PSacramento

Joined

• started 80 topics
• posted 11,008 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by PSacramento

• 
  43

  Markan priority and the synoptic gospels

  by 88JM in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this might be a question for leolaia, but i noticed in researching the gospel of mark this week that the dates the wtbts gives for the writing of the other synoptic gospels does not seem to agree with most new testament scholars.. the all scripture book gives the following dates:.

  matthew: writing completed: c. 41 c.e.mark: writing completed: c. 6065 c.e.luke: writing completed: c. 5658 c.e.this would put mark as the last of the three synoptic gospels to be written, and therefore the wtbts does not adhere to the markan priority hypothesis.. wikipedia states that: "the theory of markan priority is today accepted by the majority of new testament scholars".. .

  is there a good reason why the wtbts dates the synoptic gospels in that order?how can they date matthew and luke so early?is it merely because the wtbts rejects the possibility of a "q" source, and possibly even the idea of collusion between the writers altogether?or is it because many scholars put the writings of luke and matthew after the destruction of jerusalem, meaning the "prophecies" of destruction became historical accounts of past events by the time they were written?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  IT depends on IF you take into account the writngs of the early Church fathers like Papias and Irenaeus.

  According to Irenaeus:

  “Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”

  Eusebius wrting what Papias said:

  “And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”
• 
  57

  MIT Survey on science, religion and origins

  by Pterist in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read and graph:.

  *****i'd been warned.

  a friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our mit survey on science, religion and origins, i'd get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  We can't deny that Religious followers ( of almost every type) have cause a lot of crap since the dawn of civilization.

  We can't deny that so have the non-religious BUT the fact is that, considering what religion is suppose to do, we should expect at least an atteempt to be better.

  That said, it's hard to fault the CHristian crusade's ORGINAL motive of pushing back the Islamic expansion.
• 
  52

  Josephus and Jesus

  by jhine in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  on another thread wot i read a few days ago and can't remember which one, someone asked why josephus never mentions jesus .

  at the time i had no knowledge of this so kept quiet .

  however today while reading an excellent book (don't know if i should advertise but if anyone wants the title let me know ) i have found out that josephus mentions jesus in around about manner.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  Even Bart Ehrman sates that the hsitorical Jesus is not really to be debated as such.

  http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0703/Biblical-scholar-Bart-Ehrman-supports-the-historic-existence-of-Jesus

  As for Jesus outside the NT, may I suggest:

  Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus) by Robert E. Van Voorst (Mar 1, 2000)

  A good place to start.
• 
  6

  Ministry School #2 On What is the Teaching of Purgatory Based?

  by wannabefree in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if anybody out there has this talk all ready, my wife sure would appreciate it.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  An FYI as to what the RCC actually says about it:

  III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. 606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: 607

  As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. 608

  1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." 609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. 610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

  Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them. 611
• 
  57

  MIT Survey on science, religion and origins

  by Pterist in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read and graph:.

  *****i'd been warned.

  a friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our mit survey on science, religion and origins, i'd get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  Ah, I understand.

  Fact is that the PRIMARY reason was Islamic expansion, which of course was motivated by religous-political reasons by Islam.

  The crusades were a direct response to the Expansion of Islam AND the constant attacks on pilgrims and Christian churchs and institutions.

  Sure there were ecominic reasons on BOTH sides, how can there ever not be?

  Religion was the rallying call of course BUT it was the Islamic expansion into Europe that caused it.

  Of course after that, the Crusades took on a "life of their" own as these "holy wars" tend to do.
• 
  57

  MIT Survey on science, religion and origins

  by Pterist in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read and graph:.

  *****i'd been warned.

  a friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our mit survey on science, religion and origins, i'd get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  The Crusades were about cleansing the holy lands of infidels.

  Yes.

  ANd about stopping the expansion of Islam into Europe.

  ANd about protecting pilgrims to the holy City ( especially rich ones of course).

  And a way for the rulers to unite the common man under thier banner.

  And the Roman-Byzantine rivalry.
• 
  57

  MIT Survey on science, religion and origins

  by Pterist in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read and graph:.

  *****i'd been warned.

  a friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our mit survey on science, religion and origins, i'd get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  Something either exists or it doesn't. Believers in the supernatural use faith to plug the gap that is left by the lack of evidence.

  Faith is the opposite of evidence in this context.

  IN that context, yes I agree.
• 
  57

  MIT Survey on science, religion and origins

  by Pterist in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read and graph:.

  *****i'd been warned.

  a friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our mit survey on science, religion and origins, i'd get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  I think it is a question of interpretation that leads on to have faith in soemthing.

  Based on how the universe is interpreted AND how God can be interpreted, there is no evidence and certianly no proof, that God exists.

  But, with a different interpretation of either the universe or God or Both, according to some there is evidence, even proof.

  It is up to the individual to understand those interpretations and decided for themselves which ones answer THEIR questions best.

  Of course that brings us to the issue of questions.

  Still, even trust is soemthing, like faith, that is based on personal experience.

  You may have trust and faith in your car to start, but there is no reason for me to have that unless I trust and have faith in you, right?
• 
  57

  MIT Survey on science, religion and origins

  by Pterist in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read and graph:.

  *****i'd been warned.

  a friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our mit survey on science, religion and origins, i'd get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  There is a palce for faith in everything BUT what KIND of faith is the question.

  One can certainly place their faith in science, look what it has given to us just in terms of technology alone or medicine.

  It would be quite correct to hear someone say, " I have faith that science will find away for space travel" or to hear someone say. " I h ave faith that medical science will find a cure for cancer".

  We have faith in all sorts of things every day, in our relationships, in our own abilities to do something.

  Why?

  Because personal experience has shown that faith to be correct, to be valid.
• 
  160

  I've Come To Realize That "Facts" Don't Mean Much If A Person Refuses To Accept Them

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

  people will believe what they want to believe..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PSacramento

  Mathmatical facts tend to be irrefutable, althoughj I don;t know enough about adavcanced mathematics to say that is not the case in some theoritical way.

  BUT it is 100% observable that 1+1 of the samething = 2 of the samethings.

  So that would be a universal fact, right?