It's a joke. I'm an amateur.
Oh and no, just because you read a lot doesn't mean you never make a spelling mistake.
And seriously, if the best you have is an ad hominem, maybe don't waste either one of our time. If you want a real discussion or debate, I'm here. If all you have are demeaning...
Because I'm an amateur. And reading thousands of books really isn't a big feat when it comes to someone in a religious studies or history program. Especially if you're going into Master level work. Seriously, I'm on the low end of the reading scale here.
How did we determine that there was a genocide in Rwanda? Or in Serbia? It's not like they publically stated their intentions. But there was nevertheless evidence of their intent. There were paper trails.
We don't have that in Israel. The very fact that many Palestinians are not be targeted...
Not when it comes to genocide. A massacre, by definition, is not a genocide. You have to show clear intention.
When we look at Palestine, the fact that there are many Palestinians in Israel who are not targeted in any manner, shows that the intent is not eradication. Many Palestinians are...
I have a degree in religious studies and history. I'm currently working on a Masters. I do have an interest in studying this sort of material, which is why I went to college for it. So I'm very well aware of this information.
Now the person you linked here is an apologist. There's nothing...
You have to show intent. Intent here is a massive part. The intent has to be to destroy, in whole or in part. When it says in part here, if you look at the link I provided that breaks this down more, the part has to be substantial, as in, substantial enough to destroy the whole. And again...
Israel is not guilty of genocide, by definition. For it to be genocide, you must show clear intent to eliminate a people. That simply isn't happening here, as can be demonstrated by the fact that Palestinians as a whole aren't being exterminated. Many Palestinians are still living in Israel...
The author of Luke wrote Acts. This author, as they tell us at the beginning of their writing, is creating this text as part of a commission to someone, and they have gone out and found all the sources they could find. They never give us their name, and only later tradition names him Luke.
The...
I never denied anything. I've acknowledged they have blame. To label one side evil and the other good, or one side bad and the other not, ignores so much.
That's not true at all. The Great Revolt of 1936 predates all of this, and was an attempt by Palestinian Arabs to rid Palestine of Jews, and to set up their own independence. We also have the Arab World siding with Hitler and the Nazis, and attempting to initialize that Final Solution in...
The problem though is we can't start with the Nakba. The Nakba is a product of the Great Revolt that occurred nearly a decade before, which really set the stage. We are looking at Palestine in 1936, where the Palestinian Arabs revolted against Britain and attempted to assert their own...
I think its more like Israel won't allow history to repeat. I'm not saying Israel is guiltless in all of this, but since the idea of an Israeli state began, there has been threats to eliminate any potential for that. And for most of that history, Israel has been criticized for really fighting...
I do not think that the Gospels are a variant of Western journalism. I think they fall into the category of genre called Lives. That they are more similar to the ancient texts we have of say Augustus. They contain not just history, but theology. They are also heavily influenced by the beliefs of...
I think the easier answer is that there was no actual prophecy regarding this, and it was something read into the story after the fact. There is no clear reference to this prophecy anywhere. It's only mentioned in one Gospel, and no one else seems to care.
More so, we can't use Matthew to...
Acts is questionable at best, at least according to mainline scholars. Personally, I don't give it too much stock, but let's just look at it here.
1) the number 3,000 isn't meant to be a definitive accounting of how many people were saved. It just means a lot of people. It was a common...
I used Paul's own letters in order to inform my arguments. What isn't found in Paul's letters is just standard historical arguments. I figure as I provided just as much citation as you did, it was quite fair. I'd be happy to go over any specific point though.
Well, if we believe Acts, he does...
Some people make up bad arguments. But creating a bad argument to counter that first argument gets no one anywhere.
One can make an argument that belief in God isn't irrational, or at least it doesn't need to be. One can make an argument that the possibility of God isn't negligible, and one...
The question of God is not a scientific question, so attempting to address the question at all with science is silly. Even if one would find some sort of being that could be defined as God, science still couldn't point to whether or not that being was God, or just some sort of alien. Because the...