Gevalia? Pshaw... gimme some Folgers to put 'tween my cheek and gum, a cup of hot water to sip, and you can keep the Gevalia. :)

Good debate, 'beaner.

Pinktricam... I am saying that it does not condemn homosexuality.
Also, I would suggest you stop condemning people to hell...

"Uh, oh! Yet another that's gonna have a hot time while eternally re-evaluating the poor choices made here on this brief and finite plane."

It can't be good for your karma...

and it makes you look like a raving lunatic.

Thats bull sh@t, you scared peon.........thats your own judgement issue.

Okay, this has gotten ridiculous. :roll:

beaner,

I'd like to debate this with you, but I have found in the past (as this is like the 30th religious debate since I joined two years ago) a few things:

#1 I used to be Catholic and have renounced it for MANY reasons. If you trully want to know why, e-mail me.

#2 I'm agnostic now.

#3 The Bible is extremely contradictory and those with faith refuse to acknowledge that fact (even my Reverend believes so, but that does not change his faith--obviously).

#4 Those that are religious eventually get very defensive and start flaming (not pointing fingers at anyone specifically--i've just seen so in the past)

#5 Every religious debate I have been in I've basically been told, "No Steve, you're wrong." in many ways and basically have been told that my opinions (because that's what they all are) aren't valid and that I'm stupid.

So, I say why bother?

It really doesn't matter. In the end, we're all right because it is our opinions and we believe them. :wink:

http://images.google.com/...on/images/smiles.jpgWell done, beaner. Looking forward to your follow up post! Oh, and Wild, shaddup, siddown and learn something you narrow-minded Sicilian :wink: !

Love,
Pink


PS I hope you're keepin' my beer cold :twisted:

Well, may I gently offer this for your consideration: can we truly alter reality by our wishes?

Think about that again... of course we can.

Hi, Curt! Glad you decided to join us! :D

Maybe we can begin by looking at the things you were thinking of in the way of errors. The word is inerrant, although some manuscripts are known historically to have scribe errors in them, but there are always older and more reliable manuscripts that historians rely upon. For example, the masoretic texts versus the septuagint. I'll get into all that later if you're interested in knowing more. But first lets start with what you feel is a source of concern.

Well it looks like I went and killed this thread, didn't I?

Curt

No, not at all. I jst didn't have time to get to it yet, but I've been wanting to. :)

Actually, the Jesus Seminars don't receive much attention from scholors because these are merely impressions and opinions that don't add up to facts.

http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm

Curt, read this.

If you're still not convinced, consider this: who's more likely to be in possession of relevant information: an academic writing in the 90s, or someobody who actually met Jesus and talked to him? This question has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with history. And I know who a sane historian would trust.

:roll:

There is no actual historical confirmation of the incident which Luke recounts. Luke is our only extant source of information on this subject. This should not be particularly surprising as historians must often rely on information provided by only one source when they would know about details in ancient history.

Since we do not have any other historical data about the circumstances of the census during Herod's reign, we are forced to seek analogies to similar events from the same period and area if we are to confirm or dispute this account. In doing so we have found that every statement in the passage, properly understood, can be substantiated by similarity to other documented occurrences.

Although such verification of the accuracy of Scriptural statements is heartening, we must realize that our convictions about the authority of the Bible do not and cannot rest solely on historical or archeological research. We must base our belief in the complete truthfulness of Scripture on its own statements and claims about itself, and such evidence as the Bible supplies that it is what it claims to be. The conclusions of historical study do indeed strengthen the case for the reliability of the Bible and should be used insofar as they are helpful, but the demand by the Word of God for our obedience and trust is total and immediate, thus far beyond the ability of scholarship to supply.

It is "scholars" and what the Jesus Seminar attempts to do is to separate historical fact, from mere religious mythology. By the way, are you familiar with the "Q" gospel?

Curt

Well, whatever they consider themselves, and what the pool of serious theologians and scholars consider them, are two differnt things. It is one of the most basic rules of scholarship that to make these assertions requires substantial evidence, contemporary to the period. You'll find a lot of obscure "gospels" and "evidence" in such seminars as these. Because the most basic rules of scholarship are not adhered to. That's why these seminars don't get much attention. ;)

Okay, then maybe you can demonstrate an error, with legitimate, valid evidence.

While interesting, I found no factual basis for Luke's assertion that Joseph returned to Bethlehem at the time Jesus was born. The writer further asserts that he is willing to accept on faith the infallability of the Bible. I conclude from that statement that his article was written with non-objective bias.

I do believe Occam's Razor is a valid application of scientific method though, so I tend to agree with Crossan etal.

Occam's razor states that we should choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one, right?Occam's razor rules against Crossan et al because they are further away from the events with more intermediate steps than Luke, no?