🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:08:40 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

>On Aug 3, 9:11?am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>> in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 2, 11:35?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 23:26:22 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>> >> in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >> >On Aug 2, 9:56?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:04:19 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>> >> >> in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> >It means the same in Greek as it does in English.
>>
>> >> >> How familiar are you with ancient Greek. What word was used in Luke?
>> >> >> Feel free to transcribe it using the traditional Latin character
>> >> >> substitutes for the Greek letters, since usenet isn't necessarily
>> >> >> designed to support non-latin characters.
>>
>> >> >> As for your desire to believe that Luke was a physician and that he
>> >> >> wrote the gospel of that name, no evidence supports it. The framing of
>> >> >> the gospel appears to be designed to target a certain audience. Framing
>> >> >> is not unusual. Simon Morgenstern is a fairly famous author of a story
>> >> >> called The Princess Bride. Of course, there is the problem that Simon
>> >> >> Morgenstern never existed except in the imagination, particularly of
>> >> >> William Goldman, but also of everyone who suspends disbelief long enough
>> >> >> to enjoy the story.
>>
>> >> >> The Bible is a story. It can be fun to suspend disbelief for a while as
>> >> >> you read it, but you need to bring your critical facilities to bear
>> >> >> after a while. You do yourself no favor by deluding yourself about what
>> >> >> the Bible is.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >The Bible is two testaments of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament and the
>> >> >New Testament.
>>
>> >> The Bible is a collection of stories. Neither the Old Testament nor the
>> >> New are reliable for any reason at all. When tested against history and
>> >> science, they fail.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >You mean like they failed in the case of Hezekiah's tunnel?
>>
>> You still haven't shown that the story that incorporates the tunnel is
>> true in any way.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I could take you through the tunnel, and you would say exactly the
>same thing.  You will continue to claim that Hezekiah's tunnel cannot
>exist because it is mentioned in the Bible.

No one ever made that claim.