Science standards under threat in Arizona

[MonkeyFire]

Omniscience doesn't require science... now what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Omniscience doesn't require science... now what?

Who do you think is omniscient?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Who do you think is omniscient?

Buddhas believe in enlightenment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Buddhas believe in enlightenment.

Not much of an answer.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That’s the first time I have heard of this.

I don’t remember see his name being one of the original 12 apostles?

Nor was he Judas Iscariot’s replacement.

It is bad enough that you are wrong about Luke being author and eyewitness, but now, you are making things up about Luke being an apostle.

The original 12 are often called disciples, for clarity. The apostles saw Christ and performed wonders. There were hundreds of disciples and dozens of apostles. Luke wrote two books that perform the wonder of making you constantly accuse the honest of lying, which I find wondrous.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where did you get that idea from? The book of Luke was not even written until about the year 70 CE or later. The book never says that it was written by Luke, that is merely church tradition, first started at 170 CE at the earliest. The author of Luke was clearly not an eyewitness if you ever read that gospel. Now you are making him (or her) look like an even worse historian. If a person was an eyewitness himself he would surely mention it.

Some basics on Luke:

Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia

His authorship of Luke is doubted, nor would he have been an eyewitness. This is why that the mythicist movement has been gaining, not losing credibility, historians are admitting that there is no reliable evidence for Jesus.

Repeating: I use "Luke" and not the awkward, "The gospel reputed to have been written by Luke". Grow up.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You may think but you do not know. It is just as possible that they are the correct gospels and the others are incorrect. No reliable objective accounts are available to say which is correct if any are. The chosen gospels were just that chosen by the church in Rome then anything that suggested any other view then it was destroyed. These two may have been the true inspired gospels. There is no way to be certain.

A "Berean Christian" studies the books for themselves and makes their own decision. However, here are some reasons I do not accept books beyond the 66. These other books:

1) Aren't accepted by the Jewish people

2) Aren't accepted by more than 99% of groups that began new church movements, via Bible study and study of non-canon books

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times, "This is the Word of God", indeed, they say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me"

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible

6) Were reluctantly placed in some movements to keep the peace, while adding footnotes like "of unknown origin/veracity"

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B in the same apocrypha

8) Shows lack of character: Daniel tricking people instead of being honest, Jesus putting a child to death, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You don’t understand the concept of “attribute”, do you?

Sometimes a book, text or other document included no name because it is unknown, but someone else later assign a name to that work.

This is the case with all gospels, where they are all originally anonymously written, but someone else in the 2nd century church assigned names to them. This is true to all 1st century gospels, where Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Thomas were attributed to the respective gospels.

It is currently agreed today the gospel of Mark was the earliest of the 4 canonical gospels, but the church used to believe it was the gospel of Matthew.

There are case, where Matthew and Luke (referring to the names of gospels, not the actual persons) don’t agree each other (the prime examples being birth story and the genealogy not agreeing with other), but sometimes they do agree with the other along with gospel of Mark, which tell us that the gospel of Mark may have been the source for the later two.

There are cases where Mark and Matthew agree with other, but differed or disagree with the others (eg Bethany supper and woman with perfume story).

In any case, none of the authors were known in the 1st century, but then someone assigned names to the gospels. That’s what is called “attribute”.

Right now, you are assuming the authors were actually the ones who wrote them, but you cannot prove any of that. And you are assuming that each of the authors were eyewitnesses, but you cannot prove that too. You’re assumptions are based on 2nd century church teachings and church traditions.

I prefer to use terms people less smart than us understand, like "Luke", meaning the third NT book, and not "the good news of Jesus Christ's atoning death and resurrection as testified to by some anonymous author commonly called 'Luke'".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Repeating: I use "Luke" and not the awkward, "The gospel reputed to have been written by Luke". Grow up.

You also made the false claim that he was an eyewitness, you were not clear. The author of Luke was not an eyewitness. He wrote that he did not talk to eyewitnesses. Watch the projection. When you are terribly wrong and inaccurate you will not like the corrections.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A "Berean Christian" studies the books for themselves and makes their own decision. However, here are some reasons I do not accept books beyond the 66. These other books:

1) Aren't accepted by the Jewish people

2) Aren't accepted by more than 99% of groups that began new church movements, via Bible study and study of non-canon books

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times, "This is the Word of God", indeed, they say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me"

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible

6) Were reluctantly placed in some movements to keep the peace, while adding footnotes like "of unknown origin/veracity"

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B in the same apocrypha

8) Shows lack of character: Daniel tricking people instead of being honest, Jesus putting a child to death, etc.

So you prefer liars that claim they are not liars. Got it.

 

[Bear Wild]

A "Berean Christian" studies the books for themselves and makes their own decision. However, here are some reasons I do not accept books beyond the 66. These other books:

1) Aren't accepted by the Jewish people

2) Aren't accepted by more than 99% of groups that began new church movements, via Bible study and study of non-canon books

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times, "This is the Word of God", indeed, they say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me"

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible

6) Were reluctantly placed in some movements to keep the peace, while adding footnotes like "of unknown origin/veracity"

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B in the same apocrypha

8) Shows lack of character: Daniel tricking people instead of being honest, Jesus putting a child to death, etc.

Still does not matter since they were inspired by Jesus. Most of your reference is for the Gospel of Thomas. The gospel of Mary provides a different look into who could have authority in the developing religion. The male dominated roman Christianity clearly did not see the same level of authority for women. Things might have been better if that gospel is accepted.

 

[Woberts]

@Jose Fly, are science standards still under threat in Arizona?
Or has the problem been resolved?

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly, are science standards still under threat in Arizona?
Or has the problem been resolved?

It's been resolved. I posted an update in this thread a while ago, but obviously the thread went in a completely different direction. In a nutshell, science won. Here's a summary: Victory in Arizona

 

[MonkeyFire]

Not much of an answer.

Oh sorry.. I'm talking about Lucifer the angel of Knowledge (Omni).

 

[EtuMalku]

Oh sorry.. I'm talking about Lucifer the angel of Knowledge (Omni).

Where is it stated that Lucifer is the angel of knowledge?

 

[gnostic]

Omniscience doesn't require science... now what?

Who do you think is omniscient?

Buddhas believe in enlightenment.

Not much of an answer.

Oh sorry.. I'm talking about Lucifer the angel of Knowledge (Omni).

The Buddha wouldn’t know science even if science were to hit him in the face.

And Lucifer and angel are imaginary beings that are incapable of acquiring or retaining knowledge, even if the knowledge barfed on their nonexistent faces.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Where is it stated that Lucifer is the angel of knowledge?

That's what groundhogs believe.

 

[gnostic]

I prefer to use terms people less smart than us understand, like "Luke", meaning the third NT book, and not "the good news of Jesus Christ's atoning death and resurrection as testified to by some anonymous author commonly called 'Luke'".

I used these names as matter of convenience, so I can distinguish one gospel from the others, but nevertheless, the names were later attributes from the 2nd century, not the actual authors.

No one really know who wrote these gospels, since no names were applied to them, no signatures. You are terribly uneducated in biblical scholarship and biblical history, if you don’t understand that.

 

[Sapiens]

The Buddha wouldn’t know science even if science were to hit him in the face.

Yet the Dalai Lama writes that when science and religion contradict one should choose science.

 

[gnostic]

Yet the Dalai Lama writes that when science and religion contradict one should choose science.

I just think the Buddha’s enlightenment and transcendent wisdom don’t pertain to the scientific knowledge of the natural world.

That’s all right, because I don’t expect past people to know everything about the world, even one of the Buddha’s status.

It is when certain people elevate certain heights that arrogance sets in their belief, and that poses a problem for everyone else.