Why I became a Jew

Dreidel

New Member
He certainly used the sayings that the Pharisees did, as an example he got his "golden rule" from Hillel.
Every hit piece in the New Testament against the Pharisees appears to be referring to the Sadducees. Whoever wrote the New Testament couldn't have lived in First Century Judea or they would have known better.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Every hit piece in the New Testament against the Pharisees appears to be referring to the Sadducees. Whoever wrote the New Testament couldn't have lived in First Century Judea or they would have known better.
…and the misinformation begins. Notice, that there is nothing to support this opinion.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Just read Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. I believe it's available over on archive dot org.
Why don’t you summarize the salient points supported by evidence if there are any. I am not going to go buy a book just because you said to. Opinions are a dime a dozen.
 

Dreidel

New Member
Why don’t you summarize the salient points supported by evidence if there are any. I am not going to go buy a book just because you said to. Opinions are a dime a dozen.

Well, stay ignorant then; I'm not wasting my time typing out book summaries.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Every hit piece in the New Testament against the Pharisees appears to be referring to the Sadducees. Whoever wrote the New Testament couldn't have lived in First Century Judea or they would have known better.
I agree with you here, and I've mentioned that before.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Why don’t you summarize the salient points supported by evidence if there are any. I am not going to go buy a book just because you said to. Opinions are a dime a dozen.
But aren't you quoting other books and sources? So what's the difference between what Dreidel has referenced and you?
 

docphin5

Well-known member
But aren't you quoting other books and sources?
Yes, in order to support of an idea, theory, or concept, I bring in objective, independent evidence which can be verified.
So what's the difference between what Dreidel has referenced and you?
All he has provided is his opinion of a book no one else has read. That would be like someone claiming the earth is flat because he read it in a book somewhere then telling everyone, “Go buy the book if you want to be edumacated.”
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Yes, in order to support of an idea, theory, or concept, I bring in objective, independent evidence which can be verified.
I don't know about objective.

All he has provided is his opinion of a book no one else has read. That would be like someone claiming the earth is flat because he read it in a book somewhere then telling everyone, “Go buy the book if you want to be edumacated.”
If it's available online, why not read it?

Quoting Wikipedia isn't a scholarly source, by the way.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I don't know about objective.


If it's available online, why not read it?
Because I am already familiar with a huge amount of evidence for a spherical earth so it is highly unlikely that one book is going to persuade me to believe the earth is flat. If the book could do that then the proponent of it should be able to share a few salient points that would overturn the consensus. Moreover, if a book could prove the earth is flat then the news would have highlighted it by now. I am not opposed to new information. I am opposed to false information. The burden of proof is on those challenging the existing evidence for a spherical earth. So far you have not offered any.
Quoting Wikipedia isn't a scholarly source, by the way.
It is available to everyone and it provides footnotes to other scholarly sources if one wants to dig deeper. That is a start, —better than providing no references at all.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
1 John 2:19
It is proper etiquette to quote the citation, if you genuinely want your interlocutor to know what you are talking about.

Also, I have explained to you that it does no good to quote the NT. It is full of errors and is not an authority for us.
 

Fred

Well-known member

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Because I am already familiar with a huge amount of evidence for a spherical earth so it is highly unlikely that one book is going to persuade me to believe the earth is flat.
We're not talking about the earth.

If the book could do that then the proponent of it should be able to share a few salient points that would overturn the consensus. Moreover, if a book could prove the earth is flat then the news would have highlighted it by now.
See above.

I am not opposed to new information. I am opposed to false information. The burden of proof is on those challenging the existing evidence for a spherical earth. So far you have not offered any.
See above.

It is available to everyone and it provides footnotes to other scholarly sources if one wants to dig deeper. That is a start, —better than providing no references at all.
Like I said, Wikipedia isn't scholarly. Wrong start.
 
Top