Mark was the first written (as was first noted by German textual critics at the end of the 18th century). At Mark 13:2 Jesus "predicts" the destruction of Jerusalem, meaning Mark was written after 70 CE. (The author of Matthew copies Mark but specifies the Temple (Matthew 24:2). Mark's trial...
In Genesis' Garden story, what in your view did the snake say to Eve that was deceptive?
As I read it, the only deceptive statement was God saying that "in the day that you eat of it you will die" ─ which was simply untrue, exactly as the snake said.
I don't see how obtaining knowledge of good...
'Supernatural' is from Latin, meaning 'above nature' meaning in turn 'outside of nature'.
Nature is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.
And it seems fair to say that the only way the supernatural (and its elements such as gods, ghosts, souls, devils...
It's not as if the meaning of the words is the problem. 'Cause' and 'effect' are concepts that humans use to explain and control their environment. You might try to account for the same phenomena limiting yourself to the vocabulary of change, for example.
Neither does the theory of gravity or game theory or relativity &c &c. The fundamental relation of cause and effect is explained by their respective definitions.
Whoever wrote John did so, I read, around 95 CE or later, which is some 65 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death. Considering how rare it was to live to 60 in those days, and considering John's author's reliance-at-a-distance on the synoptics and gnostic views, I can't think of any...
Depends on the scholar. I have a particular distrust of Christian apologists, for example. Their task is not to determine and advocate for the historical truth of events, but to defend the beliefs held as orthodoxy in their corner.
I also had an interesting encounter with scholars some years...
That's what cross-examination is for ─ but it requires much smart homework, of course.
Then again, every time you consult your medical advisers, they start with opinions but check them with further particular tests.
Having no Hebrew, I rely on translations, and the latest version of the RSV ─ the NRSVue or New Revised Standard Version, updated edition ─ is apparently highly regarded by many who might claim to know as the best translation yet in that series of the (Christian) bible into English.
Here...
So it remains the case that the NT contains no texts by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus. No argument from me.
And whatever else the author of Luke did, he used Mark as his template, as the author of Matthew had done, and gave the version of their versions that he liked best. His intro...
There's good reason to think that Mark got his trial-of-Jesus scene from Josephus' account (Wars VI.5.3) of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias.
God, if you take the Genesis view, created humans, hence the entire range of human behavior. And given God is omniscient, [he] knew all the consequences of [his] acts at the time [he] did them, and since [he] did them regardless, [he] is the knowing creator of homosexuality, and indeed all forms...