Papyrus found Jesus married

[NormATive]

Talmudic Judaism?

Most Jews are no longer tethered to ANY one book - including the Talmud. We value human experience and wisdom as well as sage, old advice.

NORM

[robrecht]

Most Jews are no longer tethered to ANY one book - including the Talmud. We value human experience and wisdom as well as sage, old advice.

NORM

Are you speaking of those who do not worship in synagogues where the Tanakh is read and expounded as a central part of the service? Or those who attend synagogues were this is not the case? Or those who do not even go to synagogue? Or all or some combination of the above. As for Christians, I will not speak for most, but certainly my tradition (Roman Catholicism) puts a very high value on human experience and wisdom and sage, old advice. Without being untethered from the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

[NormATive]

Are you speaking of those who do not worship in synagogues where the Tanakh is read and expounded as a central part of the service? Or those who attend synagogues were this is not the case? Or those who do not even go to synagogue? Or all or some combination of the above. As for Christians, I will not speak for most, but certainly my tradition (Roman Catholicism) puts a very high value on human experience and wisdom and sage, old advice. Without being untethered from the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

The focus of life within the Jewish community is not centered around the Shabbat service. Yes, we read from the Tanakh each week, and normally the Rabbi or Cantor will expound on some topical subject that may or may not relate to the reading. BTW, the scriptures are normally sung. It's quite beautiful.

I can't speak for the Orthodox or Conservative communities, but we often use popular novels or works of non-fiction as subject matter for our Minyan sessions.

But, the main thing is that we realize the limitations of ancient documents as to informing our community on issues of the day.

It is my hope that the other faith expressions "of the Book" evolve to this place.

NORM

[robrecht]

The focus of life within the Jewish community is not centered around the Shabbat service. Yes, we read from the Tanakh each week, and normally the Rabbi or Cantor will expound on some topical subject that may or may not relate to the reading. BTW, the scriptures are normally sung. It's quite beautiful.

I can't speak for the Orthodox or Conservative communities, but we often use popular novels or works of non-fiction as subject matter for our Minyan sessions.

But, the main thing is that we realize the limitations of ancient documents as to informing our community on issues of the day.

It is my hope that the other faith expressions "of the Book" evolve to this place.

NORM

I think this is also true of many Christians and Muslims. Not fundamentalists, to be sure, but I refuse to let them define the nature and character of Christianity.

[Darth Executor]

I think this is also true of many Christians and Muslims. Not fundamentalists, to be sure, but I refuse to let them define the nature and character of Christianity.

NormATive doesn't actually believe in God and I'm betting most of his co-coreligionists don't either. Thank you for further exemplifying the maxim that there's no real difference between liberal Christians and atheists.

[Tassman]

NormATive doesn't actually believe in God and I'm betting most of his co-coreligionists don't either. Thank you for further exemplifying the maxim that there's no real difference between liberal Christians and atheists.

True in the sense that both require reasonable evidence to justify their beliefs (or non-beliefs), but surely this is a good thing, not something that warrants scorn.

[robrecht]

NormATive doesn't actually believe in God and I'm betting most of his co-coreligionists don't either. Thank you for further exemplifying the maxim that there's no real difference between liberal Christians and atheists.

You welcome!

יברכך יהוה וישמרך׃ יאר יהוה פניו אליך ויחנך׃ ישא יהוה פניו אליך וישם לך שלום׃

[Darth Executor]

True in the sense that both require reasonable evidence to justify their beliefs (or non-beliefs)

True in the sense that they both follow whatever their base instincts desire and then justify them post-facto (probably subconsciously) by claiming they arrived at those positions rationally.

but surely this is a good thing, not something that warrants scorn.

Even if your over-inflated views of what you actually do was true, you're wrong. Blindly following skepticism is not inherently better than blindly following tradition. In fact it's probably worse in general given the thousands of years of natural selection that has gone into producing the latter. Manboons just aren't built to be machines.

[HevenScent]

About the Carbon 14 dating,

Apparently the Carbon-14 dating is all over the place. Of the three tests, two produced results that would place the papyrus' composition several hundred years BEFORE Jesus was even born and the last more than half a millennia AFTER:



http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/20...tial-thoughts/

Yeah, I was very confused by that dating. C-14 is very accurate within 3,000 years. These dates were way off. How could they even publish these results. I never seen C-14 results this bad before.

[HevenScent]

About documents

Yeah, that's almost as ridiculous as someone basing an entire religion on second and third century documents ... Wait?

NORM

What documents are you referring to. Please be specific.

[NormATive]

What documents are you referring to. Please be specific.

The Christian Testament. However, if you include Paul's letters; first century CE as well.

NORM

[Manwë Súlimo]

Yeah, that's almost as ridiculous as someone basing an entire religion on second and third century documents ... Wait?

NORM

The Christian Testament. However, if you include Paul's letters; first century CE as well.

NORM

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Norm. So much for basing our religion on books written far after the fact.

[NormATive]

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Norm. So much for basing our religion on books written far after the fact.

How is that shooting myself in the foot? I don't "base" anything on any book - I don't care if it was written yesterday.

NORM

[Manwë Súlimo]

Who on Earth is talking about you? You were talking about Christians basing their religion on creeds formed several centuries after its figurehead.

[Tassman]

True in the sense that they both follow whatever their base instincts desire and then justify them post-facto (probably subconsciously) by claiming they arrived at those positions rationally.

The “post-facto” justifying of desired outcomes, is more likely among those whose beliefs are formed by “personal spiritual experiences”, as opposed to those whose beliefs are based on substantiated evidence. And why do you assume natural instincts are “base”? Instincts have evolved as a survival mechanism and are common to all living creatures, including us.

Even if your over-inflated views of what you actually do was true, you're wrong. Blindly following skepticism is not inherently better than blindly following tradition. In fact it's probably worse in general given the thousands of years of natural selection that has gone into producing the latter.

Beliefs based on credible evidence, as opposed to “blindly following” faith-based religious tradition, can hardly be regarded as “blindly following skepticism” – quite the reverse.

Manboons just aren't built to be machines.

Uh, “manboons”?