Joseph of ...Arimathea?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2016, 11:57 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 11:38 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  That's my point. You try to use them as if they are history, then say out of the other side of your mouth that they have no historical value.

No I don't.
The fucking joke here, is you.

Says the dude who uses so many biblical quotes in THIS THREAD to prove his point that I lost count of them.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 11:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No I don't.
The fucking joke here, is you.

Says the dude who uses so many biblical quotes in THIS THREAD to prove his point that I lost count of them.

Laugh out load

Thanks for demonstrating you have no real clue, at all about the nuances here. Quoting the gospels (which can be done for many reasons), but NOT as "history" was the point. We all see that went WAY over your pin head. Not using them as history does not mean they cannot tell us OTHER things.

Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 12:28 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(14-09-2016 03:17 AM)Firefighter01 Wrote:  So I looked it up, and it has never existed! Another bloody literary device! The name is derived from "Matheia" which is said to mean "disciple town" and "ari-" is a prefix for superiority.

Fireifghter,
I'm curious. Please provide a source for this assertion. I've never heard it before. Arimathea has traditionally been identified as Ramathaim in Ephraim.

Also, please provide a source for your interpretation of Arimathea as a compound of the words "Ari-" and "Matheia"

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 12:31 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 12:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 11:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Says the dude who uses so many biblical quotes in THIS THREAD to prove his point that I lost count of them.

Laugh out load

Thanks for demonstrating you have no real clue, at all about the nuances here. Quoting the gospels (which can be done for many reasons), but NOT as "history" was the point. We all see that went WAY over your pin head. Not using them as history does not mean they cannot tell us OTHER things.

Facepalm

My entire point about your thread was that you do indeed recognize religious scripture as representing a history of the beliefs of, at the very least, those who wrote them.

Therefore, if you accept that position as you seem to do, then you must also accept that persons who wrote them were indeed writing about events they believed to be true.

Hence, from the writer's points of view, they were writing actual history as well as a history of their beliefs.

But yet your position remains that those ancient records have no historical value.

So do they, or don't they? You can't have it both ways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 12:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 12:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thanks for demonstrating you have no real clue, at all about the nuances here. Quoting the gospels (which can be done for many reasons), but NOT as "history" was the point. We all see that went WAY over your pin head. Not using them as history does not mean they cannot tell us OTHER things.

Facepalm

My entire point about your thread was that you do indeed recognize religious scripture as representing a history of the beliefs of, at the very least, those who wrote them.

Therefore, if you accept that position as you seem to do, then you must also accept that persons who wrote them were indeed writing about events they believed to be true.

No, that conclusion does not logically follow. The authors may well have knowingly written fiction as their purpose was exhortation, not explication.

Quote:Hence, from the writer's points of view, they were writing actual history as well as a history of their beliefs.


But yet your position remains that those ancient records have no historical value.

So do they, or don't they? You can't have it both ways.

No one except you has claimed that.
They are not histories of the time. They indirectly provide a history of the evolution of religious belief over a few centuries.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 01:25 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 12:28 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 03:17 AM)Firefighter01 Wrote:  So I looked it up, and it has never existed! Another bloody literary device! The name is derived from "Matheia" which is said to mean "disciple town" and "ari-" is a prefix for superiority.

Fireifghter,
I'm curious. Please provide a source for this assertion. I've never heard it before. Arimathea has traditionally been identified as Ramathaim in Ephraim.

Also, please provide a source for your interpretation of Arimathea as a compound of the words "Ari-" and "Matheia"

Doc

Yeah, I already addressed that, but nobody reacted. I was surprised. Undecided

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
15-09-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 12:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 12:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thanks for demonstrating you have no real clue, at all about the nuances here. Quoting the gospels (which can be done for many reasons), but NOT as "history" was the point. We all see that went WAY over your pin head. Not using them as history does not mean they cannot tell us OTHER things.

Facepalm

My entire point about your thread was that you do indeed recognize religious scripture as representing a history of the beliefs of, at the very least, those who wrote them.

Therefore, if you accept that position as you seem to do, then you must also accept that persons who wrote them were indeed writing about events they believed to be true.

Hence, from the writer's points of view, they were writing actual history as well as a history of their beliefs.

But yet your position remains that those ancient records have no historical value.

So do they, or don't they? You can't have it both ways.

Bullshit. You really don't get it. They can tell us what they believed. They can't tell us that the content of the beliefs was history. That's really not all that difficult, and perfectly legitimate. You really are a fraud, aren't you ? You have no degree in anything.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 02:14 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 01:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 12:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  My entire point about your thread was that you do indeed recognize religious scripture as representing a history of the beliefs of, at the very least, those who wrote them.

Therefore, if you accept that position as you seem to do, then you must also accept that persons who wrote them were indeed writing about events they believed to be true.

No, that conclusion does not logically follow. The authors may well have knowingly written fiction as their purpose was exhortation, not explication.

Then that also verifies my point, for if it was all fiction as you suggest, then he cannot use fiction to dispute fiction. It's still circular reasoning no matter how you swing it.



Quote:
Quote:Hence, from the writer's points of view, they were writing actual history as well as a history of their beliefs.


But yet your position remains that those ancient records have no historical value.

So do they, or don't they? You can't have it both ways.

No one except you has claimed that.

You obviously didn't bother to read his comments on the link leading to his own thread in which he does use biblical quotes as if they reflected a truth in an effort to illustrate his points.


Quote:They are not histories of the time. They indirectly provide a history of the evolution of religious belief over a few centuries.

Exactly, but that by no means can, in any way whatsoever, negate the employment of actual history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 02:18 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 01:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 12:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  My entire point about your thread was that you do indeed recognize religious scripture as representing a history of the beliefs of, at the very least, those who wrote them.

Therefore, if you accept that position as you seem to do, then you must also accept that persons who wrote them were indeed writing about events they believed to be true.

Hence, from the writer's points of view, they were writing actual history as well as a history of their beliefs.

But yet your position remains that those ancient records have no historical value.

So do they, or don't they? You can't have it both ways.

Bullshit. You really don't get it. They can tell us what they believed. They can't tell us that the content of the beliefs was history. That's really not all that difficult, and perfectly legitimate. You really are a fraud, aren't you ? You have no degree in anything.

No.

You are simply desperate. It's that simple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 02:51 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 01:25 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 12:28 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Fireifghter,
I'm curious. Please provide a source for this assertion. I've never heard it before. Arimathea has traditionally been identified as Ramathaim in Ephraim.

Also, please provide a source for your interpretation of Arimathea as a compound of the words "Ari-" and "Matheia"

Doc

Yeah, I already addressed that, but nobody reacted. I was surprised. Undecided

Richard Carrier notes it as a possibility. I found a reference in "On the History of Jesus" (pg 439 in the footnote):
"... Arimathaia is probably an invented word meaning 'Best Disciple Town' (ari- being a standard Greek prefix for 'best', math- being the root of 'teaching', 'doctrine', and 'disciple' [e.g. mathē, mathēsis, mathēma, mathētēs], and [-aia] being being a standard suffix of place). No such town is known to have existed. Although close alternatives have been suggested (e.g. that Mark means one of the many biblical cities named Ramah ['Hightop'], the most famous of which also had the more elaborate name Ramathaimzophim ['Watchers' Peaks'], which in 1 Sam. 11 is spelled in the Septuagint Armathaimsipha, which with the sipha removed is only a couple of letters away from Aramathaia), the coincidence of Mark's exact spelling with an apposite Greek meaning is more telling..."

There's more to his argument but that's the core.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: