Such a debacle.*****
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Such a debacle.*****
Now there's a mantra a could readily embrace. But I've tried it with outhouse to no avail; I doubt that you'll have any more success here. :no:Jeez, man. Read a book.
Now there's a mantra a could readily embrace. But I've tried it with outhouse to no avail; I doubt that you'll have any more success here. :no:
I read the chapters I need to in my research that have the information Im looking for.
:clapAh confirmation bias ahoy!
It's not a specific issue. You've done this with everything from Mithras to QM. You latch on to only a sole website for information when you like it. Evidence for you seems to be whatever you wish to believe. Hence my question.This discussion needs to be continued on your thread re: Aramaic primacy, I think.
It's not a specific issue. You've done this with everything from Mithras to QM. You latch on to a sole website for information when you like it. Evidence for you seems to be whatever you wish to believe. Hence my question.
I didn't mention sources. Many of the sources I use you can't even read. I mentioned evidence. Someone posts junk on a blog or forum you happen to like and you buy them over a PhD in any field because you like what they have to say. You think that a word or line says something? To you it doesn't no matter who translates it for you (me, others here, scholars, even google translate). You don't believe sources. You believe what it was you wanted to believe to begin with.You believe in your sources, I believe in mine.
Just because you have a single mss scrap dated earlier than the earliest Pe****ta text right now puts no nail in any coffin.
I didn't mention sources. Many of the sources I use you can't even read. I mentioned evidence. Someone posts junk on a blog or forum you happen to like and you buy them over a PhD in any field because you like what they have to say. You think that a word or line says something? To you it doesn't no matter who translates it for you (me, others here, scholars, even google translate). You don't believe sources. You believe what it was you wanted to believe to begin with.
The fact that the Pe****ta copies the Greek text in that it transliterates the Aramaic and then translates it speaks volumes. However, as you can't read Greek, Aramaic, or Syriac and haven't the foggiest what you are talking about you wouldn't know. That's not evidence. That's ignorance.
No more responses re: Aramaic Primacy on this thread for me. Bye!
I think people just gave up bashing their heads against your proverbial wall, son.
Many of the sources I use you can't even read. .... as you can't read Greek, Aramaic, or Syriac and haven't the foggiest what you are talking about you wouldn't know. That's not evidence. That's ignorance.
(Meanwhile...heh...heh...more delicious morsels of delight under the table for ye children who yearn for the truth that will set you free, a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night.)...
More on Christ as solar deity:
"The Sun of Righteousness will arise with healing in his wings."
This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation "Sun of Righteousness" is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ.
New Testament Solar Imagery
In the Gospel of Luke (1:78), Christ's very advent is depicted as a visitation from the "dayspring on high":
"Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us..."
The word for "dayspring" or "day" in the original Greek is ἀνατολή or anatole, which means "sunrise, east." In reference to this scripture, Rev. Matthew Henry states:
"Christ is the Morning Light, the rising Sun, Mal. 4:2." (Jenkins, 417)
Jesus Christ as the Sun God throughout History
....which is yet more that points to the East as the source of wisdom.....just sayin'...
The Catholic Church knows this.
As he says you are wrong, disagrees fundamentally with your views about academia and the sciences, and (unlike you) has degrees and spent decades studying to obtain graduate degrees, I'd say that hit couldn't matter less if I saw him again for training. You don't rely on evidence as a rule. You find some website by an ex-film student claiming to speak the language of Jesus and that's enough for you. You find youtube videos on quantum mechanics and that's enough for you to say physicists don't understand physics. You have no training, no education, no sources. But now suddenly you want "evidence". Right.So when 'ya gonna go see yer KeeGong teacher so 'ya kin git some smarts, eh?
There is no hard evidence, save for one small house, for a 1st Century Nazareth. So if many non-Christians 'believe' that one existed, what are they basing their belief on? What are you talking about?
As he says you are wrong, disagrees fundamentally with your views about academia and the sciences, and (unlike you) has degrees and spent decades studying to obtain graduate degrees, I'd say that hit couldn't matter less if I saw him again for training. You don't rely on evidence as a rule. You find some website by an ex-film student claiming to speak the language of Jesus and that's enough for you. You find youtube videos on quantum mechanics and that's enough for you to say physicists don't understand physics. You have no training, no education, no sources. But now suddenly you want "evidence". Right.
As he says you are wrong, disagrees fundamentally with your views about academia and the sciences, and (unlike you) has degrees and spent decades studying to obtain graduate degrees, I'd say that hit couldn't matter less if I saw him again for training.
]You don't rely on evidence as a rule. You find some website by an ex-film student claiming to speak the language of Jesus and that's enough for you.
You find youtube videos on quantum mechanics and that's enough for you to say physicists don't understand physics. You have no training, no education, no sources. But now suddenly you want "evidence". Right.
They don't read the archaeological reports like idiots.
[Historians don't disqualify evidence based on your ridiculous biases]