Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Historic Acts
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13477 Posts

Posted - 01/11/2003 :  20:27:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
Oh well... I only wish I had misspelled pizzas. I live for choices.... Kilbonics strikes again....

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

NottyImp
Skeptic Friend

United Kingdom
143 Posts

Posted - 01/13/2003 :  04:57:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send NottyImp a Private Message
Going out with pizzas sounds an excellent plan. Something for friends and family to eat whilst they contemplate and celebrate your life.

"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily."
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 01/22/2003 :  20:49:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Slater:
quote:
Yes, the surviving Gospels say they are the truth and the Gnostic (there were other versions than just the Gnostic. I'm
including them under the one title for the sake of brevity, and not accuracy) are not.
So what?
Today's gospel wasn't the original and the Gnostic perversions that came later. Both the Gnostic and the gospels you
claim are true date from exactly the same time. There are also claims that the Gnostic are the original and surviving
gospels a misunderstanding of the "mysteries" presented in the original causing them to incorrectly be presented as
history and not religion.
First,I would like to know what source you used for both dating the NT and the Gnostic pervervisions of them.Secondly, as Imfamous pointed out within the Pauline letters (dated very early by most scholars AD 45-62) he was already refuting doctrines which went against an already establised set of historical criteria for "The Faith" by which the early church could compare to as to whether the new document should be accepted.Third,the existence of both The John Rylands Papyri(AD 125) and the writings of Ignatius,Polycarp all speak of an established orthodoxy before any the Gnostic writings were even in circulation.(edited for ref's.http://ntcanon.org/writings.shtml....http://ntcanon.org/).

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Edited by - darwin alogos on 01/22/2003 21:46:22
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 02/04/2003 :  20:43:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Classical Scholar's have a very high regard for Luke's Historic Acts
quote:
Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament
Luke

Luke was an educated Greek, a doctor by profession. He wrote Luke and Acts which together
account for two-fifths of the New Testament. He covers the period from the birth of Christ into
the first thirty years of the story of the early church, a period of 60 years. His writing gives a
historical context for the rest of the New Testament.

Luke's record as a historian

Luke's ability as a historian has been amply documented. There are numerous instances where he
refers to rulers and historical events in his two books. These can be tested from other sources. It
is interesting to note the number of times in which Luke has been thought to have been wrong in
the particular titles he has given to rulers in certain countries or cities, and which later
archaeological and other discoveries have proved to be right. Some examples are: reference to
Philippian rulers as praetors, his choice of the word proconsul as the title for Gallio in Corinth,
his describing of Publius as "the leading man of the island" in Malta, and his usage of politarchs
to denote the civil authorities of Thessalonica. (He gets no less than fifteen Roman governor titles
right.) Luke's accurate employment of the various titles used in the Roman Empire has been
compared to the easy and confident way in which an Oxford man in ordinary conversation will
refer to the Heads of Oxford colleges by their proper titles - the Provost of Oriel, the Master of
Balliol, the Rector of Exeter, the President of Magdalen, and so on.

His accuracy in such details extends also to the more general sphere of
local colour and atmosphere in such places as Jerusalem, Syrian Antioch,
Philippi and Ephesus. He gets the atmosphere right every time. It is worth
noting that the description of his sea voyage with Paul to Rome, and their
shipwreck on Malta, in Acts 27, has been called "one of the most
instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship" that we
possess. There is, in fact, only one other document in existence that gives
similar detail as to what sailing was like in those days. The eminent Roman
historian A. N. Sherwin-White said of Acts:

Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd.

Classical scholar E. M. Blaiklock said of Luke:

Luke is a consummate historian, to be ranked in his own right with the great writers of the
Greeks.

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2003 :  03:55:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
later:

quote:

Yes, the surviving Gospels say they are the truth and the Gnostic (there were other versions than just the Gnostic. I'm
including them under the one title for the sake of brevity, and not accuracy) are not.
So what?
Today's gospel wasn't the original and the Gnostic perversions that came later. Both the Gnostic and the gospels you
claim are true date from exactly the same time. There are also claims that the Gnostic are the original and surviving
gospels a misunderstanding of the "mysteries" presented in the original causing them to incorrectly be presented as
history and not religion.


First,I would like to know what source you used for both dating the NT and the Gnostic pervervisions of them.Secondly,
as Imfamous pointed out within the Pauline letters (dated very early by most scholars AD 45-62) he was already refuting
doctrines which went against an already establised set of historical criteria for "The Faith" by which the early
church could compare to as to whether the new document should be accepted.Third,the existence of both The John
Rylands Papyri(AD 125) and the writings of Ignatius,Polycarp all speak of an established orthodoxy before any the
Gnostic writings were even in circulation.(edited for ref's.http://ntcanon.org/writings.shtml....http://ntcanon.org/).
Still no answer Slater?

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Go to Top of Page

Slater
SFN Regular

USA
1668 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2003 :  11:49:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Slater a Private Message
No need for an answer. Once again you are resorting to lies, obviously you have no intention of taking this topic seriously
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2003 :  16:13:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Slater:
quote:
No need for an answer. Once again you are resorting to lies, obviously you have no intention of taking this topic seriously
And once again, old very predictable Slater,COULD YOU AT LEAST NAME ONE THING I LIED ABOUT? Or are you content to just slander at will?

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.32 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000