Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Alex W. on 25 Jun 2008 13:45 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:66934f76-3cd8-4465-8bbc-c820308104c5(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > You are not an Xtian? Well, then why are you avoiding saying the word Christ? That is something the Jews used to do also. It was against Jewish law to say the name of God. ======== "Christ" is not a name. It's a title.
From: rbwinn on 25 Jun 2008 14:53 On Jun 25, 10:45�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:66934f76-3cd8-4465-8bbc-c820308104c5(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > You are not an Xtian? � Well, then why are you avoiding saying the > word Christ? �That is something the Jews used to do also. �It was > against Jewish law to say the name of God. > > ======== > > "Christ" is not a name. > It's a title. Well, that is true. Jehovah was the name the Jews were forbidden to say. Hebrew names are all titles also. Jehovah means I Am. Robert B. Winn
From: Roger Pearse on 25 Jun 2008 16:05 On 23 Jun, 14:51, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 12:22 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > wrote: > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Jun 21, 6:07 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > > wrote: > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > >> > On Jun 16, 11:52�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > >> And rightly so.  A later Christian scribe inserted not one but two such > > >> interpolations inJosephus' works.  There are copies of manuscripts that > > >> do not have those interpolations which predate copies that do have those > > >> interpolations. This particular story is a bit of hearsay which I thought had died by now. Firstly, all the Greek mss. of Antiquities that contain books 18 and 20 contain the two passages about Jesus. Secondly, the short passage in Ant. 20 is not considered to be an interpolation by any scholar today; indeed even at the high-watermark of scepticism, ca. 1900, only Emil Schurer was prepared to assert that it was. Thirdly the status of the TF in Ant. 18 has improved rather over the last century. In 1900 it was unanimously considered an interpolation; today it is generally considered genuine but corrupt, although there are plenty of scholars who believe it entirely interpolated and some who believe it entirely genuine. > > >> In fact scholars can show that the author of Luke and Acts usedJosephus > > >> which is another piece of evidence of the lateness of the New Testament > > >> books. This idea has only been advanced recently by one or two scholars. It's not warranted by any evidence. > > > Scholars can show whatever they want to show.  It will not change the > > > Bible. Indeed; but do not rush to suppose that because an atheist claims that "scholars" claim something, that it is either true or a good representation of things. > > The bible has changed frequently in history.  Any casual student of > > scripture would have been well aware of that fact. Even the most casual scholar would know better than this. > > > Luke did not use Josephus. > > > Have you read the Gospel According to Luke and Acts in Greek?  Have you read > >Josephus' entire works in Greek?  If not then you don't have even the most > > basic foundation to be able to discuss the matter. Since little Darrell hasn't done this himself, this is merely a particularly dishonest attempt to silence criticism of a particularly daft statement. > It makes no difference what language you read the Bible in.  You will > not comrehend what you read. Are unwilling to, I think. But perhaps some of these rabid atheists could explain the rational basis for them living in conformity to the accidental societal values of the period in which they happened to be born? All the best, Roger Pearse
From: rbwinn on 25 Jun 2008 17:11 On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 23 Jun, 14:51, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 12:22 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Jun 21, 6:07 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > > > wrote: > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > >> > On Jun 16, 11:52�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > >> And rightly so.  A later Christian scribe inserted not one but two such > > > >> interpolations inJosephus' works.  There are copies of manuscripts that > > > >> do not have those interpolations which predate copies that do have those > > > >> interpolations. > > This particular story is a bit of hearsay which I thought had died by > now. > > Firstly, all the Greek mss. of Antiquities that contain books 18 and > 20 contain the two passages about Jesus. > > Secondly, the short passage in Ant. 20 is not considered to be an > interpolation by any scholar today; indeed even at the high-watermark > of scepticism, ca. 1900, only Emil Schurer was prepared to assert that > it was. > > Thirdly the status of the TF in Ant. 18 has improved rather over the > last century.  In 1900 it was unanimously considered an interpolation; > today it is generally considered genuine but corrupt, although there > are plenty of scholars who believe it entirely interpolated and some > who believe it entirely genuine. > > > > >> In fact scholars can show that the author of Luke and Acts usedJosephus > > > >> which is another piece of evidence of the lateness of the New Testament > > > >> books. > > This idea has only been advanced recently by one or two scholars. > It's not warranted by any evidence. > > > > > Scholars can show whatever they want to show.  It will not change the > > > > Bible. > > Indeed; but do not rush to suppose that because an atheist claims that > "scholars" claim something, that it is either true or a good > representation of things. > > > > The bible has changed frequently in history.  Any casual student of > > > scripture would have been well aware of that fact. > > Even the most casual scholar would know better than this. > > > > > Luke did not use Josephus. > > > > Have you read the Gospel According to Luke and Acts in Greek?  Have you read > > >Josephus' entire works in Greek?  If not then you don't have even the most > > > basic foundation to be able to discuss the matter. > > Since little Darrell hasn't done this himself, this is merely a > particularly dishonest attempt to silence criticism of a particularly > daft statement. > > > It makes no difference what language you read the Bible in.  You will > > not comrehend what you read. > > Are unwilling to, I think. > > But perhaps some of these rabid atheists could explain the rational > basis for them living in conformity to the accidental societal values > of the period in which they happened to be born? > > All the best, > > Roger Pearse Thank you, Roger. Darrell has some very strange ideas. Robert b. Winn
From: foolsrushin. on 25 Jun 2008 20:14
On 18 Jun, 11:01, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [cut] > >>>>>>> "I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just > >>>>>>> details." Albert Einstein > >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 [cut] Actually, you ought to consider the consequences of a proof by God that he does not exist. -- 'foolsrushin.' |