And you know it’s going to be a rough ride, because it starts with a blurb from Andrew Snelling. Andrew “I’m Happy to do Conventional Geology with Billions of Years and No Goddidit so I Can Get Published in Legitimate Journals, Then Use Those Creds to Shit All Over Geology” Snelling. Andrew “Lying About Radiometric Dating for Jesus” Snelling. They begin inducing nausea by crowing about how the Apollo 8 astronauts decided to quote Genesis “in a spirit of unity and human achievement.” Yes, because a few smug white dudes blurting a verse from the dudes’ Christian holy book proves… Rather than prove they were a product of their culture, and Bob Jones University people think shitting Christianity all over the world is totes unifying? They also think that the astronauts’ quoting of poetry from an old book relentlessly pounded into them since childhood proves that scientists are just silly-willies for thinking centuries of astronomy have shown Earth is just one planet among many, orbiting an average star in an average galaxy in the immensity of space.
When you quote a lying fraud right up front as a legit scientist, I tend to suspect that the rest of what you’ve got may not, in fact, be legitimate science. Snelling sez, “Creationist scientists have found overwhelming evidences of a recent, global, cataclysmic, biblical Flood.” Um. In fact, what’s happened is that, far from presenting an “increasingly irrefutable” case for Young Earth Creationism, what the “Flood geologists” have managed to do is refute their own claims (pdf). So, I suppose, if they had quoted this (in my opinion, far more apt) verse:then we should assume the Hindus were right all along, then?
In volume 39 of from 1987, Joshua Efron wrote that “there is no lack of modern attempts to uncover an ancient core in that report that identifies Jesus of Nazareth with Joshua b.
Parahia’s pupil, relying on the support of Epiphanius, who sets the birth of Jesus in the reign of Alexander (Jannaeus) and Alexandra, that is, in the time of Ben Parahia or Ben Tabai.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Biblical scholars either do not know or do not care.
But in this article I am going to provide a summary of some of the latest scholarly discourse on the subject that I have been able to find.
The remaining question, however, is whether Bousset was correct to judge that this devotion to Jesus as sharing in divine honor did not erupt first in the earliest circles of Jewish believers and in an authentically Jewish setting such as Jerusalem.That’s may be somewhat necessary for complex life, but there are other ways tides can happen.And tides could be a very bad deal for any life around low-mass stars, so maybe not so great for some ETs, eh?But Bousset insisted that this couldn’t have characterized the “primitive Palestinian community” (also his term), for in the Jerusalem setting of Jewish “monotheism” it simply was unthinkable.
So, he proposed that it erupted in Antioch shortly after the flight of refugees from the persecution that broke out after the death of Stephen (as described in Acts 7)., this God with usit's an astonishing intimacy. "You are running away with your Lover, not confining yourself to a convent." In another book, the author assures her readers that "you are the one that overwhelms his heart with just 'one glance of your eyes,'" quoting from the Song of Solomon. "He is captivated by your beauty." These teachings have spread into churches.