| Alistair 2008-01-30, 6:56 pm |
| On 29 Jan, 16:07, "roger.pea...@googlemail.com" >
>
>
> There is no possible doubt that books that had been considered
> canonical were not =A0excluded. =A0 The "Da Vinci Code" is *not* a
> reliable source of historical information, you know.
Whoa! Remove the double negative gives:
There is possible doubt that books that had been considered canonical
were excluded.
I have no doubt that the gospel according to mary was excluded.
>
>
> By the usual means by which forgeries and novels are distinguished
> from historical accounts. =A0 You find out the dates of composition and
> the contents and these tell you.
Or perhaps you examine the style of the text and find that it is
inconsistent. I presume that you know about the Q manuscript? If not
then look it up on wikipedia.
>
>
> No, this particular story/idea/meme is circulated to us all by people
> who want to confuse and obscure things, and aren't very scrupulous as
> to how.
Like bible scholars? Interesting that you threw in the word meme.
> =A0I would suggest that it might be people who don't care for
> "Thou shalt not commit adultery..." and the like (which would sort of
> cover most of our politicians!)
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually I couldn't care less if you were an Aztec and cut the heart
> out of an actuary every Friday night (which would probably be a
> socially worthy thing to do right now). =A0But I'm not sure that I see
> how this relates to what I wrote. =A0Can you justify your belief
> system? =A0Can you even state it? =A0If not, how "convincing" can you be
> for it?
Even Judson can justify his belief system. Atheists and agnostics are
equally capable.
>
> NB: the standard evasion at that point is to say "I don't have one" or
> "I don't need to be". =A0But people engaging in throwing stones at the
> religions of others automatically fail both statements, IMHO.
Belittlement undeserved. You keep on going on about standard attacks
and responses. Perhaps you can save us all time and effort and tell us
how it all ends?
>
>
>
> We discussed this, and you were mistaken.
What evidence do you have that the bible was not written by men? A
simple analysis of the bible shows that it is inconsistent and at
fault (look up the Reed Sea) with different styles embedded sometimes
several in one 'book'. How do you explain that (Judson would have an
answer) and don't come back with the standard responses:
a. that is a standard response by thoise who don't know any better;
b. because it says so;
c. the bible is the word of god... blah blah blah.
>
|