Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    You might actually consider the contemporary historical situation instead of relying entirely on your gospel narratives..
    Your insinuation is, again, duly noted.
    Not for their religious beliefs. The account in Tacitus is interesting given that it is only from Tacitus that we find the connection between the Christians in Rome, their persecution, and the fire.
    "Interesting" because it is a single source? How many other accounts do we have?
    However, Christians were not routinely picked out for persecution because of their religious beliefs as I have noted in the past.

    Christians were not persecuted by Rome for their religious beliefs. The entire issue was predominantly political. Of course Christians were always liable to be scapegoats for bad harvests, disease, or poor weather. Nor was personal spite from aggrieved/jealous neighbours or rival businessmen probably unknown when it came to denouncing Christians, or those suspected of being Christian. However, while it appears from the extant evidence that there were outbreaks of arrests prior to the persecutions under Decius, especially in the provinces. In those circumstances the judicial process used for the majority of criminal trials under the Principate was followed and this was the cognitio extra ordinem. In other words such capital trials in those provinces were conducted by the governor and only as and when the situation arose whereby individuals were denounced before the governor. Furthermore not all governors were blood thirsty monsters intent on slaughtering Christians. Tertullian notes that while one Roman governor Saturninus did condemn Christians to death his successors were more lenient and that they often encouraged Christians to recant or, on occasion, dismissed the charges brought against them.

    The important thing for Rome was to maintain order and peace in its provinces, to ensure taxes were duly collected, and rid any areas of mali homines [bad men].
    You seem to have this quaint idea that the ancients divided things up into "religious" and "political" spheres. You also seem to have the quaint idea that it wasn't persecution if the Christian was given the option of recanting instead of being executed.
    According to the Mishnah only the misuse of the Tetragrammaton constituted blasphemy and on no occasion in those gospel accounts is that accusation ever levelled at Jesus in that respect.
    The Mishnah reflects the views of Pharisaic Judaism 200 years after Christ. The high priest, who accused Jesus of blasphemy, was very likely a Sadducee given their control of the Temple. While the entire Sanhedrin was not Sadduceen, Pharisees looking for an excuse to execute Jesus may well have played along with the charge, especially since they were having difficulty getting anything else to stick.
    How do we assess your remark with the supposed triumphal entry into Jerusalem? What was that all about?
    What it clearly was NOT was an insurrection. He rode in on a lowly donkey, and the crowd peacefully dispersed afterward.
    Being acclaimed as a Messiah [or suspected of claiming] Messianic status would have been sufficient cause. And we are told in Mark and Matthew that Jesus made no comment when interrogated by Pilate. That was sufficient to condemn him.
    Why would Pilate give two figs about a Messiah? As both Matthew and Mark attest, Pilate was interested in whether or not Jesus was "King of the Jews"; in both, Jesus replied in the affirmative. In neither account does Pilate appear to think that this is deserving of death, but condemns him to placate the crowd. You really should read the accounts before pontificating about them.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Source?

      Although I suspect I know, which might explain the lack of attestation.
      Smells like Candida Moss.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Smells like Candida Moss.
        Yuppers.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Source?

          Although I suspect I know, which might explain the lack of attestation.
          The source came from my thread https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...tian-martyrdom

          Which was dealing with Moss's book The Myth of Martyrdom. OBP made the amusing comment:

          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Positing a radical new take on something in her field is going to be controversial. It's an excellent way to get recognition - something academics crave.


          Self-evidently unaware that this was not her first volume on that topic. As I pointed out to him.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Your insinuation is, again, duly noted.
            It was not an insinuation. And given your later comments in this post my observation was warranted as you appear entirely ignorant of the contemporary situation,

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            "Interesting" because it is a single source? How many other accounts do we have?
            Of the fire? Cassius Dio deals with the fire but makes no mention of Christians nor any reference to their alleged part in causing it. Later sources like Sulpicius Severus are dependent upon Tacitus. Tacitus' contemporary, Suetonius, in his life of Nero tells us that the emperor inflicted certain "punishments" on Christians but does not connect these coercive measures with the fire at Rome, although he does offer a very full account of that incident.

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

            You seem to have this quaint idea that the ancients divided things up into "religious" and "political" spheres.
            You seem to have a very quaint idea about "the ancients" [whatever that may mean].

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            You also seem to have the quaint idea that it wasn't persecution if the Christian was given the option of recanting instead of being executed.
            That was at a later period. And as noted in my previous post referring to Moss, some Roman officials often encouraged Christians to recant or, on occasion, dismissed the charges brought against them.

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            The Mishnah reflects the views of Pharisaic Judaism 200 years after Christ. The high priest, who accused Jesus of blasphemy, was very likely a Sadducee
            He was not very likely a Sadducee he was a Sadducee and his appointment was political as well as religious. And again he was appointed by the Roman governor and could be removed from office by the Roman governor as he saw fit. Nor was there any blasphemy in claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, or the son of God, or even that he was God. It would been considered idolatrous and the claimant probably mad but it was not blasphemy.

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            While the entire Sanhedrin was not Sadduceen, Pharisees looking for an excuse to execute Jesus may well have played along with the charge, especially since they were having difficulty getting anything else to stick.
            So once again we are back to the wicked Jews and the usual anti-Judaic trope.

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            What it clearly was NOT was an insurrection. He rode in on a lowly donkey, and the crowd peacefully dispersed afterward.
            If it ever took place in the way the gospels narrate it, it was an overt political gesture and could have resulted in an insurrection considering the turbulent and unstable atmosphere in Jerusalem at the time of that festival.


            Mark
            “Hosanna!
            Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
            10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!
            Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

            Matthew
            “Tell the daughter of Zion,
            Look, your king is coming to you,
            humble and mounted on a donkey,
            and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

            Luke
            “Blessed is the king
            who comes in the name of the Lord!
            Peace in heaven,
            and glory in the highest heaven!

            John
            “Hosanna!
            Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord—
            the King of Israel!”
            “Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion.
            Look, your king is coming,
            sitting on a donkey’s colt


            Are you seriously contending that none of the above [if it took place] was not considered to be political within its contemporary context?

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Why would Pilate give two figs about a Messiah?
            Are you really such an ignoramus are you merely playing the part of one? What do you think Messiah means? It refers to the anointed one i.e. a king. It is a title that had both political and religious connotations.

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            As both Matthew and Mark attest, Pilate was interested in whether or not Jesus was "King of the Jews";
            Precisely the point I am struggling to make you comprehend and all four gospel narratives depict Pilate as asking the same question Are you the king of Jews?

            Mark
            As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. 2 Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” He answered him, “You say so.” 3 Then the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 Pilate asked him again, “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.

            Matthew
            Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You say so.” 12 But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?” 14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

            Luke
            Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus[a] before Pilate. 2 They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man inciting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.”[b]3 Then Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He answered, “You say so.” 4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no basis for an accusation against this man.” 5 But they were insistent and said, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place.”

            John
            Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They answered, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” 31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.” The Jews replied, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.” 32 (This was to fulfill what Jesus had said when he indicated the kind of death he was to die.)
            33 Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?” 35 Pilate replied, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked him, “What is truth?”


            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Jesus replied in the affirmative. In neither account does Pilate appear to think that this is deserving of death
            Jesus does not answer directly in the affirmative. His answer is ambiguous.

            However, if you think being suspected of claiming or being acclaimed as the King of Jews was not a political offence in the eyes Rome then you really are an ignoramus not simply play acting.

            In both Mark and Matthew Jesus gives no answer to the accusations of the Jews. And Pilate is "amazed" and "greatly amazed".

            Point of information. Under Roman law all men were not regarded as equal. For a person from Jesus' social background as a lower class provincial if the accused offered no defence to the charges, then sentence immediately followed. That was how the system worked.,

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            but condemns him to placate the crowd.
            In reality there would almost certainly have been no crowd of Jews baying for blood. All that is literary fiction.

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            You really should read the accounts before pontificating about them.
            These accounts are not factual records they are apologetic devices employed by their writers to promulgate the preaching and teaching of their various early Christian communities.

            You really should read some history of the known contemporary social and political situation in the region at this period before offering your uncritical and uninformed comments.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              Dead wrong about the Synoptic accounts of the day of crucifixion, but I'll be posting a more detailed assessment later.
              You clearly did not comprehend what I wrote....... I mentioned the above point!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by eider View Post

                You clearly did not comprehend what I wrote....... I mentioned the above point!
                Nope - there is no discrepancy between John and the synoptics WRT the day of crucifixion.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  In all that rambling (and I'm curious what source you cribbed it from)
                  Ah the schoolyard response. Anything I write must be "cribbed" and be written in a "rambling" manner.


                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  , you seem to have confirmed the reasons why Pilate would have been compelled to have Jesus executed in order to avoid a local revolt.
                  Very possible given the situation "on the ground" as it were. Nor can it be entirely ruled out that the two crucified with him might have been associated with him. Although they could also be nothing but a narrative fiction - created to add emphasis to the [later] Christian message.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Second, you assert without evidence that the account of Pilate offering to release a prisoner is fictional when, in fact, we have a very good reason for believing it is true:
                  Believing something does not automatically make it a historical fact.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  all four gospel writers make reference to it.
                  Given that the consensus is that Matthew and Luke utilised a version of Mark that is hardly surprising, and John being written later, included the same narrative.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  The minor differences you note are not mutually exclusive, and you appeal to an argument from silence when you say that "There is no record from the Jews ... that makes any reference to this custom."
                  There is none that has been found. Being deliberately sarcastic and applying the same logical fallacy one could also contend that Jesus rode a bicycle. Using the "argument from silence" the fact that no historical evidence of such an appliance has been found does not prove that he did not possess one.

                  As Paul Winter writes [my emphasis]:

                  Roman and Jewish records have been ransacked in the search for supporting evidence, but the results of these efforts have been negative. There is evidence that a Roman official in Egypt, in deference to a popular request, desisted from inflicting the penalty of scourging on a certain suspect, but we do not know whether legal proceedings had already been instituted when the presumed culprit’s release was ordered. In any case, the person in question had not been accused of a capital offence.[See Winter, P On The Trial of Jesus, Studia Judaica: Forschungen Zur Wissenschaft des Judentums, Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, 1961. p.97]






                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                    Very possible given the situation "on the ground" as it were. Nor can it be entirely ruled out that the two crucified with him might have been associated with him. Although they could also be nothing but a narrative fiction - created to add emphasis to the [later] Christian message.
                    Such a course would have led to a consistent account of the event. The accounts are not consistent, but nothing in them even hints at the possibility that the two had any sort of prior association with Jesus. To the records of scripture, you offer flights of fancy in opposition.

                    Believing something does not automatically make it a historical fact.
                    Believing what is recorded on the basis of no evidence in contradiction is wholly reasonable. Disregarding what is recorded on the basis of nothing is far from reasonable.

                    There is none that has been found. Being deliberately sarcastic and applying the same logical fallacy one could also contend that Jesus rode a bicycle. Using the "argument from silence" the fact that no historical evidence of such an appliance has been found does not prove that he did not possess one.
                    The scriptures attest that the Jews had a habit of approaching Pilate to request the release of a prisoner at Passover, and that Pilate was in the habit of doing so. That could have been an informal arrangement. In any case, we have written statements claiming that this was a customary action, and no evidence to show that it wasn't done. The argument from silence comes from the person who denies the possibility on grounds of a lack of supporting evidence from a time and place where evidence of anything at all is almost non-existent.

                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Side note

                      Watching H_A take on OBP with regards to Church History is like Pee Wee Herman taking on Hulk Hogan in a wrestling match.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Ah the schoolyard response. Anything I write must be "cribbed" and be written in a "rambling" manner.


                        Very possible given the situation "on the ground" as it were. Nor can it be entirely ruled out that the two crucified with him might have been associated with him. Although they could also be nothing but a narrative fiction - created to add emphasis to the [later] Christian message.

                        Believing something does not automatically make it a historical fact.

                        Given that the consensus is that Matthew and Luke utilised a version of Mark that is hardly surprising, and John being written later, included the same narrative.

                        There is none that has been found. Being deliberately sarcastic and applying the same logical fallacy one could also contend that Jesus rode a bicycle. Using the "argument from silence" the fact that no historical evidence of such an appliance has been found does not prove that he did not possess one.

                        As Paul Winter writes [my emphasis]:

                        Roman and Jewish records have been ransacked in the search for supporting evidence, but the results of these efforts have been negative. There is evidence that a Roman official in Egypt, in deference to a popular request, desisted from inflicting the penalty of scourging on a certain suspect, but we do not know whether legal proceedings had already been instituted when the presumed culprit’s release was ordered. In any case, the person in question had not been accused of a capital offence.[See Winter, P On The Trial of Jesus, Studia Judaica: Forschungen Zur Wissenschaft des Judentums, Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, 1961. p.97]
                        Once again, you are forced to resort to the "slice -n- dice" response format in order give the appearance of addressing an argument without actually addressing it.

                        I'm amused by how "flexible" your views on the gospels are. If there is something mentioned in one gospel but not in the others, you demand to know why it's not mentioned in all of them. But when something is mentioned in all of them, you dismiss it as merely being copied or added later. It's classic "Heads, I win; tails, you lose" rationalizing.

                        As for Paul Winter's argument, he appears to be pulling the same stupid trick you are with an appeal to silence, which is no argument at all. In fact, we have a positive reason for believing the account is true: It's described by all four Gospel writers!
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                          The source came from my thread https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...tian-martyrdom

                          Which was dealing with Moss's book The Myth of Martyrdom. OBP made the amusing comment:



                          Self-evidently unaware that this was not her first volume on that topic. As I pointed out to him.
                          Figured it was Moss.

                          And one of your thread that you started claiming that you had to read the book before commenting, although I'm more familiar with your defense of her in another thread (where you once again wanted everyone to read the entire book before commenting -- something you still refuse to do with the Bible, preferring instead to rely on excerpts in scoffer's books.

                          From the other thread

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Only kept a few open

                          THE MYTH OF PERSECUTION: A Provocative Title, An Overdone Thesis

                          The Myth of Persecution

                          The long shadow of the martyr myth

                          THE MYTH OF PERSECUTION: HOW EARLY CHRISTIANS INVENTED A STORY OF PERSECUTION

                          The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom

                          "The Myth of Persecution": Early Christians weren't persecuted

                          Clayton Croy on Moss’ Misrepresentation of Early Church Martyrdom

                          Once again, I'll note that even without the book, the claims themselves can still be examined. If H_A thinks that Moss provided something specific in the book then she can cite it.

                          It is becoming increasingly clear that you aren't interested in doing so. Could it be that you realize that the scholarship was shoddy and it is hard to defend all her sweeping over-generalizations?


                          ETA: Oops, forgot to add Persecution, Past and Present: Candida Moss’s Unintentional Gift to Christians, and not a review but dealing with a specific aspect The origins of Christian veneration of body-parts

                          I didn't realize that I had more tabs open than are visible.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Once again, you are forced to resort to the "slice -n- dice" response format in order give the appearance of addressing an argument without actually addressing it.

                            I'm amused by how "flexible" your views on the gospels are. If there is something mentioned in one gospel but not in the others, you demand to know why it's not mentioned in all of them. But when something is mentioned in all of them, you dismiss it as merely being copied or added later. It's classic "Heads, I win; tails, you lose" rationalizing.

                            As for Paul Winter's argument, he appears to be pulling the same stupid trick you are with an appeal to silence, which is no argument at all. In fact, we have a positive reason for believing the account is true: It's described by all four Gospel writers!
                            I addressed each of your comments individually.

                            That you believe something does not make that a historically attested fact. Hence someone can claim that Jesus rode a bicycle and you cannot prove that he did not because there is no attested historical evidence for a bicycle. That is the logical fallacy you are employing with regard to the Passover amnesty. That it appears in your gospels is no more valid as attested source evidence for its historicity than the luggage trolley at Kings Cross Station proves the existence of platform 9 3/4.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              It was not an insinuation. And given your later comments in this post my observation was warranted as you appear entirely ignorant of the contemporary situation,

                              Of the fire? Cassius Dio deals with the fire but makes no mention of Christians nor any reference to their alleged part in causing it. Later sources like Sulpicius Severus are dependent upon Tacitus.
                              Given that Dio wasn't even born until 150 A.D. -- nearly 90 years after the fire, he is also a "later source."

                              Funny how you'll reject a Gospel account because it comes from 30-40 years after the fact, but still while people who experienced the things recounted were still alive and could verify or dispute them, but have no trouble relying on someone who wrote over a century after the fact.

                              Your hypocritical double standard is showing.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Side note

                                Watching H_A take on OBP with regards to Church History is like Pee Wee Herman taking on Hulk Hogan in a wrestling match.
                                I was not addressing "Church History" but the known historical situation prevailing in the Roman province of Judaea in the early years of the first century CE.

                                A subject upon which OBP seems remarkably uninformed.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X