Different Storytellers

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 05:36 PM']RESPONSE:

I believe that it is evident that much of what is reported in the Bible never happened. To be sure, there is some historical information, but  the bulk of the bible was written long after the fact  and is legendary, not historical. In  the case of the Old Testament, it tells the national epic of Israel, much like the epics of other peoples frequently found in their religious writings.

In the case of the New Testament, it  too was written quite a bit later than the stories it relates. It reflects how various communites had come to think of Jesus. Stories told about him are not necessarily historical (ie they didn't necesssarily happen), but they represented how the people thought about Jesus. And, of course, these stories became embellished over time.
[right][snapback]661725[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

so how soon after an event does something need to be written for you to believe it to be true?

incase my point doesnt make sense:

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.


so do you just not believe in anything written at any time?

[Socrates]

Why are we continuing to feed this troll?? He has been proven wrong time and time again since he first began trolling in February, yet keeps repeating the same foolishnes over and over. (run a search on this site)

[quote]so do you just not believe in anything written at any time? [/quote]

LittleLes simply refuses to believe the Good News of Jesus Christ, or any sources supporting this.
He has no interest in honest debate, but only in bashing Catholic teaching. No need to keep feeding his childish screaming for negative attention.

Edited July 28, 2005 by Socrates

[Sirklawd]

ah ok. done and done then

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 27 2005, 11:12 PM']Why are we continuing to feed this troll??  He has been proven wrong time and time again since he first began trolling in February, yet keeps repeating the same foolishnes over and over.  (run a search on this site)
LittleLes simply refuses to believe the Good News of Jesus Christ, or any  sources supporting this.
He has no interest in honest debate, but only in bashing Catholic teaching.  No need to keep feeding his childish screaming for negative attention.
[right][snapback]661904[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Don't waste your time and your energy - which belong to God - throwing stones at the dogs that bark at you on your way. Ignore them.
-- St. Josemaria Escriva: The Way


St. Augustine
City of God -Book 18
CHAPTER 51 -- [b]That the Catholic Faith may be confirmed even by the dissensions of the heretics. [/b]


Something to think about, with every post that he fails in a dialog against the Church, the lurkers who are non-Catholic could benefit. Of course it seems like there is ample posts for them to see that the dissensions of this heretic that the Church is true... I don't think we should totally ignore him, but maybe limit our responses due to his hate for the Catholic Church being greater than his love for Christ.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 27 2005, 09:12 PM']Why are we continuing to feed this troll??  He has been proven wrong time and time again since he first began trolling in February, yet keeps repeating the same foolishnes over and over.  (run a search on this site)
LittleLes simply refuses to believe the Good News of Jesus Christ, or any  sources supporting this.
He has no interest in honest debate, but only in bashing Catholic teaching.  No need to keep feeding his childish screaming for negative attention.
[right][snapback]661904[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

On the other hand, perhaps what apologists try to convince us of simply isn't creditable. As my evidence suggests.

[LittleLes]

Answering the claim that the New Testmant is "literal" (precise, factual) history, we can begin with this:

Matthew 2: 1 "...Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" and then we have the account of Herod's alleged Slaughter of the Innocent. King Herod died in 4 B.C.

On the other hand, Luke 2:1-2 writes about the census which required that Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem. "This census happened to be the first when Quirinius governed Syria." Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 A.D.

See the contradiction? Are both "literal" history then???

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 27 2005, 10:30 PM']I don't think we should totally ignore him, but maybe limit our responses due to his hate for the Catholic Church being greater than his love for Christ.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Objection: Assertion without evidence.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Credibility most certainly does not come from a refusal to respond to important points that are made, such as Sirklawd's quotation from Kenyon, and neither does it come from continual repetition of the same argument (e.g. insisting on the obvious fact that Bethany is not Mt. Olivet).

Regardless, I have long given up debating with LittleLes, as it never actually yields a fruitful discussion: those whose only concern is pushing an agenda are not conducive to meaningful conversation.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 28 2005, 10:01 AM']Credibility most certainly does not come from a refusal to respond to important points that are made, such as Sirklawd's quotation from Kenyon, and neither does it come from continual repetition of the same argument (e.g. insisting on the obvious fact that Bethany is not Mt. Olivet).

Regardless, I have long given up debating with LittleLes, as it never actually yields a fruitful discussion: those whose only concern is pushing an agenda are not conducive to meaningful conversation.
[right][snapback]662370[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

It is always fascinating to encounter those who's belief systems will not allow them to recognize the facts of history.

Perhaps even more fascinating to observe their rationalizations for refusing to do so. :

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 11:05 AM']RESPONSE:

It is always fascinating to encounter those who's belief systems will not allow them to recognize the facts of history.

Perhaps even more fascinating to observe their rationalizations for refusing to do so. :
[right][snapback]662372[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Likewise.

Edited July 28, 2005 by thedude

[Sirklawd]

lolol, agreed.

Edited July 28, 2005 by Sirklawd

[ironmonk]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 11:54 AM']RESPONSE:

Objection: Assertion without evidence.
[right][snapback]662368[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I guess you think that you learn from ossmosis.

Find the writings before 1000 AD that explain the Scriptures.

You can buy them here:
[url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]http://www.logos.com/products/details/518[/url]

OR read them for FREE here:
[url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url]


PLEASE NOTE:
[b]The Early Church Fathers CD-ROM comes in two versions, Protestant and Catholic. Simply put, the difference is that the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date. [u]There is no difference in the actual ECF text[/u].[/b]

ALL the evidence has been presented, the fact that you claim it hasn't proves that you haven't looked.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[LittleLes]

John 1 tells us: He is the one of whom I said, 'A man is coming after me who ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.' I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel."

Yet Luke tells us that John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. Yet John claims he "did not know him."

One claim seems to be in error.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 28 2005, 11:15 AM']I guess you think that you learn from ossmosis.

Find the writings before 1000 AD that explain the Scriptures.

You can buy them here:
[url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]http://www.logos.com/products/details/518[/url]

[/quote]
RESPONSE:

No. I learn from doing the reading myself.

Have you just discovered the writings of the Early Church Fathers? Have you studied them and identified what is accurate and what are errors and contradictions?

One of the most noted was Eusebius. In his History of the Church, Vol 1, chapter 13 he tells us that:

For instance the King Abgarus, who ruled with great glory the nations beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible disease which it was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of the name of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by all with one accord sent a message to him by a courier and begged him to heal his disease.

But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed him worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send one of his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time promised salvation to himself and all his house.

So according to Eusebius, jesus didn't make housecalls but did write letters.

You do believe all that, don't you?

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 11:43 AM']John 1 tells us: He is the one of whom I said, 'A man is coming after me who ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.' I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel."

Yet Luke tells us that John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. Yet John claims he "did not know him."

One claim seems to be in error.
[right][snapback]662483[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

no error at all. infact, im living proof that that is possible. I live on the east coast (usa). my dad's entire family lives on the west coast, I have atleast 10 cousins over there. I've never EVER seen them, but I do know they exist, and I've heard OF them.