Quote:
Originally Posted by JB3
sure, were it the classical period a consensus of all scholars would happily tell me the earth was flat as Aklim pointed out earlier.
Were it a couple hundred years ago, a consensus of religious scholars would have told me the earth was the center of the universe.
any of those cast iron facts turn out to be true? you decide.
As far as literate apostles, my understanding was that Matthew the tax collector wrote his own gospel if the bible is to be believed. Seems that Peter and Paul had friends write theirs, so perhaps they were illiterate, but does that count for all of them?
You seem to take the absence of a positive as proof of a negative. My opinion is that we simply don't know since very little survived. If Joseph was a craftsman of some sort, its possible he knew how to write or at least some rudimentary concepts of math in order to work in that field and passed that on to his son.
In this situation, we could go either way, but as I said, you have no more evidence that he WAS NOT literate than I have that he WAS.
|
Your obtuseness is very grating.
I'm talking about the consensus of scholars for the past three centuries. If you want to argue against that, you'd better have a better reason than "well, science has been wrong before." That's an idiots argument. That's an argument from silence (a formal fallacy).
We know that literary rates were abysmal even in the 5th century. Back in the first century in Judea we have examples of the village scribe (the only guy who was literate) only being able to spell is own name... and incorrectly at that. Reading and being able to write are also quite different. Even if someone could read a text (which we know Jesus could) it makes no difference in whether he could write or not.
So, I have the vast amount of scholars and historical evidence to show that the apostles and Jesus more than likely didn't know how to write (if they were literate or not) and you have......? Oh yeah, you have your almighty opinion.
I'll go with the scholars and historical evidence.
Quote:
|
ahh, lesson master martureo drops some good advice again on writing!
|
If only you would actually apply such advice....
Quote:
|
Still, he forgets that all his source of facts as he calls them are from a book and interpretations and opinions on that book of dozens of versions that he takes for absolute truth.
|
Poor logic, lack of understanding of what I actually believe and uneducated assertions.
Really.... I'm not going to even reply to that.
Quote:
I disagree that that book should be taken as fact. The core lessons on how to live your life with regards to others hold weight, but fantastical stories of magical occurances strike me as a little bling to sexify the message of christ as sold by his followers.
If we do not agree on that basic issue, then we will never agree in argument. By all means, continue to refer to the bible as fact, and ill start referring to the Lord of the Rings as well as ironclad fact, which is a bit better written, because it tells the best way to kill a goblin. Useful if I come across one digging my pool.
Let me turn to my writing desk and commit to paper some of the things that George Washington did hundreds of years ago, complete with first person commentary that sounds good to me because I like the man, and maybe in 2000 years people will take my statements are accurate representations of what ol George actually did and said as well. Most of the bible is no different.
|
And yet you make the same argument again. How many times do you have to be corrected?
How many times?