Speaking in 'tongues'

[Rhiannon]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
[/quote]

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
[/quote]
I doubt it because the former is more trivial.

[jakswan]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
[/quote]

Hit the nail on the head with likely, the historical method deals in probability,  Strawboy doesn't get it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.

Hit the nail on the head with likely, the historical method deals in probability,  Strawboy doesn't get it.
[/quote]
I doubt that many of the Roman Historians were trained in statistical analysis Swan, and after all their accounts are rarely questioned by your kind.

So saying that historical study is and has been a kind of science is flat wrong.

That doesn't mean to say there aren't obvious rules in history which you, Len and the others are ignoring.......The main being that if you are going to accept a history on certain grounds or reject it on certain grounds, those grounds must apply to all documents.

Sorry to comprehensively piss on your bonfire.

[Leonard James]

Sorry to comprehensively piss on your bonfire.

You haven't pissed on anything except the squib you were trying to light, Vladdyboy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry to comprehensively piss on your bonfire.

You haven't pissed on anything except the squib you were trying to light, Vladdyboy.

You still hold to the ridiculous notion that only things written by those at an event could be relied upon as history, thus rejecting almost 100% of history? Use your loaf Man,

[Gordon]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.

Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.

In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.

[Rhiannon]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.

I doubt it because the former is more trivial.
[/quote]

Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.

Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.

I doubt it because the former is more trivial.

Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.

Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.
[/quote]
Actually we believe dead men don't come back to life.
That should primarily be because we have not experienced it in our own lives and have faith that it won't happen. Then secondarily we accept scientific non observation and base our belief in it's impossibility on that.

On that though, even science states that although the same things happen time and time again a different result is not to be discounted.

But here in the Gospels and epistles are accounts of it happening.

To disbelieve in them requires a counter belief that there is no God and /or he could not or would not do this.

I think you will see that nowhere in this is any ''Knowing'' that these things can't, don't or haven't happened.

[jakswan]

I doubt that many of the Roman Historians were trained in statistical analysis Swan, and after all their accounts are rarely questioned by your kind.

I do not accept their accounts as fact, straw-man.

So saying that historical study is and has been a kind of science is flat wrong.

Never said it was, straw-man.

That doesn't mean to say there aren't obvious rules in history which you, Len and the others are ignoring.......The main being that if you are going to accept a history on certain grounds or reject it on certain grounds, those grounds must apply to all documents.

Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.

Sorry to comprehensively piss on your bonfire.

Strawboy you barely managed a drip.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.

Well that just means that central to everything for you is YOUR scepticism.........

Since that is then the only show in town for you...........why are you implying that your scepticism is better than anybody elses......particularly when there has been no evidence that it is'nt the one thing you aren't sceptical of.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.

Well that just means that central to everything for you is YOUR scepticism.........

Since that is then the only show in town for you...........why are you implying that your scepticism is better than anybody elses......particularly when there has been no evidence that it is'nt the one thing you aren't sceptical of.

And in English?

What's that mate?

[jakswan]

Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.

Well that just means that central to everything for you is YOUR scepticism.........

Since that is then the only show in town for you...........why are you implying that your scepticism is better than anybody elses......particularly when there has been no evidence that it is'nt the one thing you aren't sceptical of.

Strawboy,

If you don't understand my position on something just ask. I would treat all historical accounts with a level of sceptism, refuting your assertion 'I doubt that many of the Roman Historians were trained in statistical analysis Swan, and after all their accounts are rarely questioned by your kind'.

Do you accept the Gospel of Peter as fact, if not why not? If no and you cite that it was later and therefore less likely to be reliable, then is the Gospel of John less reliable than the Gospel of Mark as this was later?

If not then doesn't that make you a hypocrite? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.

Well that just means that central to everything for you is YOUR scepticism.........

Since that is then the only show in town for you...........why are you implying that your scepticism is better than anybody elses......particularly when there has been no evidence that it is'nt the one thing you aren't sceptical of.

Strawboy,

If you don't understand my position on something just ask. I would treat all historical accounts with a level of sceptism, refuting your assertion 'I doubt that many of the Roman Historians were trained in statistical analysis Swan, and after all their accounts are rarely questioned by your kind'.

Yes but what level of scepticism Swan....equal scepticism? level based on what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you accept the Gospel of Peter as fact, if not why not? If no and you cite that it was later and therefore less likely to be reliable, then is the Gospel of John less reliable than the Gospel of Mark as this was later?

If not then doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

As far as I know it was doing the rounds and it's orthodoxy was debated by Eusabius and Serapion who may have been big wheels in church circles at the time. Eusabius states that much was orthodox but there was some stuff which could support Docetism so I can see why it might not have made the canon.

You seem to accuse me of the mistake I have accused Len of. Historical works are as good as their sources, the assembly of those and the value of the whole thing in a wider context.

[Spud]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.

Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.

In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.

I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with God, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for God to act to enable it. If so how would God do that and does the Bible make sense? This does rely upon the existence of God, so if you don't believe in God how do you know he doesn't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to him and so suppress the knowledge of him?

[ippy]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.

Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.

In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.

I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it. If so how would a Unicorn do that and does the history of Unicorns make sense? This does rely upon the existence of Unicorns, so if you don't believe in Unicorns how do you know they don't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to Unicorns and so suppress the knowledge of Unicorns?


Makes equally as much sense as the former version.

ippy

[Hope]

What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it.

We always knew that you were a closet Unicornist, ippy.  Or should that be 'Unicornian'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.

Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.

In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.

I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it. If so how would a Unicorn do that and does the history of Unicorns make sense? This does rely upon the existence of Unicorns, so if you don't believe in Unicorns how do you know they don't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to Unicorns and so suppress the knowledge of Unicorns?


Makes equally as much sense as the former version.

ippy

I thought a unicorn was a horse with one horn.

[ippy]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.

Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.

In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.

I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it. If so how would a Unicorn do that and does the history of Unicorns make sense? This does rely upon the existence of Unicorns, so if you don't believe in Unicorns how do you know they don't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to Unicorns and so suppress the knowledge of Unicorns?


Makes equally as much sense as the former version.

ippy

I thought a unicorn was a horse with one horn.

Exactly Vladicus, you've got it in one.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.

Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.

In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.

I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it. If so how would a Unicorn do that and does the history of Unicorns make sense? This does rely upon the existence of Unicorns, so if you don't believe in Unicorns how do you know they don't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to Unicorns and so suppress the knowledge of Unicorns?


Makes equally as much sense as the former version.

ippy

I thought a unicorn was a horse with one horn.

Exactly Vladicus, you've got it in one.

ippy

Got what you strange man?

[jeremyp]

Isn't 'copy' a generalisation?

Not in the case of the gospels.

Four newspapers might describe the same event using similar wording, and they may at times use the same phrases, but there are differences which reflect the different reporters and sometimes different eyewitnesses. If you read the four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, you should notice these differences, which do provide independent verification.

If that described the gospels, you would have a point, but Matthew and Luke (and probably John) had the text of Mark in front of them and literally copied it, making a few changes.
 

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

The first chapter of "The Eagle Has Landed" frames the story as a historical event. The writer even names at least one eye witness source, but the story itself is still fictional.

As good as- find out how each of them is reported to have died. Only one died a natural death, but he died in exile.

You don't even know who any of them were.

That doesn't automatically mean the gospel writers did.

No we've been over the reasons why the gospels cannot be seriously considered as history but you just can't accept it.

[jeremyp]

Whilst there is truth in that, Shaker, one has to think of the huge number of people who are mis-treated or mis-informed whilst the 'wrong' understanding is current.

Who has been mistreated or misinformed by Newtonian physics? Or the atomic theory of matter?

I think back to the way in which 2 of those who were regarded as 'experts' in the child development and educational fields when I was traing as a teacher - Piaget and Birt - have had their findings questioned and altered; or what about Kinsey, whose research into sexuality was shown to have been seriously skewed by the limited groups he used for his research.

Because of these two cases, science is unreliable is it?  You really are stretching.

But it would also be true to say that the last 50 years have seen shifts in fundamental understandings in science that match the scale of changes in the previous 500. 

It would be useful if you listed some examples.

Yet what is true today - as I originally pointed out - may be found not to be true tomorrow. 

In the vast majority of cases it won't.

Pertinent, in which ways?

Pertinent in that your avoidance of answering shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

[Rhiannon]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.

I doubt it because the former is more trivial.

Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.

Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.

Actually we believe dead men don't come back to life.
That should primarily be because we have not experienced it in our own lives and have faith that it won't happen. Then secondarily we accept scientific non observation and base our belief in it's impossibility on that.

On that though, even science states that although the same things happen time and time again a different result is not to be discounted.

But here in the Gospels and epistles are accounts of it happening.

To disbelieve in them requires a counter belief that there is no God and /or he could not or would not do this.

I think you will see that nowhere in this is any ''Knowing'' that these things can't, don't or haven't happened.
[/quote]

Ok, let's ignore the game of hide n seek your brain is doing with logic for a moment.

Care to answer the point about context?