. But that doesn't address the issue that people knew how to write at the time the history happened. Are you arguing that the apostles who wrote the Gospels needed 30 to 50 years to learn how to write before they could actually do the writing, or that they just didn't care enough about the subject to bother to write about it for 3 to 5 DECADES? Or are you just making a stupid answer to a serious question?
Your second argument is even more absurd: biographies that are legitimate are written LONG after the subject died. Well, fine and dandy. That mightl do for someone like Lincoln or Jefferson, but it won't do for the Son of GOD. His works and teachings (any sane person would reason) would have been at least recorded during his lifetime and not 30 to 50 years later. After all, he WAS the Son of God, you know. Why didn't any non-Jews (i.e. Romans) who were literate at the time record a SINGLE THING about the life and times of Jesus? Was the Devil messing around with ALL of them?
Jesus never once put women in a secondary position. In fact he kept company with a number of them and never made them a class of second-class humans. Yeah, he called his mother "Woman" instead of "Mommie", but what he called her was actually what she was. Paul made them second-class humans, at least in religious authority matters. How many MEN were camped out at Jesus' tomb? Uh, none. Depending upon the accounts, there were 1 or 2 or 3 women there. Where was Peter and the other guys? Losers.
:Um, first off, Matthew 22:29 "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God."
Ok. First Matthew 22:29. That addresses NOTHING about my argument about Jesus not making second-class citizens of women.
: Secondly look at Philippians 4:3 "And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life." Second class humans? I'm missing it...anyway, back to what Jesus said concerning those that tried making an argument on a faulty base due to not understanding what they were arguing; keep that in mind next time, it will serve you well.
Another strawman. I never asserted that women would not be in your imaginery "Book of Life." I asserted that Paul (he wrote the letter to the Philippians, in case you didn't know). I asserted that Paul called women inferior to men. And he did. Look up "strawman" in your search engine. I even spelled "strawman" for you, because you may move your lips when you read to yourself.
Paul could never talk about the "nature" of Jesus, because unlike the real Apostles, he didn't know him. He talked in terms of abstractions, but without intimate knowledge.
:Yea, this'll go back to your lack of understanding what you're talking about...again. Read Acts 9:1-9; not sure if it can get much more intimate and personal than that.
Cite your case from the Acts and please be specific to make your point. The fact is, Paul only had some sort of "vision". He never lived with Jesus. He never ate with Jesus. He wasn't there when Jesus lived, healed and spoke. He wasn't there at the crucifixion or Jesus' death. He did NOT know the nature of Jesus as did the real Apostles. He made up shit.
It's all bullshit.
:It's always nice to see an educated comment from an educated person.
It's always nice to see more bullshit from a bullshitter.
:Nothing further your Honor.
There was nothing in the first place, your dummyship.
Farkel
