Forums > Social Discussion > Danish Cartoons of Mohammed

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Written by: dream

---

its a birth control thing. condoms are birth control. bible says no to birth control. so charities who promote said heathen ways have US funding removed.

---

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Written by:

---

I was of the undertanding that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control was due to misinterprating several passages in the Bible

---

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

>What do you think about the state of the Earth?
>I'm optimistic.
>So why do you look so sad?
>I'm not sure that my optimism is justified.

'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)

Written by:

---

Sethis - the Bible is not sexist - the people who later interpreted it are. The early church had both male and female priests but since men feared women in power this changed. I think you should find offence with people's interpretations rather than the whole Bible in general.

---

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Written by:

---

In reality, the four gospels selected for inclusion in the New Testament do not make any appearance in the literary and archaeological record until the last quarter of the 2nd century, between 170 and 180 ce, and even then they are not much mentioned for a couple of decades. In this regard, Church father and archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) stated that the names traditionally attached to the canonical gospels were first designated at the end of the second century. The orthodox dating, of course, attempts to put the gospels a century earlier, between 70 and 110 ce. However, it should be kept in mind that the current mainstream dating was heretical when first propagated, over 150 years ago, causing apoplexy in the faithful, who believed the texts were composed shortly after Jesus's death. Over the centuries, because of increasingly scientific scholarship, the date of the canonical gospels has been continually pushed to later decades, as it has long been accepted that there is absolutely no evidence, internal or external, for such an early date.

The early dating is mere wishful thinking on the part of those who truly believe that Jesus Christ existed and that his words, deed and life were faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses, i.e., his disciples. Such a scenario is not reality, however, and the most scholarship can offer in bending the dates to fit the alleged advent of Jesus Christ in the time of Herod is that the gospels were composed during the last decades of the first century. The internal evidence cited for this "late" a date is that the gospel writers were aware of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce. Therefore, Mark, considered by most mainstream authorities to be the earliest of the gospels, could not have been written any earlier than 70 ce. The others followed, with John appearing perhaps as late as 110 ce. That is where mainstream scholarship ends. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the gospels are conspicuously absent from the writings of the Church fathers and apologists until the end of the second century.

---

Written by:

---

The fact is that scholars have gone back and forth on the order, as did the early Church fathers. As the Catholic Encyclopedia relates ("Synoptics"):

The order: Matthew, Luke, Mark, was advanced by Griesbach and has been adopted by De Wette, Bleek, Maier, Langen, Grimm, Pasquier. The arrangement: Mark, Matthew, Luke, with various modifications as to their interdependence, is admitted by Ritschl, Reuss, Meyer, Wilke, Simons, Holtzmann, Weiss, Batiffol, Weizscker, etc. It is often designated under the name of the "Mark hypothesis", although in the eyes of most of its defenders, it is no longer a hypothesis, meaning thereby that it is an established fact. Besides these principal orders, others (Mark, Luke, Matthew; Luke, Matthew, Mark; Luke, Mark, Matthew) have been proposed, and more recent combinations (such as those advocated by Calmel, Zahn, Belser, and Bonaccorsi) have also been suggested.

Despite claims to the contrary, little in New Testament scholarship is set in stone, including not only the priority of the gospels but also the dating. In reality, the majority of modern bible scholars have simply gone along with the dates of c. 70-110 ce, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of the gospels' existence until a century later, as evinced by such notables as Bronson Keeler, author of A Short History of the Bible; the Christian Judge Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred; and Walter Cassels in Supernatural Religion. Cassels 's knowledge on the subject was so startlingly profound that, when his book was first released anonymously, other scholars--including Christian detractors--believed him to be a bishop. Regarding the orthodox dates (70-110), which were already established by his time at the end of the 19th century, Cassels states, "It is evident that the dates assigned by apologists are wholly arbitrary."

---

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Written by:

---

Dating Early Christian Gospels

While some extraordinary claims have been made about precisely when early gospels (and parts of them) were written,[14] it is impossible to determine the dates of gospel origins with much certainty. An absolute date can be assigned to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be established between the text and another writing or event from a specific, known time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely lacking from the time period when the gospels were written.

Terminus post quem. Only two known events are helpful for determining how soon early gospels may have been written after the death of Jesus: the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) and the martyrdom of Peter (ca. 64 C.E.). Yet, these events are useful for dating only two gospels and a portion of a third. Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus’ siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44, 21:20-24), but it is not clear that Mark was aware of the event.[15] John 21 must have been written after Peter’s death,[16] but the final chapter may have been added to the gospel long after the rest had been written.[17] There are no certain references to any datable historical events in John 1-20.[18] The same is true for the eight non-canonical early gospels.[19]

On the basis of literary relationships, only one gospel must have been written after Matthew, Luke, or the datable portion of John: the Gospel of the Ebionites presupposes Matthew and Luke.[20] The remainder lack the extensive verbal correspondence necessary to establish a literary relationship. It is not at all clear that the Gospel of Thomas,[21] Gospel of Peter,[22] or “Unknown Gospel” of P.Egerton 2[23] is dependent upon the canonical gospels for their material. The accusations of the church fathers do not establish that Marcion actually abridged (“mutilated”) Luke.[24] Too few fragments of the Gospel of the Nazareans and Gospel of the Hebrews have been preserved to allow for a definitive judgment of their sources.[25] It is not even possible to determine which came first: Mark or Secret Mark.[26]

Terminus ante quem. Trying to determine the latest possible dates for gospel origins is also a difficult task. Certainly, all early gospels were completed before the end of the second century, but how much earlier is unclear. On the basis of manuscript evidence alone, it is only possible to determine that two gospels were in circulation before the middle of the second century, one non-canonical gospel (“Unknown Gospel,” P.Egerton 2)[27] and one canonical gospel (John, ‰52).[28] All additional information about which gospels were in use by the early decades of the second century comes from ambiguous patristic testimonies.

There are two writers who at first glance appear to be potentially useful for determining which (canonical)[29] gospels were in circulation by the early second century. First, it appears possible that Ignatius of Antioch was familiar with Matthew when he wrote his letters around 110 C.E. In various passages, Ignatius seems to allude to the gospel, although he does not mention it explicitly.[30] Most of these passages, however, are vague references at best and could easily be the result of oral tradition.[31] Also, careful examination of the Matthew-Ignatius parallels reveals an interesting trend. Ignatius has an overwhelming preference for material found in Matthew, but not the other synoptics.[32] This excessive familiarity with special M material has suggested to some that Ignatius may have known a source of Matthew rather than the gospel itself.[33]

Second, Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark in his five volume Oracles of the Lord Explained around 130 C.E. However, his comments, known only second-hand through Eusebius, are not at all clear. His brief description of a writing of Matthew as “logia in the Hebrew dialect” is too vague to be a certain reference to the canonical text (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16).[34] Further ambiguity surrounds Papias’ comments about Mark. Papias states only that Mark wrote down notes of Peter’s preaching (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). Yet, it is difficult to believe that so carefully constructed a narrative as Mark could have been regarded as a mere chaotic collection of unordered notes.[35] Further, Papias does not actually state that these notes were the canonical gospel (nor does Eusebius imply that he did).[36] Thus, it is not certain that Papias was describing either canonical Matthew or Mark in the excerpts of Eusebius.

All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody’s guess. Two gospels[38] must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybody’s guess. With such chronologically distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such divergent dates of origins for early gospels. The dates are based on nothing more concrete than each scholar’s impression of precisely when small stories, sayings, or phrases might or might not have been meaningful to a particular writer or community. There is considerable room for differences of opinion with such subjective analysis.[39]

---

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Written by: Patriarch917

---

That's incorrect, the Gospels were written by men who lived at the same time as the Messiah. Two were his disciples who not only met Him, but lived and learned from Him during his teaching years. Another gives a perspective that is suited for a Roman to read (Mark), while Luke gives a historical perspective that a Greek would find easiest to identify with.

---

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)

ive got a fuzzbox and im not afraid to use it
R.I.P. gayfest

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

we were somewhere near barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...