For instance, the Church fathers got a lot of what they knew from reading Paul's letters, for instance.
That's exactly my point. Scholars believe that Paul's epistles date from 55-65 CE. Therefore, early church fathers knew about these letters and were confident enough to cite them.
These NT manuscripts are most definitely related to one another. Just because I have two Bibles on my bookshelf at home does not make it twice as likely that they are true, especially if they came from the same print run at the publisher. They were copied from one another or from earlier common sources. When I use a Xerox machine to copy things, it doesn't affect whether it is true or not. And it is not surprising that they are identical afterward.
Because we have no living eyewitnesses, the tools we have apply to the MS that survive. We use higher criticism to analyze a text in its historical context (against other texts) and textual criticism to determine whether a text has been preserved (against the same texts). There are our choices, and what you read in history books comes from historical records which have been subjected to this scrutiny. We should examine the NT with the same level of scrutiny-- no more, no less.
At best, the writers of the gospels met people who had been eyewitnesses to Jesus's ministry.
This is only accepted to be true about Luke's and Mark's gospels, as they knew Paul and Peter respectively. Meanwhile, Matthew (Levi) and John were both apostles and had met Jesus firsthand. This has not been disproven.
Do you think the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas are reliable or not? That's essentially a choice that was made by folks in the second to third centuries. How can you prove the Church fathers were acting correctly?
The Gospel of Thomas disagrees with the other Gospels. It's four against one. The Gospel of Judas has been proven to be a late text, written in the 4th century or even later. These texts didn't survive because they are corrupt.
These attacks could likley have been caused BY the war on terror though.
Yes, because there certainly never was a terrorist attack or attempt on U.S. citizens before 2001.
No one ever bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, no one bombed the WTC in 1993, the American embassy in Iran was never seized by Islamic fundamentalists, the American Embassy and marine barracks in Beirut were never bombed, William Buckley was never murdered by radicals in Beirut, the Achille Lauro was never hijacked and a handicapped man thrown overboard, a Berlin disco was never bombed, TWA flight 840 was never bombed... you get the idea.
I'm not one who summarily approves of these ridiculous security measures, but when a government really intends on becoming a police state, it doesn't start by restricting its citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of dental hygiene. It does it by performing random (i.e., UNREASONABLE) searches and seizures, of which I am 100% against. The first federal judge or legislator who brutally strikes down the abomination of routine humiliation that passes for aiport screening checkpoints will get my personal gratitude.
Err... both your knowledge of history and math are suspect. The first moon landing was in 1969, over 37 years ago. In addition, we returned to the moon several times after that.
There is basically no reason to believe that the New Testament evidence is reliable, unless you take such a position as a matter of religious faith.
I would say that the fact that there are thousands of accurate NT manuscripts (more than any other in antiquity); and the synoptic gospels and Paul's epistles were written within 40 years of the events they record; and the NT is corroborated by both the writings of early church fathers and non-christian historical sources... well, that makes it a little less a matter of mere faith. If you don't believe the NT is reliable, then neither are the histories of Tacitus and Josephus.
Can anyone explain to me why we need a "lynching statute?" Aren't assault and murder already crimes? Is it fair to deliver a harsher punishment because the races of the victim and accused differ? Isn't that racism?
If allowed, basically the feds can do whatever they want in violation to states rights, since every state uses federal money for something.
This would definitely mean any incidents that take place on interstates and any other highways paid for with federal funding could become federal cases.
Becasue we all know a guy who is politically active but doesn't agree with the current ruling party is just a half step away from Osama Bin Laden. Especially when he is prone to carryng a video camera with him everywhere he goes.
Thanks for injecting your ignorant leftist rant into this discussion. It has nothing to do with the "current ruling party" and everything to do with routine law enforcement abuses. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who said, "You can't say you love your country and hate your government" in 1995. Also RTFA and see how Josh had a run-in in with Al Gore's own personal Nazi Youth media channel.
If you're suffering from dry eyes, headaches, back aches, erratic sleep patterns, it may be more than just your average hangover: according to Dr. Maressa Orzack, you could be suffering from video and computer game addiction.
Just sounds like anyone who spends too much time in front of a computer.
I can't wait for the class-action suit against the city. It's a shame criminal action likely cannot be taken against the city council, as they'll just raise taxes to cover the payout and I doubt any of them will even lose their positions.
Slashdot Mirror
Er... it's spelled "Khaki".
I call "kidney pie" something else: "gross".
It's the cost of doing business. Right now, spam costs nearly nothing and that's why it's overrun with halfwits and losers.
I'm sure either GWB's economic policies or global warming are at fault.
Yes, because there certainly never was a terrorist attack or attempt on U.S. citizens before 2001.
No one ever bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, no one bombed the WTC in 1993, the American embassy in Iran was never seized by Islamic fundamentalists, the American Embassy and marine barracks in Beirut were never bombed, William Buckley was never murdered by radicals in Beirut, the Achille Lauro was never hijacked and a handicapped man thrown overboard, a Berlin disco was never bombed, TWA flight 840 was never bombed... you get the idea.
I'm not one who summarily approves of these ridiculous security measures, but when a government really intends on becoming a police state, it doesn't start by restricting its citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of dental hygiene. It does it by performing random (i.e., UNREASONABLE) searches and seizures, of which I am 100% against. The first federal judge or legislator who brutally strikes down the abomination of routine humiliation that passes for aiport screening checkpoints will get my personal gratitude.
Getting your web server slashdotted is truly an honor. Kind of a Klingon honor, though, as your crispy CPU is whisked off to Sto-vo-kor.
Hey, that sounds like a great idea? Can you help a brother out?
George Lucas taped over them.
It's difficult to poop on command, even with the help of laxatives. These explosives need to be mixed before they are effective.
Or you can do what Clinton did-- fire missiles at an empty tent and an aspirin factory.
Can anyone explain to me why we need a "lynching statute?" Aren't assault and murder already crimes? Is it fair to deliver a harsher punishment because the races of the victim and accused differ? Isn't that racism?
NO! Clearly, it's the yellow wire.
I can't wait for the class-action suit against the city. It's a shame criminal action likely cannot be taken against the city council, as they'll just raise taxes to cover the payout and I doubt any of them will even lose their positions.
The irony of your post is astounding, considering your own sig.