Heartland

both are still theories only, with no definitive proof.

*bangs head against wall*

I've heard this argument so many times. Go look up the scientific definition of the word 'theory', not the laymen term found in dictionaries.

DeWinter wrote:It refers to Christians being scapegoated by Nero for the fire that destroyed Rome, and just says "and their leader Christus was crucified", or words to that effect.

Which probably doesn't mean anything at all after all as Christus is just Ancient Greek for king. I've been discussing this elsewhere with a historian before - need to look up what were facts and what weren't facts...

I think it does matter if thought of in the context of the following quote:

Deuteronomy 13:1 'If a prophet arises among you offering some sign or wonder and if he then tells you to follow other gods and worship them, do not listen to that prophet's words. Yahweh your God is testing you to find out if you love him with all your heart and soul. That prophet must be put to death. You must banish this evil from among you.’

Maybe they were right to stone Jesus.

nick the stripper wrote:I think it does matter if thought of in the context of the following quote:

Deuteronomy 13:1 'If a prophet arises among you offering some sign or wonder and if he then tells you to follow other gods and worship them, do not listen to that prophet's words. Yahweh your God is testing you to find out if you love him with all your heart and soul. That prophet must be put to death. You must banish this evil from among you.’

Maybe they were right to stone Jesus.

You speak with fork tongue.........

9while9 wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:I think it does matter if thought of in the context of the following quote:

Deuteronomy 13:1 'If a prophet arises among you offering some sign or wonder and if he then tells you to follow other gods and worship them, do not listen to that prophet's words. Yahweh your God is testing you to find out if you love him with all your heart and soul. That prophet must be put to death. You must banish this evil from among you.’

Maybe they were right to stone Jesus.

You speak with fork tongue.........

No I don't. People worship Jesus as though he is part of God or is God, and all they have as evidence is a dusty old book that could of been written by anyone.

nick the stripper wrote:

9while9 wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:I think it does matter if thought of in the context of the following quote:

Deuteronomy 13:1 'If a prophet arises among you offering some sign or wonder and if he then tells you to follow other gods and worship them, do not listen to that prophet's words. Yahweh your God is testing you to find out if you love him with all your heart and soul. That prophet must be put to death. You must banish this evil from among you.’

Maybe they were right to stone Jesus.

You speak with fork tongue.........

No I don't. People worship Jesus as though he is part of God or is God, and all they have as evidence is a dusty old book that could of been written by anyone.

Aye! And I once read that in Old Aramic, the original language of the new testament, you can´t decide between determined an indetermined form. So Jesus can only say "I am son of god." He can´t say "the son" or "a son".. One can only try to conclude this from the context, which remains influenced by the intent of the interpreter..
A solid base to convince a scientist to I´d say.

nick the stripper wrote:

both are still theories only, with no definitive proof.

*bangs head against wall*

I've heard this argument so many times. Go look up the scientific definition of the word 'theory', not the laymen term found in dictionaries.

May I join the headbanging?
The authors of the scriptures claim to know the ultimate truth without ever having doubt in their own words. Never has an anvil or solid rock dropped on my head, so I won´t ever start believing people who reply to the question "How do I know what you say is true?" with "Because god told me."
Honestly speaking, such people are what I call infuriatingly silly!

nick the stripper wrote: *bangs head against wall*

I've heard this argument so many times. Go look up the scientific definition of the word 'theory', not the laymen term found in dictionaries.

Scientific theory. Essentially a prediction of future behaviour based on observation and experimentation of past. Can never be "proven" according to that nice Mr Hawking.
Now go look up the definition of "proof". And "patronising", whilst you're there..

DeWinter wrote: Now go look up the definition of "proof". And "patronising", whilst you're there..

Alright, I'll also look up "disdain" while I'm at it.

@ DeWinter: The original reading in Tacitus may have been Chrestus, (a common enough name among Roman slaves) not Christus (the anointed) and in any case is probably recounting the information from what the Christians (Chrestians?) themselves believed.

And as I mentioned, proof is for mathematics and alcohol. No scientific theory is ever "proved".

@ eotunun: Aramaic? The Aramaic primacy hypothesis has been dead in the water for decades. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek.

markfiend wrote:@ DeWinter: The original reading in Tacitus may have been Chrestus, (a common enough name among Roman slaves) not Christus (the anointed) and in any case is probably recounting the information from what the Christians (Chrestians?) themselves believed.

And as I mentioned, proof is for mathematics and alcohol. No scientific theory is ever "proved".

@ eotunun: Aramaic? The Aramaic primacy hypothesis has been dead in the water for decades. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek.

You live and learn..