Is there a place for religion in football?

[theowlsman]

Dunt wurry, we waint get religated.

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, roll and nilsson said:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazarethexisted as a historical figure. It concerns the issue of "what really happened", based upon the context of the time and place, and also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened".^[1] A second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence. It also considers the question of whether he was a Nazirite.^[2][3]

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain^{[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4]} although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.^{[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173} While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,^{[nb 7]} with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.^{[17][nb 8][19][20][21]}

 

^{I have no problem with you criticising what Jesus did or said or question whether he is who he claims to be but there are plenty of scholars out there who are atheists who are satisfied with the historical evidence to support his existence. My point with Caesar was simply that people dismiss Jesus's existence as a fraud because they aren't willing to consider what he says but are happy to accept everything about other historical figures.} 

 

Most of the scholars are believers but there is a growing movement most notably headed by Richard Carrier who is strongly challenging the long-held belief that Jesus existed. I suggest you watch some of his talks.  

[Rev Owl]

20 minutes ago, 31Dec1966 said:

(The bit in brackets is just incorrect. Staggeringly so.

The Bible is not a history book, and the earliest gospel was written at least 70 years after Jesus. By a vested interest, in a different language !  The gospels do not agree with one another.  Some of the new testamant was wrtten hundreds of years later, some of it has been translated several times.) The stories in the Bible occur in many other religions, cultures and myths.

if one person starts saying he has an imaginary friend who was dead and has come alive and who is inside his head telling him what to do he is presumed to be mentally ill. If millions do it, it's called religion and asks for respect!

The bit in brackets is just incorrect. Staggeringly so!

The bible is a collection of writings of different styles and genres, some of which are history books, some of which are poetry, some of which are wisdom literature etc.

Biblical scholars (many of whom are not themselves religious believers) but whose work in hugely respected in academic fields broadly agree the following.

The gospels; Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were written between at the earliest around 65-75AD for Mark, AD80-90 for Matthew, 75-90AD for Luke and no later than 100 AD John. This puts the writing of the gospels between 30 and 70 years after Jesus death not as you suggest at least 70 years after.

The latest writing of any part of the new testament is around 100AD not several hundred years later.

Its just a fact that of all the writings from ancient times including lives of various Roman Emperors and other famous books, the New Testament has existing copies that are very much closer to the original time of writing and there are more documents available.

eg Josephus Wars written 10-300 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 950AD, 900-1200 years after events

     Tacitus Annals written 30-100 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 850 AD, 800 - 850 years after events

      Seutonius Lives written 25 to 170 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 850 AD, 750 -900 years after the events

     Complete New Testament written 20 to 70 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 350AD, 250- 300 years after the events

In comparison to the small number of copies of these other ancient texts of around 30 - 200 each, between 4000 and 5000 copies of the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament exist. Greek is the original language of the New Testament before translation. If we write off the authenticity of the New Testament then we must also write off the authenticity of the written evidence for many historical figures and events.

The Gospels are not exactly the same as each other and there is much scholarly discussion and debate that could be gone into but they do not contradict each other and suffice it to say any four modern biographies of the same person would also differ in emphasis and content.

While the creation story and the flood story which are the earliest stories in the Old Testament are echoed in other religions, the vast majority of the rest of the Old Testament is unique to Israel's history and faith.  

It is of course a matter of personal faith whether you believe in God, Jesus etc.

Its not really fair, true or academically acceptable to write off the New Testament as an unreliable source.

Hope that helps

God Bless :-)

[The Dukeries Owl]

58 minutes ago, TINKERBELL said:

Not a patch on Smurf stickers from national garages 

 

Did you get Barry the football smurf by any chance?

[Mr Soul]

There isn’t a place for religion on the planet let alone football

[Guest Jack the Hat]

On 13/03/2018 at 17:42, Rebowl Yell said:

Yes I think offering ‘faith zones’ in the stadium might help attract ostracised communities to come watch Wednesday at Hillsborough, something like the first 4 or 5 rows of the Kop would be ideal. Would look good on tv too.  

Wow! Virtue signalling at its very best! I suppose they get a free ticket as well whilst I pay forty quid!

[The Dukeries Owl]

3 minutes ago, Jack the Hat said:

Wow! Virtue signalling at its very best! I suppose they get a free ticket as well whilst I pay forty quid!

 

The Catholics will get really upset if you let any of the others in the faith section.

[cognacbarnowl]

4 minutes ago, Jack the Hat said:

Wow! Virtue signalling at its very best! I suppose they get a free ticket as well whilst I pay forty quid!

 

 

'k off free tickets !!!!!!  Lerrem pay double because we accepted 'em so readily 

 

 

 

FFS

[Dronfield Blue]

37 minutes ago, Rev Owl said:

The bit in brackets is just incorrect. Staggeringly so!

The bible is a collection of writings of different styles and genres, some of which are history books, some of which are poetry, some of which are wisdom literature etc.

Biblical scholars (many of whom are not themselves religious believers) but whose work in hugely respected in academic fields broadly agree the following.

The gospels; Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were written between at the earliest around 65-75AD for Mark, AD80-90 for Matthew, 75-90AD for Luke and no later than 100 AD John. This puts the writing of the gospels between 30 and 70 years after Jesus death not as you suggest at least 70 years after.

The latest writing of any part of the new testament is around 100AD not several hundred years later.

Its just a fact that of all the writings from ancient times including lives of various Roman Emperors and other famous books, the New Testament has existing copies that are very much closer to the original time of writing and there are more documents available.

eg Josephus Wars written 10-300 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 950AD, 900-1200 years after events

     Tacitus Annals written 30-100 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 850 AD, 800 - 850 years after events

      Seutonius Lives written 25 to 170 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 850 AD, 750 -900 years after the events

     Complete New Testament written 20 to 70 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 350AD, 250- 300 years after the events

In comparison to the small number of copies of these other ancient texts of around 30 - 200 each, between 4000 and 5000 copies of the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament exist. Greek is the original language of the New Testament before translation. If we write off the authenticity of the New Testament then we must also write off the authenticity of the written evidence for many historical figures and events.

The Gospels are not exactly the same as each other and there is much scholarly discussion and debate that could be gone into but they do not contradict each other and suffice it to say any four modern biographies of the same person would also differ in emphasis and content.

While the creation story and the flood story which are the earliest stories in the Old Testament are echoed in other religions, the vast majority of the rest of the Old Testament is unique to Israel's history and faith.  

It is of course a matter of personal faith whether you believe in God, Jesus etc.

Its not really fair, true or academically acceptable to write off the New Testament as an unreliable source.

Hope that helps

God Bless :-)

 

Thanks for that Rev.

 

Have you heard of paragraphs?

[Rev Owl]

2 minutes ago, Dronfield Blue said:

 

Thanks for that Rev.

 

Have you heard of paragraphs?

Were they in the New Testament or the Old Testament 

It took quite a bit of reasonably scholarly effort to write that. It was fairly well paragraphed I thought but the paragraphs weren't indented and didn't have line between, I will conced that. 

[Rev Owl]

2 minutes ago, TINKERBELL said:

I think it's in wrong section tbh dronfield 

 

 

Sorry if it was. I am new to posting despite being an avid reader for a few years.

I assumed it was OK to post here as it was a direct reply to another post on this thread?

[Rev Owl]

1 minute ago, TINKERBELL said:

Didn't meanyou love.

 

It's a matchday section and this thread would be better in dressing room section 

 

Just my thoughts though 

Ok thanks 

[Dronfield Blue]

Our leader (Neil, not God) would have moved it had he deemed it necessary.

 

However, he is inconsistent.

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Dronfield Blue

[Rev Owl]

Just now, TINKERBELL said:

If you are the reverend of the club

 

Then it's time to kick the tyres and light the fires big daddy 

Sorry that's a different Rev, but I'll do what I can!

[Dronfield Blue]

Just now, TINKERBELL said:

How do we know though that Neil isn't God 

 

True, he thinks he is.

 

I think, therefore I am.

[Rebowl Yell]

31 minutes ago, Jack the Hat said:

Wow! Virtue signalling at its very best! I suppose they get a free ticket as well whilst I pay forty quid!

 

Sorry but you are a privileged white male and so your opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt. Plus most BME people live in absolute poverty thanks to deeply entrenched racist and sexist beliefs from the resident population of white Brits, securing these people some seats at a football ground to give them a little bit of relief from the day to day horrors of living in a country that hates them I think is the least we can do no? 

[Rebowl Yell]

3 minutes ago, TINKERBELL said:

Oh foook it's got serious so I'm out

 

I just wanted some light hearted fun and enjoy engaging with friends on here. 

 

Not having a go at you rebowl at all.

 

It’s OK tinks I was just looking for some bites as I’m a pathetic attention seeker but I don’t actually want to end up shutting down your thread so please anybody don’t take my ridiculous post above serious. My bad sorry, 

[Highbury Owl]

11 minutes ago, TINKERBELL said:

Wonder if will have a prayer mat with Neil's name on when you sign in.

 

 

 

SWFC prayer mat!

 

Be in the megastore soon.

[S36 OWL]

1 hour ago, roll and nilsson said:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazarethexisted as a historical figure. It concerns the issue of "what really happened", based upon the context of the time and place, and also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened".^[1] A second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence. It also considers the question of whether he was a Nazirite.^[2][3]

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain^{[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4]} although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.^{[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173} While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,^{[nb 7]} with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.^{[17][nb 8][19][20][21]}

 

^{I have no problem with you criticising what Jesus did or said or question whether he is who he claims to be but there are plenty of scholars out there who are atheists who are satisfied with the historical evidence to support his existence. My point with Caesar was simply that people dismiss Jesus's existence as a fraud because they aren't willing to consider what he says but are happy to accept everything about other historical figures.} 

 

 

[S36 OWL]

1 hour ago, Rev Owl said:

The bit in brackets is just incorrect. Staggeringly so!

The bible is a collection of writings of different styles and genres, some of which are history books, some of which are poetry, some of which are wisdom literature etc.

Biblical scholars (many of whom are not themselves religious believers) but whose work in hugely respected in academic fields broadly agree the following.

The gospels; Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were written between at the earliest around 65-75AD for Mark, AD80-90 for Matthew, 75-90AD for Luke and no later than 100 AD John. This puts the writing of the gospels between 30 and 70 years after Jesus death not as you suggest at least 70 years after.

The latest writing of any part of the new testament is around 100AD not several hundred years later.

Its just a fact that of all the writings from ancient times including lives of various Roman Emperors and other famous books, the New Testament has existing copies that are very much closer to the original time of writing and there are more documents available.

eg Josephus Wars written 10-300 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 950AD, 900-1200 years after events

     Tacitus Annals written 30-100 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 850 AD, 800 - 850 years after events

      Seutonius Lives written 25 to 170 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 850 AD, 750 -900 years after the events

     Complete New Testament written 20 to 70 years after the events, earliest manuscripts available date from 350AD, 250- 300 years after the events

In comparison to the small number of copies of these other ancient texts of around 30 - 200 each, between 4000 and 5000 copies of the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament exist. Greek is the original language of the New Testament before translation. If we write off the authenticity of the New Testament then we must also write off the authenticity of the written evidence for many historical figures and events.

The Gospels are not exactly the same as each other and there is much scholarly discussion and debate that could be gone into but they do not contradict each other and suffice it to say any four modern biographies of the same person would also differ in emphasis and content.

While the creation story and the flood story which are the earliest stories in the Old Testament are echoed in other religions, the vast majority of the rest of the Old Testament is unique to Israel's history and faith.  

It is of course a matter of personal faith whether you believe in God, Jesus etc.

Its not really fair, true or academically acceptable to write off the New Testament as an unreliable source.

Hope that helps

God Bless :-)

 

Cool story bro