Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: http://cannon.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/bd/ecc.html

These guys seems to think that entropy has something to do with planetary and satellite orbits.

I think you are trying to pull a little of the ol' baffle them with bulls**t routine.
Orbital eccentricity is something quite distinct from thermodynamic entropy, isn't it? And a third distinct thing is the fact that the three-body problem (to say nothing of the n-body problem) has a chaotic (chaotic in the mathematical sense of the word) solution.

But all these things have very precise definitions, and if John wants to play the game, he has to use the precise definitions.

Moreover, the recession of the Moon is not an eccentricity in its orbit. The precession of the Earth about it's own axis every 25,000 years is an eccentricity. The Moon is receding b/c it was blasted apart from the Earth God-knows-how-many-years ago, and the Earth-Moon system is now (still) trying to conserve its angular momentum.

Just can't help yourself can you? :lol:

*tinkle*

[Random Evil Guy]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The Gospels were written between 70-110 AD

They written from 40 AD to 90 AD.

Matthew 40-50 AD
Mark 50-60 AD
Luke 60 AD
John 85-90 AD



the gospel of mark is regarded as the oldest gospel amongst most scholars and is dated to around 65-80 ad. the others are dated from around 60 up to 120 ad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[cap'n queasy]

[Random Evil Guy]

scholars who support the augustinian hypothesis are in minority. the majority believes that mark is the oldest.

[cap'n queasy]

Which contradicts logic, and is obtuse.

Mark was used in Rome and is an abbreviated form focused on evangelizing Gentiles. Matthew was used in Jerusalem and is directed at the original Jewish audience of Christ's teachings. Why would a gospel written in Rome, thousands of miles away, precede a gospel written at the place where the event happened and used by the church at Jerusalem which was the earliest church and at that time the center of the Christian world?

The only reason that many scholars choose Mark is because of it's abbreviated form they suppose it is earlier. This is derived from a technique called text criticism, which basically a useless technique consisting of setting each gospel next to each other and comparing them. A much better explanation is that the original, that of Matthew contained information that is of no use to the Gentile population, such as genealogies of people folks in Rome would have never heard of and would not understand the significance of and is thus appended in a gospel prepared with evangelizing the Gentile world.

Another secondary reason many scholars choose Mark is because they imagine that the Church at Rome was the first center of early Christianity, which it wasn't.

So basically this theory that a good number of scholars hold is based on some misconception and a goodly amount of bias against the material also plays a part in it.

The thing about this book is it thoroughly documents it's sources, makes detailed suppositions and backs them up, and is impartial.

I think it is the superior theory. The techniques used to arrive at this theory are far superior, detailed, and logical than the theories of those who support Mark as the oldest Gospel.

Matthew was written by an apostle, Mark was written by a student of an apostle.

[SaladFingers]

*sigh* to the earlier roots of this thread to help give evidence that Jesus Christ's existance in history is recorded..

http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/Jesus05.htm

Quick google search actually pulled that up, I'm sure if I cared to provide more evidence to individuals who are quick tongued and don't do their homework, I could find more..

I'm also an undergrad at Iowa State University majoring in History, and sub'ing in medical and middle eastern history.. It's often that I do come across Roman readings. It isn't only the Annals by Taictus that Jesus can be found.

If because it is the year 2006 and it's so long ago that Jesus existed, that the generation that would have seen him died out, and lots of court records from Romans and Jewish temple officials dissapeared as well.. do you assume that perhaps in the year 3500 people will beleive that oh.. say.. Ghengis Khan never existed on earth?

No one can find his body, and there are volumnes of literature on his life, but without physical evidence, there is only literature and we will have to rely on faith alone in historians that he supposidly existed.

Ghengis Khan's descendants made imprints in Asia, much like Jesus's disciples established churches, and eventually whole nations (theocracies) sprung up.

Another great arguement, is the Black Death. There are only written accounts of the Plague killing millions on Earth. But Historians and Researchers can only assume from written texts that it happened.

The hard physical evidence disappeared with the bodies, as at the time cremation of piles of bodies was finally o.k'ed by the church.
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/vampires04.htm
Myth website showing how evidence was destroyed via mutilating the alrdy dead bodies, and burning them.

The Black Plague in Europe was highly documented by the Catholic Church, but because the bacteria wasn't collected in a vial and preserved to the year 2006, we can argue much like the Bible, that it never happened.

Uh.. but millions of people died? Doesn't that equate to anything? Sure, and when someone recognizes that, then its not so hard to recognize that during the Roman persecution of Christians, thousands of them died even when offered the chance to convert back to Paganism.

So as you can see, it is easily dismissable that contemperary events that happened not-so-long-ago, can be just as unbeleivable as events that occured in the Bible.

[Random Evil Guy]

cap'n queasy wrote: The only reason that many scholars choose Mark is because of it's abbreviated form they suppose it is earlier. This is derived from a technique called text criticism, which basically a useless technique consisting of setting each gospel next to each other and comparing them.

:lol:

useless because you say so? please, the arrogance of that statement is down right embarassing...

the majority of biblical scholars support markan priority. i'm not a scholar, and i bet that you're neither a scholar, so in this case i go by the consensus among the 'scientists'...

[LetsGetReal]

An opionon is arrogance?

[cap'n queasy]

Random Evil Guy wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: The only reason that many scholars choose Mark is because of it's abbreviated form they suppose it is earlier. This is derived from a technique called text criticism, which basically a useless technique consisting of setting each gospel next to each other and comparing them.

:lol:

useless because you say so? please, the arrogance of that statement is down right embarassing...

the majority of biblical scholars support markan priority. i'm not a scholar, and i bet that you're neither a scholar, so in this case i go by the consensus among the 'scientists'...

They're not scientists. :lol:

Think whatever you want. Text criticism is still pretty much useless and is not considered proof of anything.

[Random Evil Guy]

cap'n queasy wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: The only reason that many scholars choose Mark is because of it's abbreviated form they suppose it is earlier. This is derived from a technique called text criticism, which basically a useless technique consisting of setting each gospel next to each other and comparing them.

:lol:

useless because you say so? please, the arrogance of that statement is down right embarassing...

the majority of biblical scholars support markan priority. i'm not a scholar, and i bet that you're neither a scholar, so in this case i go by the consensus among the 'scientists'...

They're not scientists. :lol:

Think whatever you want. Text criticism is still pretty much useless and is not considered proof of anything.

hence the ' ...

[sLiPpY]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Some of the comments on this thread claimed that no outside mention is ever made of the incident. And that three of the Gospels didn't even mention it. These statements are not factual.

My point here, in this thread, is not to convince people that the resurrection happened. But to point out that folks who do not believe it are not above lying to promote their particular point of view.

A very good point. Especially in debate, many people are willing to lie and hope that nobody calls them on their lie in order to convince others that they are right. I myself have never really understood that theory, since I find debate to be more about the quest for knowledge than proving that your dick is bigger than someone else's. However, to single out one side would be a bit dishonest. If indeed the Josephus text saying, and I directly quote "He was [the] Christ" is a later edit by a Christian source, then citing Josephus as an outside source would be just as dishonest as saying that only one Gospel mentions the Resurrection (though not nearly as idiotic).

Actually, I think the post in question refers to the raising of Lazarus, which to the best of my knowledge can only be found in the Book of John. :P

[Snarf]

sLiPpY wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: Some of the comments on this thread claimed that no outside mention is ever made of the incident. And that three of the Gospels didn't even mention it. These statements are not factual.

My point here, in this thread, is not to convince people that the resurrection happened. But to point out that folks who do not believe it are not above lying to promote their particular point of view.

A very good point. Especially in debate, many people are willing to lie and hope that nobody calls them on their lie in order to convince others that they are right. I myself have never really understood that theory, since I find debate to be more about the quest for knowledge than proving that your dick is bigger than someone else's. However, to single out one side would be a bit dishonest. If indeed the Josephus text saying, and I directly quote "He was [the] Christ" is a later edit by a Christian source, then citing Josephus as an outside source would be just as dishonest as saying that only one Gospel mentions the Resurrection (though not nearly as idiotic).

Actually, I think the post in question refers to the raising of Lazarus, which to the best of my knowledge can only be found in the Book of John. :P
Correct. It's interesting that the people who wrote the initial Gospels neglected to mention this rather profound act? Maybe their audience didn't need as much metaphysical muck in order to believe that there was a new way to seek God by following the teachings of this man known as Joshua...

[DwightEisenhower]

More secular historical accounts have confirmed Jesus' existance than have confirmed Socrates'. Plato certainly could have fabricated the entire character of Socrates in his writings but we find little reason to consider it a feasible possibility. Likewise I have not yet seen any reason to support the theory of a Christian editing Josephus' historical account, especially when we fail to identify who this unknown Christian is and how he did such a thing.

[psholtz]

DwightEisenhower wrote: More secular historical accounts have confirmed Jesus' existance than have confirmed Socrates'.
Can you quantify this a little more precisely.

I thought Josephus was the only secular reference to the Jesus, and that one might be entirely spurious for all we know.

[DwightEisenhower]

psholtz wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: More secular historical accounts have confirmed Jesus' existance than have confirmed Socrates'.
Can you quantify this a little more precisely.

I thought Josephus was the only secular reference to the Jesus, and that one might be entirely spurious for all we know.

Sure.

Quote: Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta mundique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

-Tacitus, Chapter 44, Book 15, Annals

Quote: "As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

-Seutonius, Life of Claudius, 25.4

[DwightEisenhower]

To clarify the Socrates bit, the only historical evidence for Socrates' existence comes from Plato, his student. (Unless someone can correct this). Surely the relationship of Plato / Socrates gives more room for bias than that of Josephus / Jesus.

If anyone does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth lived because of the "lack of credible evidence," they can not believe that Socrates lived without becoming flaming hypocrites.

[Random Evil Guy]

psholtz wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: More secular historical accounts have confirmed Jesus' existance than have confirmed Socrates'.
Can you quantify this a little more precisely.

I thought Josephus was the only secular reference to the Jesus, and that one might be entirely spurious for all we know.

i think the consensus is that the passage is, at least partly, a forgery. i don't remember the exact details, but the short version is that josephus, the jew, would never have refered to jesus as 'christ'...

[Random Evil Guy]

DwightEisenhower wrote: To clarify the Socrates bit, the only historical evidence for Socrates' existence comes from Plato, his student. (Unless someone can correct this). Surely the relationship of Plato / Socrates gives more room for bias than that of Josephus / Jesus.

If anyone does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth lived because of the "lack of credible evidence," they can not believe that Socrates lived without becoming flaming hypocrites.

here is where christians lose me. let's say your story checks out, who cares if socrates lived or not? it wouldn't really make any difference one way or the other. if, however, jesus didn't exist, christianity would disolve... a bit different, don't you think?

however, i think there is a lot more evidence that shows socrates existed. several contemporary sources...

[John]

Random Evil Guy wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: To clarify the Socrates bit, the only historical evidence for Socrates' existence comes from Plato, his student. (Unless someone can correct this). Surely the relationship of Plato / Socrates gives more room for bias than that of Josephus / Jesus.

If anyone does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth lived because of the "lack of credible evidence," they can not believe that Socrates lived without becoming flaming hypocrites.

here is where christians lose me. let's say your story checks out, who cares if socrates lived or not? it wouldn't really make any difference one way or the other. if, however, jesus didn't exist, christianity would disolve... a bit different, don't you think?

however, i think there is a lot more evidence that shows socrates existed. several contemporary sources...

The same logic that you claim would disolve Christianity, would also cause it to never form (if Jesus didn't exist). You refuse to look at the FACT that it did form and apply your own logic.

You do know that Jesus has been written about and examined more than ANY historical figure. ANY.

[mattwa33193]

John wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: To clarify the Socrates bit, the only historical evidence for Socrates' existence comes from Plato, his student. (Unless someone can correct this). Surely the relationship of Plato / Socrates gives more room for bias than that of Josephus / Jesus.

If anyone does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth lived because of the "lack of credible evidence," they can not believe that Socrates lived without becoming flaming hypocrites.

here is where christians lose me. let's say your story checks out, who cares if socrates lived or not? it wouldn't really make any difference one way or the other. if, however, jesus didn't exist, christianity would disolve... a bit different, don't you think?

however, i think there is a lot more evidence that shows socrates existed. several contemporary sources...

The same logic that you claim would disolve Christianity, would also cause it to never form (if Jesus didn't exist). You refuse to look at the FACT that it did form and apply your own logic.

You do know that Jesus has been written about and examined more than ANY historical figure. ANY.

So the Socratic Method would not exist if Socrates never existed? Fallacy.