Title: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on November 27, 2015, 11:31:44 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on November 27, 2015, 11:31:44 AM
I'd like to lay the foundation for future discussions by establishing the early dating of the four gospels, so let's begin!
The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.
The New Testament fails to mention the siege of Jerusalem which lasted for three years and ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 67.
Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul which took place in AD 65 and AD 64 respectively. Moreover, the Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome. This silence suggests that the Luke's accounts were written prior to AD 64.
Luke, a trained physician and a skillful historian, recorded the martydoms of Stephen (cf. Acts 7:54-60) and James, the brother of John (cf. Acts 12:1-2), but he does not mention the death of James, the "brother" of Jesus, who was martyred in AD 62. This silence suggests that Luke wrote Acts prior to AD 62.
Luke's Gospel was written prior to the book of Acts as Luke himself records:
This suggests that Luke's Gospel was written prior to AD 62.
In his first letter to Timothy (written ca. AD 63), Paul quotes a phrase from Luke’s gospel:
As we can see, Paul not only quotes the gospel written by his friend, Luke, but he refers to it as scripture! While not all scholars accept the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, there’s more to be found. Paul’s authorship of the First Letter to the Corinthians (dated from AD 56) is undisputed, and in it, Paul appears to be quoting another passage written by his friend, Luke.
Although all four gospels contain accounts of the Last Supper, only Luke’s gospel contains the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.†From these examples, we can conclude that Paul was quoting from Luke’s gospel repeatedly. The dating of Paul’s epistles is generally accepted by even skeptical scholars, and the fact that Paul states what he is writing is a reminder of that which he had taught them in person previously suggesting that Luke was written prior to AD 56.
In his gospel, Luke quoted 250 verses from the gospel of Matthew and 350 verses from the gospel of Mark. This suggests that both of these gospels were known and accepted at the time Luke prior to AD 56.
In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul reported that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem briefly and then went to Arabia for three years. Upon his return, he went to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles on two occasions: the first trip occurred within three years of his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second trip was made 14 years later (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1).
Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains what many scholars believe to be an early creed of the Church based in part upon the apparent stylistic differences between this passage and other writings of Paul. These differences suggest that the passage contains a core statement of belief of the early Church which Paul â€" following standard Jewish rabbinic tradition â€" had memorized and passed along verbatim:
Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he explicitly stated that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem). This suggests that the account of the resurrection of Jesus was based upon eyewitness testimony of the apostles that can be dated possibly to within five years of the event itself and certainly no later than 23 years after the event!
The bottom line
Given that as few as five years may have passed before Paul first heard the proto-creed of the Church proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15 and that Paul encouraged his hearers to consult with eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection for corroboration of the message he preached, it is possible - but highly improbable - that the central facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth were skewed or altered by additions and embellishments.
The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.
The New Testament fails to mention the siege of Jerusalem which lasted for three years and ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 67.
Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul which took place in AD 65 and AD 64 respectively. Moreover, the Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome. This silence suggests that the Luke's accounts were written prior to AD 64.
Luke, a trained physician and a skillful historian, recorded the martydoms of Stephen (cf. Acts 7:54-60) and James, the brother of John (cf. Acts 12:1-2), but he does not mention the death of James, the "brother" of Jesus, who was martyred in AD 62. This silence suggests that Luke wrote Acts prior to AD 62.
Luke's Gospel was written prior to the book of Acts as Luke himself records:
QuoteActs 1:1-2
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
This suggests that Luke's Gospel was written prior to AD 62.
In his first letter to Timothy (written ca. AD 63), Paul quotes a phrase from Luke’s gospel:
QuoteLuke 10:6-7
6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.
1 Timothy 5:17-18
17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,â€[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.â€
As we can see, Paul not only quotes the gospel written by his friend, Luke, but he refers to it as scripture! While not all scholars accept the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, there’s more to be found. Paul’s authorship of the First Letter to the Corinthians (dated from AD 56) is undisputed, and in it, Paul appears to be quoting another passage written by his friend, Luke.
QuoteLuke 22:19-20
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.†20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.†25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.â€
Although all four gospels contain accounts of the Last Supper, only Luke’s gospel contains the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.†From these examples, we can conclude that Paul was quoting from Luke’s gospel repeatedly. The dating of Paul’s epistles is generally accepted by even skeptical scholars, and the fact that Paul states what he is writing is a reminder of that which he had taught them in person previously suggesting that Luke was written prior to AD 56.
In his gospel, Luke quoted 250 verses from the gospel of Matthew and 350 verses from the gospel of Mark. This suggests that both of these gospels were known and accepted at the time Luke prior to AD 56.
In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul reported that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem briefly and then went to Arabia for three years. Upon his return, he went to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles on two occasions: the first trip occurred within three years of his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second trip was made 14 years later (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1).
Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains what many scholars believe to be an early creed of the Church based in part upon the apparent stylistic differences between this passage and other writings of Paul. These differences suggest that the passage contains a core statement of belief of the early Church which Paul â€" following standard Jewish rabbinic tradition â€" had memorized and passed along verbatim:
Quote1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he explicitly stated that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem). This suggests that the account of the resurrection of Jesus was based upon eyewitness testimony of the apostles that can be dated possibly to within five years of the event itself and certainly no later than 23 years after the event!
The bottom line
Given that as few as five years may have passed before Paul first heard the proto-creed of the Church proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15 and that Paul encouraged his hearers to consult with eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection for corroboration of the message he preached, it is possible - but highly improbable - that the central facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth were skewed or altered by additions and embellishments.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on November 27, 2015, 01:33:12 PM
Post by: widdershins on November 27, 2015, 01:33:12 PM
I believe it is pretty well established that much of the New Testament was copied from older works that all the writers would have had access to. In fact, if memory serves, a couple of the books in the NT have exactly the same stories, word for word or close to it. If much of it was copied from other works then all you can really do is date the older works by your methods.
And if you're trying to establish a timeline for the writings of the books of the NT for the basis of future discussions and you have to use words like "suggests" and "possibly" then you really haven't "established" anything.
Aside from that, I am not a Biblical scholar, and you are not likely to be either. If you want to establish the approximate dates of the writing of the books of the New Testament, rather than argue a case you are not qualified to argue and I am not qualified to check, isn't it easier, better and by far more accurate to go with the dates which are generally accepted among the people who are qualified to come to such conclusions? The answer is yes. Yes it is. So, rather than analyze your argument, do a bunch of research and, after many hours of checking, give you a still-unqualified opinion on your conclusions, I'm just going to refer you to the dates given by qualified historians, who are quite at odds with your conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament)
So, if you would like to lay the foundation for future discussions by establishing the dating of the four gospels, the generally accepted dating, thus the dating valid for discussion, is given in the link above. So, what discussion would you like to have?
And if you're trying to establish a timeline for the writings of the books of the NT for the basis of future discussions and you have to use words like "suggests" and "possibly" then you really haven't "established" anything.
Aside from that, I am not a Biblical scholar, and you are not likely to be either. If you want to establish the approximate dates of the writing of the books of the New Testament, rather than argue a case you are not qualified to argue and I am not qualified to check, isn't it easier, better and by far more accurate to go with the dates which are generally accepted among the people who are qualified to come to such conclusions? The answer is yes. Yes it is. So, rather than analyze your argument, do a bunch of research and, after many hours of checking, give you a still-unqualified opinion on your conclusions, I'm just going to refer you to the dates given by qualified historians, who are quite at odds with your conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament)
So, if you would like to lay the foundation for future discussions by establishing the dating of the four gospels, the generally accepted dating, thus the dating valid for discussion, is given in the link above. So, what discussion would you like to have?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on November 27, 2015, 04:39:23 PM
Post by: Baruch on November 27, 2015, 04:39:23 PM
Actual complete gospels or fragments of gospels dated by radiocarbon dating or handwriting analysis ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
The earliest complete manuscripts are 1 & 2 Timothy and 2 & 3 John ... dated to 350 CE ... from the Codex Siniaticus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri - usually earlier "witness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials - usually later "witness"
If one tries to deduce that a fragment dated earlier than a complete manuscript, as evidence of an earlier date for the complete manuscript ... that is a conjecture. For example there may be a variant pre-John gospel that was later incorporated into the later complete John gospel ... but what their relationship is, we can't deduce, because the earlier part is incomplete. Complete can be compared to complete, and they are ... in order to pastiche together an official "textus receptus" like the Nestle-Aland. But that contemporary process of building an official "textus receiptus" is not objective ... it presupposes, just like a translation into a language other than NT Greek presupposes, the agenda of the comparator/translator.
Example of actual paleoepigraphy ... the pre-Constantine fragments of the Gospel of John extend from 125 - 250 CE ... this is one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
But this is a fragment, not the complete Gospel of John ... and its exact date is disputed of course.
Example of an actual complete NT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
http://www.bl.uk/turning-the-pages/?id=b00f9a37-422c-4542-bfbd-b97bf3ce7d50&type=book ... here is the British Library portion in all its glory ...
A great codex work of the period of the Constantine church ... since earlier NT material was in the form of codexes of one or a few books, not the complete NT, let alone the complete OT + NT.
So basically, the physical evidence indicates that the pre-Constantinian orthodox community, had papyrus manuscripts of much of the NT in the time period 150 - 350 CE ... which may be earlier versions of the complete NT books (with variants) in the period around 350 CE. And that seems quite plausible. Extrapolating much earlier than 175 CE is an act of faith. Also this leaves out the question ... are these the only gospels? The factual answer is no ... and that the Church Fathers, retrospectively ... excluded some material and some variants, for their own agenda ... these Church fathers being approved by the Council of Nicea in 325 CE ... though disputes continued into the later 4th century by Bishop Athenasius et al.
This is pretty much what would be reviewed in better seminaries these days. As to how to assess the claims of the Constantinian church, and the construction and editing of NT material both canonical and not ... will never be decisive, because it involves faith. The arguments you reference, are one such extrapolation ... which itself is not free of agenda.
Similar scholarship can be done on the manuscripts of the OT and the Quran. But Moses never handled a Torah scroll ... almost all of it was written long after his time, Jesus may have handled a Torah scroll but never handled any epistle or gospel of the NT ... almost all of it was written 100 or more years after his time (aside from the genuine Pauline materials). And the genuine Pauline materials are evidence of a Jewish gnostic sect, not orthodox Gentile Christianity as it was 100 years after Paul. A whole sequence of events, unclear to us now, over a 350 year period produced these manuscripts ... from the establishment of the Essenes around 150 BCE to the establishment of rabbinic Judaism around 200 CE. Into that time we can only project our own agendas. After that time we are inheritors of the survivors of the Roman wars of annihilation against the Jews, both Jewish and god-fearing Gentile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
The earliest complete manuscripts are 1 & 2 Timothy and 2 & 3 John ... dated to 350 CE ... from the Codex Siniaticus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri - usually earlier "witness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials - usually later "witness"
If one tries to deduce that a fragment dated earlier than a complete manuscript, as evidence of an earlier date for the complete manuscript ... that is a conjecture. For example there may be a variant pre-John gospel that was later incorporated into the later complete John gospel ... but what their relationship is, we can't deduce, because the earlier part is incomplete. Complete can be compared to complete, and they are ... in order to pastiche together an official "textus receptus" like the Nestle-Aland. But that contemporary process of building an official "textus receiptus" is not objective ... it presupposes, just like a translation into a language other than NT Greek presupposes, the agenda of the comparator/translator.
Example of actual paleoepigraphy ... the pre-Constantine fragments of the Gospel of John extend from 125 - 250 CE ... this is one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
But this is a fragment, not the complete Gospel of John ... and its exact date is disputed of course.
Example of an actual complete NT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
http://www.bl.uk/turning-the-pages/?id=b00f9a37-422c-4542-bfbd-b97bf3ce7d50&type=book ... here is the British Library portion in all its glory ...
A great codex work of the period of the Constantine church ... since earlier NT material was in the form of codexes of one or a few books, not the complete NT, let alone the complete OT + NT.
So basically, the physical evidence indicates that the pre-Constantinian orthodox community, had papyrus manuscripts of much of the NT in the time period 150 - 350 CE ... which may be earlier versions of the complete NT books (with variants) in the period around 350 CE. And that seems quite plausible. Extrapolating much earlier than 175 CE is an act of faith. Also this leaves out the question ... are these the only gospels? The factual answer is no ... and that the Church Fathers, retrospectively ... excluded some material and some variants, for their own agenda ... these Church fathers being approved by the Council of Nicea in 325 CE ... though disputes continued into the later 4th century by Bishop Athenasius et al.
This is pretty much what would be reviewed in better seminaries these days. As to how to assess the claims of the Constantinian church, and the construction and editing of NT material both canonical and not ... will never be decisive, because it involves faith. The arguments you reference, are one such extrapolation ... which itself is not free of agenda.
Similar scholarship can be done on the manuscripts of the OT and the Quran. But Moses never handled a Torah scroll ... almost all of it was written long after his time, Jesus may have handled a Torah scroll but never handled any epistle or gospel of the NT ... almost all of it was written 100 or more years after his time (aside from the genuine Pauline materials). And the genuine Pauline materials are evidence of a Jewish gnostic sect, not orthodox Gentile Christianity as it was 100 years after Paul. A whole sequence of events, unclear to us now, over a 350 year period produced these manuscripts ... from the establishment of the Essenes around 150 BCE to the establishment of rabbinic Judaism around 200 CE. Into that time we can only project our own agendas. After that time we are inheritors of the survivors of the Roman wars of annihilation against the Jews, both Jewish and god-fearing Gentile.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on November 27, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on November 27, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
Both Baruch and widdershins are correct. Your dating is highly dubious, Randy. Saying that some fragment couldn't have been written earlier than a certain date by pointing to an account of a dateable event is often noncontrovertial, but saying that a writing has to be written before a dateable event because it doesn't describe it is highly dubious. For instance, your example from Mark that Jesus predicted the fall of the Temple assumes that it isn't a later redaction to make Jesus's words seem more credible.
Your assertion that there was too little time for central facts of Jesus to be distorted because there was too little time to do so is absolutely false. The 9/11 conspiracy theory did not take decades to evolve. It took maybe a year from start to finish for the major pillars of the conspiracy theory to be invented. And this is in a society that has launched space shuttles and has taught almost all of its children how to read and write. If you think that the same thing wouldn't happen in ancient Judea, then I've got a bridge I'll sell you for a cool million.
Your assertion that there was too little time for central facts of Jesus to be distorted because there was too little time to do so is absolutely false. The 9/11 conspiracy theory did not take decades to evolve. It took maybe a year from start to finish for the major pillars of the conspiracy theory to be invented. And this is in a society that has launched space shuttles and has taught almost all of its children how to read and write. If you think that the same thing wouldn't happen in ancient Judea, then I've got a bridge I'll sell you for a cool million.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on November 27, 2015, 10:33:58 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on November 27, 2015, 10:33:58 PM
Randy, you seem to live in a very black and white world of "true or false." If you don't start adding a little color to your perspective, you'll never be able to see reality for what it is. :lol:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on November 28, 2015, 11:09:11 AM
Post by: Baruch on November 28, 2015, 11:09:11 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 27, 2015, 10:33:58 PM
Randy, you seem to live in a very black and white world of "true or false." If you don't start adding a little color to your perspective, you'll never be able to see reality for what it is. :lol:
Some Christians can see a third color ... red ... the color for the words of Jesus. But this is in fact worse ... because then only red is seen, and the rest of the NT is ignored.
Yes, ideology is why we see black vs white on issues. And ideology is ... not a good thing. So is Randy passive or active in his self-limitation?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on November 30, 2015, 11:25:16 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on November 30, 2015, 11:25:16 AM
Quote from: widdershins on November 27, 2015, 01:33:12 PM
I believe it is pretty well established that much of the New Testament was copied from older works that all the writers would have had access to. In fact, if memory serves, a couple of the books in the NT have exactly the same stories, word for word or close to it. If much of it was copied from other works then all you can really do is date the older works by your methods.
If you have some evidence of this "copying", then you should provide it. As it stands, you've simply made an unsupported (and erroneous, btw) assertion.
For the record, Luke copied passages from Mark and Matthew, but there is no evidence that any of the gospel writers copied from any non-Christian sources (apart from the OT which they quoted from time to time, of course). One theory suggests a source called "Q", as well. In the prologue of his gospel, Luke notes that "many" had written accounts of Jesus' life, and that he had carefully investigated the matter himself. His aim is to write an informed, "orderly" account.
However, this is not the same as recycling old ideas from other pagan religions.
QuoteAnd if you're trying to establish a timeline for the writings of the books of the NT for the basis of future discussions and you have to use words like "suggests" and "possibly" then you really haven't "established" anything.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
If I had used language that expressed greater confidence, you would be taking me to task for stating "facts" that cannot be proven. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
If you have any objection to the timeline that I posted, please let me know what you take issue with. The silence regarding several major events speaks volumes, IMO.
QuoteAside from that, I am not a Biblical scholar, and you are not likely to be either. If you want to establish the approximate dates of the writing of the books of the New Testament, rather than argue a case you are not qualified to argue and I am not qualified to check, isn't it easier, better and by far more accurate to go with the dates which are generally accepted among the people who are qualified to come to such conclusions? The answer is yes. Yes it is. So, rather than analyze your argument, do a bunch of research and, after many hours of checking, give you a still-unqualified opinion on your conclusions, I'm just going to refer you to the dates given by qualified historians, who are quite at odds with your conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament)
I am aware of the more conservative dating offered by some NT scholars, and I'm totally okay with their dates. We don't know with certainty when some of the books were written, but the OP suggests that because of the omission of key events that would have been of great interest to the early Church, the argument can be made for dates which are much earlier than the average atheist cares to admit. Conservative scholars must also account for this silence, IMO.
And by the way, the Wiki article to which you linked suggests a date of AD 56 for Corinthians, and this is a show-stopper, because in 1 Co 15, Paul includes a proto-creed which he learned from Peter, James and John in Jerusalem during one of the two visits he made to that city after his conversion.
Bottom line? Paul heard the apostles preaching the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as early as five years after the event - certainly no more than 20 years or so. This means that those who claim that the gospels are nothing more than the result of a complex game of Telephone must explain how the gospels became so distorted so quickly. IOW, there was virtually no time for the legends and myths about Jesus to develop.
QuoteSo, if you would like to lay the foundation for future discussions by establishing the dating of the four gospels, the generally accepted dating, thus the dating valid for discussion, is given in the link above. So, what discussion would you like to have?
I have laid out my case for early dating of the gospels. Thus far, you have simply appealed to authority (which is reasonable, btw), but not all authorities agree on the dates Wiki has listed for the composition of each book. For example, the intro to Matthew in my Bible says that it was probably written some time before AD 70 - earlier than your Wiki article. Similarly, my Bible has Luke and Acts being written in the mid-60's...about 15-25 years earlier than Wiki.
The difference of two decades is significant, and those who want to dismiss the gospels as being written too late to be historically reliable are engaging in wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on November 30, 2015, 01:05:45 PM
Post by: Baruch on November 30, 2015, 01:05:45 PM
It is standard apologetic/polemic to project the Gospels back to 26 CE or 70 CE at the latest. But this is rhetoric, not scholarship. It is more plausible to date the original material in the edited Pauline epistles (the ones actually by him by internal analysis) to the 50 CE time period ... because Paul would be unaware of the details of what happened post 66 CE. The works of Philo of Alexandria also probably date before 66 CE ... and resemble the Pauline/Johanine corpus in content. The more cautious rhetoric ... that dates the Gospels to 70 CE ... is based on the idea that the prophesy regarding the destruction of the Temple is post-facto, but near contemporary.
What isn't mentioned, is the Flavius Josephus material, minus the editing by later Christian scribes. Also the Dead Sea Scroll material. All of that would be required to assess just the Jewish portion of the written evidence ... not even counting the Gentile portion. It is hard speculative work to reconstruct a lost world, even from propaganda contemporary to it. But if one already has a conclusion in mind, then it is proof-texting on a larger scale. Crossan has done a better than average attempt at this larger scale view ... what were the Gospels etc in context ... a context without the Church that formed after 135 CE.
What isn't mentioned, is the Flavius Josephus material, minus the editing by later Christian scribes. Also the Dead Sea Scroll material. All of that would be required to assess just the Jewish portion of the written evidence ... not even counting the Gentile portion. It is hard speculative work to reconstruct a lost world, even from propaganda contemporary to it. But if one already has a conclusion in mind, then it is proof-texting on a larger scale. Crossan has done a better than average attempt at this larger scale view ... what were the Gospels etc in context ... a context without the Church that formed after 135 CE.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: facebook164 on December 01, 2015, 09:44:08 AM
Post by: facebook164 on December 01, 2015, 09:44:08 AM
Quote from: Baruch on November 30, 2015, 01:05:45 PMThe works of Philo of Alexandria also probably date before 66 CE ... and resemble the Pauline/Johanine corpus in content.Just for the record: Philo never mentions jesus. And the pauline christ is not a historical figure.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Termin on December 01, 2015, 12:12:46 PM
Post by: Termin on December 01, 2015, 12:12:46 PM
"The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70."
False dilemma right off the start, you didn't even consider the potential of their ignorance.
False dilemma right off the start, you didn't even consider the potential of their ignorance.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on December 01, 2015, 12:48:03 PM
Post by: Baruch on December 01, 2015, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: facebook164 on December 01, 2015, 09:44:08 AM
Just for the record: Philo never mentions jesus. And the pauline christ is not a historical figure.
Correct ... Philo does mention the Logos. So Johannine pre-Christian material was about ... in the early 1st century CE. And the Pauline Christ is a similar mythical figure, as is the probable predecessor of the Gospel of John, and the non-Pauline Homily to the Hebrews figure of an eternal High Priest. These all work together as Hellenized Jewish gnosticism, pre-Temple destruction ... and they work even better after the Temple was destroyed, since the question of Temple corruption has been superseded by the lack of any Temple at all. So I see part of the NT, the gnostic part, including the Epistle of James ... as pre-Christian Jewish material. The revised Gospel of John and the three Synoptics, with the Gospel of Mark being early Christian material of the late second century ... as content. Again nothing is physically reliable before about 175 CE ... at least because the physical material hasn't survived. The idea of the NT is initially imagined in the 2nd century and finalized toward the early 5th century, after Christianity becomes the only licit religion in the Empire.
Early dating of full Gospel material is speculative. Not impossible, but choosing an early vs later date ... is less scholarly conservative (which always favors later dates). Certainly the content, if not the physical remains, of part of the NT do date to the mid 1st century (including the Q or Greek Gospel of Thomas) ... but later ideological and political struggles have obscured what happened in favor of the victors telling the story. I see the photo-Christian movement as Hellenistic Jewish Pacifist Messianic ... though some of the Dead Sea material is mythical militancy (apocalypse). The latest I would date this material would be 135 CE ... because from that time all the militant Jewish messianics were dead. Only the pacifist Jewish messianics remained, and their copy-cat Gentile god-fearer communities like Paul's. Given that the reliable parts of Josephus only mention John the Baptist, and not a historical Jesus ... and that was written 70 - 100 CE ... I have doubts that a historical Jesus existed ... as there are also alternative explanations for the mention of the Christos followers in Tacitus (in regards to the Great Fire at Rome). Followers even as early as Nero's time, just before the start of the Jewish wars ... do not demonstrate a historical figure ... as much as a mythical one.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on December 01, 2015, 12:52:09 PM
Post by: Baruch on December 01, 2015, 12:52:09 PM
Quote from: Termin on December 01, 2015, 12:12:46 PM
"The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70."
False dilemma right off the start, you didn't even consider the potential of their ignorance.
Any Jewish ignorance would be clarified within a year after the destruction of Jerusalem ... in 70 CE. The prophecy of the destruction of the Temple would have been current, in regards to King Herod having built it (and thus non-kosher for some) even before the Jewish revolt of 66 CE. This wasn't a hard prediction to make. And many a written prophesy is post-facto anyway.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on December 02, 2015, 12:37:05 PM
Post by: widdershins on December 02, 2015, 12:37:05 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on November 30, 2015, 11:25:16 AM
If you have some evidence of this "copying", then you should provide it. As it stands, you've simply made an unsupported (and erroneous, btw) assertion.
For the record, Luke copied passages from Mark and Matthew, but there is no evidence that any of the gospel writers copied from any non-Christian sources (apart from the OT which they quoted from time to time, of course). One theory suggests a source called "Q", as well. In the prologue of his gospel, Luke notes that "many" had written accounts of Jesus' life, and that he had carefully investigated the matter himself. His aim is to write an informed, "orderly" account.
However, this is not the same as recycling old ideas from other pagan religions.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
You've given your own evidence. I never said "non-Christian sources". That was all you, buddy. I said "older works", which includes the Old Testament, which you just said they quoted from. So for your first response, you agree with me. Perfect.
Quote from: Randy Carson on November 30, 2015, 11:25:16 AMIf I had used language that expressed greater confidence, you would be taking me to task for stating "facts" that cannot be proven. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)I just pointed out that neither of us is qualified to come to any such conclusions, so we, by necessity of being as accurate as possible, must cast aside our own wild assertions and beliefs and defer to the judgement of experts who have made careers out of exactly this study. What I take issue with is the ignorant belief that with a week of Googling you are better qualified to date ancient manuscripts than people who have seen, studied and tested such manuscripts and are trained to understand what it all means.
If you have any objection to the timeline that I posted, please let me know what you take issue with. The silence regarding several major events speaks volumes, IMO.
Quote from: Randy Carson on November 30, 2015, 11:25:16 AMI am aware of the more conservative dating offered by some NT scholars, and I'm totally okay with their dates. We don't know with certainty when some of the books were written, but the OP suggests that because of the omission of key events that would have been of great interest to the early Church, the argument can be made for dates which are much earlier than the average atheist cares to admit. Conservative scholars must also account for this silence, IMO.And the argument can be made that Jesus was homosexual given that he spent all his time with 12 men and showed no interest in women whatsoever. But making that argument is counterproductive and pointless since experts studying the evidence have never come to that conclusion, making it highly unlikely.
Quote from: Randy Carson on November 30, 2015, 11:25:16 AMAnd by the way, the Wiki article to which you linked suggests a date of AD 56 for Corinthians, and this is a show-stopper, because in 1 Co 15, Paul includes a proto-creed which he learned from Peter, James and John in Jerusalem during one of the two visits he made to that city after his conversion.You are not owed any answers by any experts. Do you have degrees in ancient languages? History? Antiquities? Have you seen, touched, studied and tested these documents? Or are you just scouring the Internet, specifically web sites of people who say what you want to hear, and pulling your beliefs from there? On the one hand we have a consensus of the vast majority of experts who have spent entire careers looking into this. On the other hand we have you and Google searches specifically designed to get you, not the truth, but a boost to your argument. Let's see, who should I trust here...
Bottom line? Paul heard the apostles preaching the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as early as five years after the event - certainly no more than 20 years or so. This means that those who claim that the gospels are nothing more than the result of a complex game of Telephone must explain how the gospels became so distorted so quickly. IOW, there was virtually no time for the legends and myths about Jesus to develop.
Quote from: Randy Carson on November 30, 2015, 11:25:16 AMI have laid out my case for early dating of the gospels. Thus far, you have simply appealed to authority (which is reasonable, btw), but not all authorities agree on the dates Wiki has listed for the composition of each book. For example, the intro to Matthew in my Bible says that it was probably written some time before AD 70 - earlier than your Wiki article. Similarly, my Bible has Luke and Acts being written in the mid-60's...about 15-25 years earlier than Wiki.First, it is not an "appeal to authority" (which is very much NOT ok, btw) if you are referencing the majority conclusion of experts in a field. That's called "science", my friend. Second, if you had read and understood what I wrote in the least you would know that I was presenting a counterargument that neither you nor I was qualified to have the argument you want to have. You want to have a war of Google searches? Great! We can quickly determining who is better at using Google to find evidence to support their beliefs whether or not those beliefs are valid! I will quickly come out as the victor! And you will quickly come out as the victor! I'll think I won, you'll think you won, but only after hours and hours of pointless, useless, unproductive circling. What is the point? You're not qualified! I'm not qualified! We MUST defer to the majority consensus of those who are qualified! Why? Because if you think you know better then you're being an idiot. How could you POSSIBLY know better than a group of experts who have spent, collectively, thousands of YEARS studying this? How could you POSSIBLY compete with man-hours and expertise on that scale? What is so super special about you that, with a few weeks of research on the Internet, you can know more about these ancient manuscripts than old men who've studied them since they were young men and come to a collective agreement on their findings? The answer, of course, is nothing. You are not that super-special. You are not that super-informed. You are not that super-intelligent or enlightened. The very fact that you believe YOU have found something in your hours of Internet searches that ALL OF ACADEMIA has overlooked in their collective thousands of years of actual study is arrogant and ignorant.
The difference of two decades is significant, and those who want to dismiss the gospels as being written too late to be historically reliable are engaging in wishful thinking.
If you read nothing else thoroughly, read this part. My argument is not "You are wrong and here's why". My argument is that your argument is pointless. You can present all the "evidence" you want. It won't change the absolute fact that these are your most hopeful beliefs, in opposition to a majority of experts who have studied this, and are extremely likely to not be based in any sort of reality or facts. Already you're using terms like "could not have" to prove your point, with your first post. This is not a Sherlock Holmes novel where all you have to do is eliminate things you don't like until you're left with the answer you want. This is reality, where you look at the whole of the data and come to a conclusion regardless what you, personally, would like that conclusion to be. They have analyzed linguistics, writing styles, papyrus and ink, the locations of the finds, history of the lands and multi-million dollar pieces of lab equipment. They have gone on-side and studied and talked and dug. They have examined history from every source even remotely close to the time frame. They have done about a million and one things I could not even comprehend, much less imagine them doing. The expert consensus gives us the dates based on ALL the evidence available, not just what Google or Christian apologetic sights tell you. They have analyzed more points of data than you can imagine to come up with these numbers. To think that you can shatter that with "Well, it COULD NOT HAVE been then because..." is just ignorant. That's not an insult, it's just the bare truth. Your argument is uninformed and unproductive. You are wrong until you prove you're right. But you don't prove you're right to me. Because taking an argument directly to the people is another one of those ways (aside from argument from authority) that people with bad arguments propagate them. You have to prove you're right to a majority of experts. You have to get your answer to be the consensus answer. Only then will you be "right". Even if you are absolutely correct in everything you say, you are "wrong" until it is accepted by scientific consensus. It's just how things work. It's how science works. And you can be damned sure it's how it will work here, where what we want is exactly the opposite of what you want. Even if you argue your heart out and nobody can refute you you STILL would not convince a single person here. Why? Because we're not experts, so we will always "know" something is wrong with your argument, even if we don't know what that thing is, until a majority of experts tell use you were right. It's not a perfect system, but it does work pretty damned well.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:49:57 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: Baruch on November 30, 2015, 01:05:45 PM
It is standard apologetic/polemic to project the Gospels back to 26 CE or 70 CE at the latest. But this is rhetoric, not scholarship.
Just as it is common among atheists to try to push the dates as late as possible, eh? Both sides have their reasons for this.
However, I laid out a reasonable timeline in the OP. Please let me know where it is in error.
QuoteIt is more plausible to date the original material in the edited Pauline epistles (the ones actually by him by internal analysis) to the 50 CE time period ... because Paul would be unaware of the details of what happened post 66 CE. The works of Philo of Alexandria also probably date before 66 CE ... and resemble the Pauline/Johanine corpus in content. The more cautious rhetoric ... that dates the Gospels to 70 CE ... is based on the idea that the prophesy regarding the destruction of the Temple is post-facto, but near contemporary.
Perhaps the fact that Paul was martyred in Rome around AD 65-66 hindered his ability to know that happened "post 66 CE"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:54:49 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:54:49 AM
Quote from: Termin on December 01, 2015, 12:12:46 PM
"The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70."
False dilemma right off the start, you didn't even consider the potential of their ignorance.
Um...no. I sure didn't. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:56:35 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:56:35 AM
Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2015, 12:48:03 PM
Correct ... Philo does mention the Logos. So Johannine pre-Christian material was about ... in the early 1st century CE. And the Pauline Christ is a similar mythical figure, as is the probable predecessor of the Gospel of John, and the non-Pauline Homily to the Hebrews figure of an eternal High Priest. These all work together as Hellenized Jewish gnosticism, pre-Temple destruction ... and they work even better after the Temple was destroyed, since the question of Temple corruption has been superseded by the lack of any Temple at all. So I see part of the NT, the gnostic part, including the Epistle of James ... as pre-Christian Jewish material. The revised Gospel of John and the three Synoptics, with the Gospel of Mark being early Christian material of the late second century ... as content. Again nothing is physically reliable before about 175 CE ... at least because the physical material hasn't survived. The idea of the NT is initially imagined in the 2nd century and finalized toward the early 5th century, after Christianity becomes the only licit religion in the Empire.
Early dating of full Gospel material is speculative. Not impossible, but choosing an early vs later date ... is less scholarly conservative (which always favors later dates). Certainly the content, if not the physical remains, of part of the NT do date to the mid 1st century (including the Q or Greek Gospel of Thomas) ... but later ideological and political struggles have obscured what happened in favor of the victors telling the story. I see the photo-Christian movement as Hellenistic Jewish Pacifist Messianic ... though some of the Dead Sea material is mythical militancy (apocalypse). The latest I would date this material would be 135 CE ... because from that time all the militant Jewish messianics were dead. Only the pacifist Jewish messianics remained, and their copy-cat Gentile god-fearer communities like Paul's. Given that the reliable parts of Josephus only mention John the Baptist, and not a historical Jesus ... and that was written 70 - 100 CE ... I have doubts that a historical Jesus existed ... as there are also alternative explanations for the mention of the Christos followers in Tacitus (in regards to the Great Fire at Rome). Followers even as early as Nero's time, just before the start of the Jewish wars ... do not demonstrate a historical figure ... as much as a mythical one.
Baruch-
Have you considered the arguments of agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:59:46 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:59:46 AM
Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2015, 12:52:09 PM
Any Jewish ignorance would be clarified within a year after the destruction of Jerusalem ... in 70 CE. The prophecy of the destruction of the Temple would have been current, in regards to King Herod having built it (and thus non-kosher for some) even before the Jewish revolt of 66 CE. This wasn't a hard prediction to make. And many a written prophesy is post-facto anyway.
I think we are in agreement. The authors of the NT WERE aware of the destruction of the Temple. However, by then, the gospels and Acts were already in circulation.
If not, the writers could have said, "See, Jesus predicted the Temple would be destroyed, and He was right."
But they didn't because it hadn't happened at the time of their writing.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:08:54 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:08:54 AM
Quote from: widdershins on December 02, 2015, 12:37:05 PM
I just pointed out that neither of us is qualified to come to any such conclusions, so we, by necessity of being as accurate as possible, must cast aside our own wild assertions and beliefs and defer to the judgement of experts who have made careers out of exactly this study. What I take issue with is the ignorant belief that with a week of Googling you are better qualified to date ancient manuscripts than people who have seen, studied and tested such manuscripts and are trained to understand what it all means.
You are not owed any answers by any experts. Do you have degrees in ancient languages? History? Antiquities? Have you seen, touched, studied and tested these documents? Or are you just scouring the Internet, specifically web sites of people who say what you want to hear, and pulling your beliefs from there? On the one hand we have a consensus of the vast majority of experts who have spent entire careers looking into this. On the other hand we have you and Google searches specifically designed to get you, not the truth, but a boost to your argument. Let's see, who should I trust here...
I'll pause to respond here.
Do I have these credentials? Of course not. But I've done a wee bit more than Google a few websites. And I can read Bart Ehrman who does have credentials. He wrote:
Quote"Serious historians of the early Christian movementâ€"all of themâ€"have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. In the field of biology, evolution may be “just†a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.
“Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence of their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for the traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincingâ€"whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of Presidents, or even a presidential place of birthâ€"will not be convinced. Simply will [emphasis original] not be convinced.
“And so…I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’ historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.
“But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that you mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things with relative certainty about him.†(Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.)
So, who do you trust? I think the answer is obvious.
And Jesus did exist.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:18:38 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:18:38 AM
Quote from: widdershins on December 02, 2015, 12:37:05 PM
If you read nothing else thoroughly, read this part. My argument is not "You are wrong and here's why". My argument is that your argument is pointless. You can present all the "evidence" you want. It won't change the absolute fact that these are your most hopeful beliefs, in opposition to a majority of experts who have studied this, and are extremely likely to not be based in any sort of reality or facts. Already you're using terms like "could not have" to prove your point, with your first post. This is not a Sherlock Holmes novel where all you have to do is eliminate things you don't like until you're left with the answer you want. This is reality, where you look at the whole of the data and come to a conclusion regardless what you, personally, would like that conclusion to be. They have analyzed linguistics, writing styles, papyrus and ink, the locations of the finds, history of the lands and multi-million dollar pieces of lab equipment. They have gone on-side and studied and talked and dug. They have examined history from every source even remotely close to the time frame. They have done about a million and one things I could not even comprehend, much less imagine them doing. The expert consensus gives us the dates based on ALL the evidence available, not just what Google or Christian apologetic sights tell you. They have analyzed more points of data than you can imagine to come up with these numbers. To think that you can shatter that with "Well, it COULD NOT HAVE been then because..." is just ignorant. That's not an insult, it's just the bare truth. Your argument is uninformed and unproductive. You are wrong until you prove you're right. But you don't prove you're right to me. Because taking an argument directly to the people is another one of those ways (aside from argument from authority) that people with bad arguments propagate them. You have to prove you're right to a majority of experts. You have to get your answer to be the consensus answer. Only then will you be "right". Even if you are absolutely correct in everything you say, you are "wrong" until it is accepted by scientific consensus. It's just how things work. It's how science works. And you can be damned sure it's how it will work here, where what we want is exactly the opposite of what you want. Even if you argue your heart out and nobody can refute you you STILL would not convince a single person here. Why? Because we're not experts, so we will always "know" something is wrong with your argument, even if we don't know what that thing is, until a majority of experts tell use you were right. It's not a perfect system, but it does work pretty damned well.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the timeline in the OP is not original with me. I read books, and I learn. Then I share what I have learned with others who haven't read.
You say that "conservative" scholarship points to dates in the AD 70 range for the gospels (gJohn later, the epistles probably much earlier). Great. That's what "conservatives" think. However, conservatives are, you know, conservative, and they go with dates that NO ONE could seriously disagree with - at least not the majority of their fellow scholars.
But others are just as reasonable in saying, "Well, hang on...my academic reputation may take a hit, but isn't it reasonable to ask a few questions such as why the destruction of the temple or the martydoms of James, Peter and Paul are NOT mentioned anywhere in the NT?"
And those questions need to be answered.
Either way, I don't see how this does the average atheist who denies that Jesus even existed and wants to place the authorship of the NT deep into the second century much good.
Do you? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
Post by: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/
He said, she said. Still comes back to irrefutable evidence of which I have seen none either way. We have had debates on here (among atheists, occasionally including theists) whether Jesus was a person or a myth; Historicism versus mythicism.
there is no conclusive evidence that I have seen or can be produced either way. But the real issue is whether Jesus was a divine being that fulfilled all of the needed requirements to be considered the ascendant son of man or the (supposedly prophesied) messiah. Regardless of any argument made, short of some divine evidence yet to be revealed, the Jesus of the bible does not meet that requirement. So you can continue the discussion, but lacking any specific information that definitively places Jesus not only as the redeemer but also as a real person, the discussion is in my mind a lot of hot air.
QuoteA frail man sits in chains inside a dank, cold prison cell. He has escaped death before but now realizes that his execution is drawing near.
“I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come,†the man â€"the Apostle Paul - says in the Bible's 2 Timothy. “I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.â€
The passage is one of the most dramatic scenes in the New Testament. Paul, the most prolific New Testament author, is saying goodbye from a Roman prison cell before being beheaded. His goodbye veers from loneliness to defiance and, finally, to joy.
There’s one just one problem - Paul didn’t write those words. In fact, virtually half the New Testament was written by impostors taking on the names of apostles like Paul. At least according to Bart D. Ehrman, a renowned biblical scholar, who makes the charges in his new book “Forged.â€
“There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good,†says Ehrman, an expert on ancient biblical manuscripts.In “Forged,†Ehrman claims that:
* At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries.
* The New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.
* Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.
Were Jesus’ disciples ‘illiterate peasants?'
Ehrman’s book, like many of his previous ones, is already generating backlash. Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar, has written a lengthy online critique of “Forged.â€
Witherington calls Ehrman’s book “Gullible Travels, for it reveals over and over again the willingness of people to believe even outrageous things.â€
All of the New Testament books, with the exception of 2 Peter, can be traced back to a very small group of literate Christians, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the lives of Jesus and Paul, Witherington says.
“Forged†also underestimates the considerable role scribes played in transcribing documents during the earliest days of Christianity, Witherington says.
Even if Paul didn’t write the second book of Timothy, he would have dictated it to a scribe for posterity, he says.
“When you have a trusted colleague or co-worker who knows the mind of Paul, there was no problem in antiquity with that trusted co-worker hearing Paul’s last testimony in prison,†he says. “This is not forgery. This is the last will and testament of someone who is dying.â€
Ehrman doesn’t confine his critique to Paul’s letters. He challenges the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. He says that none were written by Jesus' disciplies, citing two reasons.
He says none of the earliest gospels revealed the names of its authors, and that their current names were later added by scribes.
Ehrman also says that two of Jesus’ original disciples, John and Peter, could not have written the books attributed to them in the New Testament because they were illiterate.
“According to Acts 4:13, both Peter and his companion John, also a fisherman, were agrammatoi, a Greek word that literally means ‘unlettered,’ that is, ‘illiterate,’ ’’ he writes.
Will the real Paul stand up?
Ehrman reserves most of his scrutiny for the writings of Paul, which make up the bulk of the New Testament. He says that only about half of the New Testament letters attributed to Paul - 7 of 13 - were actually written by him.
Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine.
For example, Ehrman says the book of Ephesians doesn’t conform to Paul’s distinctive Greek writing style. He says Paul wrote in short, pointed sentences while Ephesians is full of long Greek sentences (the opening sentence of thanksgiving in Ephesians unfurls a sentence that winds through 12 verses, he says).
“There’s nothing wrong with extremely long sentences in Greek; it just isn’t the way Paul wrote. It’s like Mark Twain and William Faulkner; they both wrote correctly, but you would never mistake the one for the other,†Ehrman writes.
The scholar also points to a famous passage in 1 Corinthians in which Paul is recorded as saying that women should be “silent†in churches and that “if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.â€
Only three chapters earlier, in the same book, Paul is urging women who pray and prophesy in church to cover their heads with veils, Ehrman says: “If they were allowed to speak in chapter 11, how could they be told not to speak in chapter 14?â€
Why people forged
Forgers often did their work because they were trying to settle early church disputes, Ehrman says. The early church was embroiled in conflict - people argued over the treatment of women, leadership and relations between masters and slaves, he says.
“There was competition among different groups of Christians about what to believe and each of these groups wanted to have authority to back up their views,†he says. “If you were a nobody, you wouldn’t sign your own name to your treatise. You would sign Peter or John.â€
So people claiming to be Peter and John - and all sorts of people who claimed to know Jesus - went into publishing overdrive. Ehrman estimates that there were about 100 forgeries created in the name of Jesus’ inner-circle during the first four centuries of the church.
Witherington concedes that fabrications and forgeries floated around the earliest Christian communities.
But he doesn’t accept the notion that Peter, for example, could not have been literate because he was a fisherman.
“Fisherman had to do business. Guess what? That involves writing, contracts and signed documents,†he said in an interview.
Witherington says people will gravitate toward Ehrman’s work because the media loves sensationalism.
“We live in a Jesus-haunted culture that’s biblically illiterate,†he says. “Almost anything can pass for historical information… A book liked ‘Forged’ can unsettle people who have no third or fourth opinions to draw upon.â€
Ehrman, of course, has another point of view.
“Forged†will help people accept something that it took him a long time to accept, says the author, a former fundamentalist who is now an agnostic.
The New Testament wasn’t written by the finger of God, he says - it has human fingerprints all over its pages.
“I’m not saying people should throw it out or it’s not theologically fruitful,†Ehrman says. “I’m saying that by realizing it contains so many forgeries, it shows that it’s a very human book, down to the fact that some authors lied about who they were.â€
He said, she said. Still comes back to irrefutable evidence of which I have seen none either way. We have had debates on here (among atheists, occasionally including theists) whether Jesus was a person or a myth; Historicism versus mythicism.
there is no conclusive evidence that I have seen or can be produced either way. But the real issue is whether Jesus was a divine being that fulfilled all of the needed requirements to be considered the ascendant son of man or the (supposedly prophesied) messiah. Regardless of any argument made, short of some divine evidence yet to be revealed, the Jesus of the bible does not meet that requirement. So you can continue the discussion, but lacking any specific information that definitively places Jesus not only as the redeemer but also as a real person, the discussion is in my mind a lot of hot air.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 12:13:55 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 12:13:55 PM
Quote from: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/
He said, she said. Still comes back to irrefutable evidence of which I have seen none either way. We have had debates on here (among atheists, occasionally including theists) whether Jesus was a person or a myth; Historicism versus mythicism.
there is no conclusive evidence that I have seen or can be produced either way. But the real issue is whether Jesus was a divine being that fulfilled all of the needed requirements to be considered the ascendant son of man or the (supposedly prophesied) messiah. Regardless of any argument made, short of some divine evidence yet to be revealed, the Jesus of the bible does not meet that requirement. So you can continue the discussion, but lacking any specific information that definitively places Jesus not only as the redeemer but also as a real person, the discussion is in my mind a lot of hot air.
And yet for all that, Ehrman is really clear that Jesus was a real person.
Now that we have that settled, we can begin with the rest. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 12:58:43 PM
Post by: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 12:58:43 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 12:13:55 PM
And yet for all that, Ehrman is really clear that Jesus was a real person.
Now that we have that settled, we can begin with the rest. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
And we haven't settled anything. Ehrman is one source. Other sources disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#21st_century
QuoteRichard Carrier, New Atheism activist and proponent of the Jesus myth theory wrote a scathing review of Bart D. Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist in 2012 resulted in lengthy responses and counter-responses on the Internet. Carrier holds the view that it is more likely that the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations rather than a real person.[122] In 2014 Carrier released a book, On the Historicity of Jesus, where he gave a probabilistic estimate that Jesus was a historical figure: "With the evidence we have, the probability Jesus existed is somewhere between 1 in 12,500 and 1 in 3".
QuoteCanadian writer Earl Doherty wrote in 2009 that the Christ myth theory is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition."[123][124] Doherty argues in The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and Jesus: Neither God nor Manâ€"The Case for a Mythical Jesus (2009) that Jesus originated as a myth derived from Middle Platonism with some influence from Jewish mysticism, and that belief in a historical Jesus emerged only among Christian communities in the 2nd century.
According to Doherty, none of the major Christian apologists before 180 AD, except for Justin and Aristides of Athens, included an account of a historical Jesus in their defenses of Christianity. Instead Doherty suggests that the early Christian writers describe a Christian movement grounded in Platonic philosophy and Hellenistic Judaism, reaching the worship of a monotheistic Jewish god and what he calls a "logos-type Son". Doherty further argues that Theophilus of Antioch (c. 163â€"182), Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133â€"190), Tatian the Assyrian (c. 120â€"180), and Marcus Minucius Felix (writing around 150â€"270) offer no indication that they believed in a historical figure crucified and resurrected, and that the name Jesus does not appear in any of them.[125]
QuoteAmerican New Testament scholar and former Baptist pastor Robert McNair Price was a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of writers and scholars who study the historicity of Jesus and who argue that the Christian image of Christ is a theological construct into which traces of Jesus of Nazareth have been woven.[127] He was also a member of the Jesus Project. Price believes that Christianity is a historicized synthesis of mainly Egyptian, Jewish, and Greek mythologies.[128]
Price questioned the historicity of Jesus in a series of books, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (2003), Jesus Is Dead (2007), and The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2012), as well as in contributions to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009). He writes that everyone who espouses the Christ myth theory bases their arguments on three key points:
There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
The epistles, written earlier than the gospels, provide no evidence of a recent historical Jesus; all that can be taken from the epistles, Price argues, is that a Jesus Christ, son of God, lived in a heavenly realm (much as other ancient gods, e.g. Horus), there died as a sacrifice for human sin, was raised by God and enthroned in heaven.
The Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods; Price names Baal, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dumuzi/Tammuz as examples, all of which, he writes, survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods and thereby influenced early Christianity. Price alleges that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels.[129]
Price argues that if critical methodology is applied with ruthless consistency, one is left in complete agnosticism regarding Jesus's historicity: "There might have been a historical Jesus, but unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know."[126] Price argues that "the varying dates are the residue of various attempts to anchor an originally mythic or legendary Jesus in more or less recent history" citing accounts that have Jesus being crucified under Alexander Jannaeus (83 BCE) or in his 50s by Herod Agrippa I under the rule of Claudius Caesar (41â€"54 CE
Sorry, but it is still he said she said. As Price contends, until someone discovers a skeleton or a diary, there is no definitive proof of Jesus as a historical figure.
The parallels with other mythical figures like Apollo, Romulus of Roman myth or others- and there are many parallels- to make the specific statement that Jesus is first a historical figure and secondly a divine one that fulfills prophecy and is actually what Christians claim is not likely.
Note that I said Christians claim, not the Bible. There are so many apocryphal texts and different interpretations of currently accepted scripture, including whether or not Christ actually was a product of virgin birth, that to adamantly claim that he was both divine and a historical figure is also not likely.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PM
Post by: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PM
Ehrman or any other scholar ... is just another infallible Pope. Not my game at all. In my case the historicity of Jesus, like that of Moses, is irrelevant. But I wanted to give you a serious reply in context ... because I like you ;-) An original Age of Faith is as mythical is it gets.
I think that Paul the Apostle is clearly historical, for what it is worth. And his writing precede the Gospels, and forth-tell a different Christ than that of the Gospels ... a cosmic figure rather than a human figure. Clearly gnostic in theology. I also think that John the Baptist is clearly legendary. The Jesus of the Gospels on the other hand is clearly mythical. On what standard? We have Paul's actual writings, somewhat edited, with later material mis-ascribed ... but the genuine Pauline corpus has a consistent language and theology, and is written in first person. John the Baptist didn't write anything that has survived, but no miracles, aside from Jesus' baptism, is part of his story. Jesus wrote nothing himself, like John the Baptist. A story that also has many miracles in it ... is mythical by nature. So much of the Jesus' ministry story is like Hercules/Bacchus, Socrates et al. Random folk rabbis executed for sedition .. do not a religion make.
Substitutionary atonement doesn't exist in the first version of Mark, but was added later to make it consistent with Matthew/Luke. John's Gospel was gnostic in inspiration (plays better with Paul than the Synoptics), but written to compete with the Synoptics. The pre-Gospel material, the Gospel of Thomas, is not a narrative, is gnostic in intent just like Paul. The conversion on the road to Damascus ... is the mythical part of the Pauline story. The substitutionary atonement of Paul's writings is clearly a burlesque of normative Jewish Temple worship, recalling Canaanite practices and Ba'al. Real early Messianic Judaism is present in The Didache, but which was carefully left out of the NT.
So on to the timeline ... there can be multiple plausible timelines. Some material dating back to the Teacher of Righteousness who created the Essene movement around 150 BCE, to post-Jerusalem destruction material as late as 135 CE. Almost a 300 year span. The actual manuscripts, in near intact condition date from the 200-350 CE time period ... that is the latest, not the earliest plausible timeline. The earliest timeline would correspond to a versions of Eisenman's theories, but put farther back in time to the Maccabean period. In no way, regardless of which timeline one chooses, would I be convinced that the final version of the NT is anything but an instrument of Late Roman politics. The origins will remain uncertain no matter what other papyri are found, because papyri have been found for over 200 years, without effect on Christian theology. The Constantine version of the Pauline foundation story, cannot be examined.
I think that Paul the Apostle is clearly historical, for what it is worth. And his writing precede the Gospels, and forth-tell a different Christ than that of the Gospels ... a cosmic figure rather than a human figure. Clearly gnostic in theology. I also think that John the Baptist is clearly legendary. The Jesus of the Gospels on the other hand is clearly mythical. On what standard? We have Paul's actual writings, somewhat edited, with later material mis-ascribed ... but the genuine Pauline corpus has a consistent language and theology, and is written in first person. John the Baptist didn't write anything that has survived, but no miracles, aside from Jesus' baptism, is part of his story. Jesus wrote nothing himself, like John the Baptist. A story that also has many miracles in it ... is mythical by nature. So much of the Jesus' ministry story is like Hercules/Bacchus, Socrates et al. Random folk rabbis executed for sedition .. do not a religion make.
Substitutionary atonement doesn't exist in the first version of Mark, but was added later to make it consistent with Matthew/Luke. John's Gospel was gnostic in inspiration (plays better with Paul than the Synoptics), but written to compete with the Synoptics. The pre-Gospel material, the Gospel of Thomas, is not a narrative, is gnostic in intent just like Paul. The conversion on the road to Damascus ... is the mythical part of the Pauline story. The substitutionary atonement of Paul's writings is clearly a burlesque of normative Jewish Temple worship, recalling Canaanite practices and Ba'al. Real early Messianic Judaism is present in The Didache, but which was carefully left out of the NT.
So on to the timeline ... there can be multiple plausible timelines. Some material dating back to the Teacher of Righteousness who created the Essene movement around 150 BCE, to post-Jerusalem destruction material as late as 135 CE. Almost a 300 year span. The actual manuscripts, in near intact condition date from the 200-350 CE time period ... that is the latest, not the earliest plausible timeline. The earliest timeline would correspond to a versions of Eisenman's theories, but put farther back in time to the Maccabean period. In no way, regardless of which timeline one chooses, would I be convinced that the final version of the NT is anything but an instrument of Late Roman politics. The origins will remain uncertain no matter what other papyri are found, because papyri have been found for over 200 years, without effect on Christian theology. The Constantine version of the Pauline foundation story, cannot be examined.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 17, 2016, 05:23:46 PM
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 17, 2016, 05:23:46 PM
I'm surprised that the Son of God did not write a book in a format that would have survived 2000 years. Clearly, he must have been too distracted by Magdalene...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 07:44:23 PM
Post by: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 07:44:23 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PM
Ehrman or any other scholar ... is just another infallible Pope. Not my game at all. In my case the historicity of Jesus, like that of Moses, is irrelevant. But I wanted to give you a serious reply in context ... because I like you ;-) An original Age of Faith as as mythical is it gets.
I think that Paul the Apostle is clearly historical, for what it is worth. And his writing precede the Gospels, and forth-tell a different Christ than that of the Gospels ... a cosmic figure rather than a human figure. Clearly gnostic in theology. I also think that John the Baptist is clearly legendary. The Jesus of the Gospels on the other hand is clearly mythical. On what standard? We have Paul's actual writings, somewhat edited, with later material mis-ascribed ... but the genuine Pauline corpus has a consistent language and theology, and is written in first person. John the Baptist didn't write anything that has survived, but no miracles, aside from Jesus' baptism, is part of his story. Jesus wrote nothing himself, like John the Baptist. A story that also has many miracles in it ... is mythical by nature. So much of the Jesus' ministry story is like Hercules/Bacchus, Socrates et al. Random folk rabbis executed for sedition .. do not a religion make.
Substitutionary atonement doesn't exist in the first version of Mark, but was added later to make it consistent with Matthew/Luke. John's Gospel was gnostic in inspiration (plays better with Paul than the Synoptics), but written to compete with the Synoptics. The pre-Gospel material, the Gospel of Thomas, is not a narrative, is gnostic in intent just like Paul. The conversion on the road to Damascus ... is the mythical part of the Pauline story. The substitutionary atonement of Paul's writings is clearly a burlesque of normative Jewish Temple worship, recalling Canaanite practices and Ba'al. Real early Messianic Judaism is present in The Didache, but which was carefully left out of the NT.
So on to the timeline ... there can be multiple plausible timelines. Some material dating back to the Teacher of Righteousness who created the Essene movement around 150 BCE, to post-Jerusalem destruction material as late as 135 CE. Almost a 300 year span. The actual manuscripts, in near intact condition date from the 200-350 CE time period ... that is the latest, not the earliest plausible timeline. The earliest timeline would correspond to a versions of Eisenman's theories, but put farther back in time to the Maccabean period. In no way, regardless of which timeline one chooses, would I be convinced that the final version of the NT is anything but an instrument of Late Roman politics. The origins will remain uncertain no matter what other papyri are found, because papyri have been found for over 200 years, without effect on Christian theology. The Constantine version of the Pauline foundation story, cannot be examined.
Holy shit Baruch, I actually agree with that. :a102:
I agree that Paul is a historical figure. Sidestepping needless comments to the rest of it, there is one aspect that ought to be taken into consideration, and that is the goal and/or agenda of the historians themselves. This subject has been debated on here a few times, and we tend to make the assumption that historians are scrupulously objective, which sadly isn't always the case. I respect Ehrman and Carrier for their credentials, but when two otherwise objective scholars can come up with different conclusions, the objectivity comes into question. This debate, as indicated in the Wikipedia article I previously cited, dates all the way back to 18th century France. My conclusion, with every one of these debates, is the same; he said, she said and no certain conlcusion will ever be arrived at. That said, I'm done.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 08:31:51 PM
Post by: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 08:31:51 PM
The scholarly evidence today is pretty clear (outside of theology, which by its nature is biased). And I do respect Paul as a historical personage ... who got a few things wrong, given that he died before the destruction of Jerusalem, the wholesale move of Christianity from Jewish to Gentile form, and the adoption of one version (out of many) as the official doctrine of the Roman Empire. We don't have many personal documents from ancient times to go by. Certainly the worldwide destruction didn't come ... shortly ... and still hasn't come. It may yet come, but given tardiness, I don't think Paul will have predicted it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 18, 2016, 08:21:09 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 18, 2016, 08:21:09 AM
The earliest hard copy of the gospel dates at about 125 CE. It's approximately the size of a credit card. It's identified as Mark's gospel due to some sentences and the style of writing that conforms with Mark. There are thousands of these fragments of the gospels, but the earliest hard copy of a manuscript in its fullness dates around the 3rd century CE. The Codex Sinaiticus dates back to the 4th century, but remembered it was written in Greek. Comparing different manuscripts of different eras indicates that copying these manuscripts often involved errors: typo errors, confusing in the translation as a word in a language can have several interpretations, transpositions of words, insertions that didn't belong in earlier manuscripts, conflating that is if they were different descriptions of a single events, the copier would often conflate these different descriptions... to name a few of these errors. The idea that the NT is God's words is as ludicrous as saying that Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey are real descriptions of Zeus and the other Greek gods and their stakes in human affairs.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 07:46:05 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 07:46:05 AM
Quote from: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 12:58:43 PM
And we haven't settled anything. Ehrman is one source. Other sources disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#21st_century
Sorry, but it is still he said she said. As Price contends, until someone discovers a skeleton or a diary, there is no definitive proof of Jesus as a historical figure.
The parallels with other mythical figures like Apollo, Romulus of Roman myth or others- and there are many parallels- to make the specific statement that Jesus is first a historical figure and secondly a divine one that fulfills prophecy and is actually what Christians claim is not likely.
Note that I said Christians claim, not the Bible. There are so many apocryphal texts and different interpretations of currently accepted scripture, including whether or not Christ actually was a product of virgin birth, that to adamantly claim that he was both divine and a historical figure is also not likely.
Skeleton?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif)
Perhaps you're not familiar with the rest of the story of Jesus?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 08:08:48 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 08:08:48 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PM
Ehrman or any other scholar ... is just another infallible Pope. Not my game at all. In my case the historicity of Jesus, like that of Moses, is irrelevant. But I wanted to give you a serious reply in context ... because I like you ;-) An original Age of Faith is as mythical is it gets.
I think that Paul the Apostle is clearly historical, for what it is worth. And his writing precede the Gospels, and forth-tell a different Christ than that of the Gospels ... a cosmic figure rather than a human figure. Clearly gnostic in theology. I also think that John the Baptist is clearly legendary. The Jesus of the Gospels on the other hand is clearly mythical. On what standard? We have Paul's actual writings, somewhat edited, with later material mis-ascribed ... but the genuine Pauline corpus has a consistent language and theology, and is written in first person. John the Baptist didn't write anything that has survived, but no miracles, aside from Jesus' baptism, is part of his story. Jesus wrote nothing himself, like John the Baptist.
Jesus and John did not write anything. So what? I'm not sure what this proves. The literacy rate of the area and time was not very high.
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PMA story that also has many miracles in it ... is mythical by nature. So much of the Jesus' ministry story is like Hercules/Bacchus, Socrates et al. Random folk rabbis executed for sedition .. do not a religion make.
That's kind of pre-suppositional, isn't it? Oh, it has miracles? Well, then it has to be mythical.
Really? Why? Because miracles don't happen?
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PMSubstitutionary atonement doesn't exist in the first version of Mark, but was added later to make it consistent with Matthew/Luke.
Be specific. Are you referencing the second ending of Mark, or do you have something else in mind?
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PMJohn's Gospel was gnostic in inspiration (plays better with Paul than the Synoptics), but written to compete with the Synoptics. The pre-Gospel material, the Gospel of Thomas, is not a narrative, is gnostic in intent just like Paul.
Ehrman identifies gThomas as legitimate evidence for the historical Jesus, but the Church never accepted it as inspired.
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PMThe conversion on the road to Damascus ... is the mythical part of the Pauline story.
This is just an assertion...unless you care to provide some support.
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PMThe substitutionary atonement of Paul's writings is clearly a burlesque of normative Jewish Temple worship, recalling Canaanite practices and Ba'al. Real early Messianic Judaism is present in The Didache, but which was carefully left out of the NT.
The Didache was written AFTER the canonical books and it clearly supports many early Christian beliefs which are still present in Catholic and Orthodox practice. But is it really a problem that Paul, the most theologically trained of the apostles, would fill out the basics of the atonement? The doctrine of the Church developed over time based upon the revelation received, but not completely understood, by the early Church.
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 01:14:44 PMSo on to the timeline ... there can be multiple plausible timelines. Some material dating back to the Teacher of Righteousness who created the Essene movement around 150 BCE, to post-Jerusalem destruction material as late as 135 CE. Almost a 300 year span. The actual manuscripts, in near intact condition date from the 200-350 CE time period ... that is the latest, not the earliest plausible timeline. The earliest timeline would correspond to a versions of Eisenman's theories, but put farther back in time to the Maccabean period. In no way, regardless of which timeline one chooses, would I be convinced that the final version of the NT is anything but an instrument of Late Roman politics. The origins will remain uncertain no matter what other papyri are found, because papyri have been found for over 200 years, without effect on Christian theology. The Constantine version of the Pauline foundation story, cannot be examined.
Since the NT can be completely re-constructed from the writings of the Early Church Fathers (many of whom pre-date the "late Roman" period, I presume), it is unlikely that the "final version of the NT" was an instrument of "politics". Here, I'm referring to the individual books and epistles.
But are you referring to the canon itself?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 08:41:05 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 08:41:05 AM
Quote from: stromboli on January 17, 2016, 07:44:23 PM
Holy shit Baruch, I actually agree with that. :a102:
I agree that Paul is a historical figure. Sidestepping needless comments to the rest of it, there is one aspect that ought to be taken into consideration, and that is the goal and/or agenda of the historians themselves. This subject has been debated on here a few times, and we tend to make the assumption that historians are scrupulously objective, which sadly isn't always the case. I respect Ehrman and Carrier for their credentials, but when two otherwise objective scholars can come up with different conclusions, the objectivity comes into question. This debate, as indicated in the Wikipedia article I previously cited, dates all the way back to 18th century France. My conclusion, with every one of these debates, is the same; he said, she said and no certain conlcusion will ever be arrived at. That said, I'm done.
Technically, Ehrman, an agnostic, is simply arguing the mainstream view that Jesus was a historical person.
Carrier is the one out of step, and it is HIS objectivity that I would question - especially in light of all the evidence that supports a non-mythical view.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 08:43:16 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 08:43:16 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2016, 08:31:51 PM
The scholarly evidence today is pretty clear (outside of theology, which by its nature is biased). And I do respect Paul as a historical personage ... who got a few things wrong, given that he died before the destruction of Jerusalem, the wholesale move of Christianity from Jewish to Gentile form, and the adoption of one version (out of many) as the official doctrine of the Roman Empire. We don't have many personal documents from ancient times to go by. Certainly the worldwide destruction didn't come ... shortly ... and still hasn't come. It may yet come, but given tardiness, I don't think Paul will have predicted it.
Glad to see this post.
If Paul died before the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, then that fits into the idea that the NT was mostly complete before that date.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 09:00:32 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 09:00:32 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 18, 2016, 08:21:09 AM
The earliest hard copy of the gospel dates at about 125 CE. It's approximately the size of a credit card. It's identified as Mark's gospel due to some sentences and the style of writing that conforms with Mark. There are thousands of these fragments of the gospels, but the earliest hard copy of a manuscript in its fullness dates around the 3rd century CE. The Codex Sinaiticus dates back to the 4th century, but remembered it was written in Greek. Comparing different manuscripts of different eras indicates that copying these manuscripts often involved errors: typo errors, confusing in the translation as a word in a language can have several interpretations, transpositions of words, insertions that didn't belong in earlier manuscripts, conflating that is if they were different descriptions of a single events, the copier would often conflate these different descriptions... to name a few of these errors. The idea that the NT is God's words is as ludicrous as saying that Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey are real descriptions of Zeus and the other Greek gods and their stakes in human affairs.
Sorry, but this is flat wrong. Here's why:
Textual Criticism Explained
Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I'll call "M". Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I'll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I'll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. With me so far? In the following diagram, each column represents a generation. For example, M is the original, C1 a copy of M, C1a is a copy of C1, and C1a1 is a copy of C1a. Like this:
M > C1 > C1a > C1a1
Over the course of history, some copies are lost or destroyed. The copies which have not been lost are portrayed in red. (Sorry for the alignment issues.)
M----C1----C1a----C1a1
-------------C1b----C1b1
---------------------C1b2
-------------C1c----C1c1
---------------------C1c2
------C2----C2a---C2a1
-------------C2b----C2b1
------C3----C3a---C3a1
----------------------C3a2
-------------C3b---C3b1
-------------C3c----C3c1
----------------------C3c2
----------------------C3c3
Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I'm simplifying, of course).
We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or "typos", if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?
So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don't have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text? By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said with a high degree of confidence.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 09:07:36 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 09:07:36 AM
And then there's this (which I wrote based upon my reading):
The Historical Reliability of the Bible
Drawn from The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
The historical reliability of the Bible should be tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested. C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English Literary History, lists the three basic principles of historiography: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external reference test. (Sanders, IRE, 143 ff.)
Bibliographical Test
The Bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copies?
For example, there are currently 643 surviving manuscripts of Homer’s Iliad, and the first complete text dates from the 13th century. By comparison, we have nearly 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament including 5,685 in Greek, more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate and more than 9,000 additional manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian and many other languages.
F.E. Peters states that “on the basis of manuscript evidence alone, the works that made up the Christians’ New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books in antiquity.†(Peters, HH, 50)
The importance of the sheer number of manuscript copies cannot be overstated. As with other documents of ancient literature, there are no known extant original manuscripts of the Bible. Fortunately, however, the abundance of manuscript copies makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy.
Dockery, Matthews and Sloan have written:
In addition to the manuscripts themselves, quotations of the New Testament may be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Sir David Dalrymple undertook a challenge to determine whether the New Testament could be reconstructed solely from these Fathers. He was able to find all but eleven verses of the New Testament quoted in these patristic writings. Geisler and Nix reported that more than 32,000 quotations of the New Testament may be found in the writings of the Fathers produced before the Council of Nicea in AD 325.
According to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, “we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts.â€
Commenting on the discovery of several previously unknown New Testament papyri, Dr. Wallace noted:
+++
So, we know - yes, we really know - what the authors of the NT wrote with a high degree of certainty. Understanding what they meant is our challenge.
The Historical Reliability of the Bible
Drawn from The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
The historical reliability of the Bible should be tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested. C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English Literary History, lists the three basic principles of historiography: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external reference test. (Sanders, IRE, 143 ff.)
Bibliographical Test
The Bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copies?
For example, there are currently 643 surviving manuscripts of Homer’s Iliad, and the first complete text dates from the 13th century. By comparison, we have nearly 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament including 5,685 in Greek, more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate and more than 9,000 additional manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian and many other languages.
F.E. Peters states that “on the basis of manuscript evidence alone, the works that made up the Christians’ New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books in antiquity.†(Peters, HH, 50)
The importance of the sheer number of manuscript copies cannot be overstated. As with other documents of ancient literature, there are no known extant original manuscripts of the Bible. Fortunately, however, the abundance of manuscript copies makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy.
Dockery, Matthews and Sloan have written:
Quote“For most of the biblical text, a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of the text about which any questions occur…It must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament that for any other work in Greek literature…although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. (Dockery, FBI, 176, 182)
In addition to the manuscripts themselves, quotations of the New Testament may be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Sir David Dalrymple undertook a challenge to determine whether the New Testament could be reconstructed solely from these Fathers. He was able to find all but eleven verses of the New Testament quoted in these patristic writings. Geisler and Nix reported that more than 32,000 quotations of the New Testament may be found in the writings of the Fathers produced before the Council of Nicea in AD 325.
According to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, “we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts.â€
Commenting on the discovery of several previously unknown New Testament papyri, Dr. Wallace noted:
QuoteAs with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate readingâ€"but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord†in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.†New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon†instead of “Peter,†and “Simon†was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon†is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.
+++
So, we know - yes, we really know - what the authors of the NT wrote with a high degree of certainty. Understanding what they meant is our challenge.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 09:29:00 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 09:29:00 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 09:00:32 AM
So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don't have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text? By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said with a high degree of confidence.
No, that's wishful thinking. If you don't have M, even though you can postulate its existence, you can't know what was written in M. The errors are not just typo types. There are mistakes in translations, insertions, interpretations, conflations for instances, and so you won't know if that happened in in C1, C2 or C3, in your illustration Secondly, you don't know how many missing copies there are between C1 and C1a1. It could be just 2 like it could be 55. Thirdly, even though you can reasonably identify the dates of those existing copies (C1a1...C3c3), you still don't know the dates of M, C1, C2,C3. It becomes a guessing game.
Lastly, you didn't bother to read my posts, as it pertains to hard copies that were found and are in existing museums, not textual criticism. But you totally dismissed as being wrong. WTF. What are you? A five year old kid??
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 09:59:51 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 09:59:51 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 09:29:00 AM
No, that's wishful thinking. If you don't have M, even though you can postulate its existence, you can't know what was written in M. The errors are not just typo types. There are mistakes in translations, insertions, interpretations, conflations for instances, and so you won't know if that happened in in C1, C2 or C3, in your illustration Secondly, you don't know how many missing copies there are between C1 and C1a1. It could be just 2 like it could be 55. Thirdly, even though you can reasonably identify the dates of those existing copies (C1a1...C3c3), you still don't know the dates of M, C1, C2,C3. It becomes a guessing game.
Lastly, you didn't bother to read my posts, as it pertains to hard copies that were found and are in existing museums, not textual criticism. But you totally dismissed as being wrong. WTF. What are you? A five year old kid??
You can add five decades to that number, friend.
Now, let me continue to try to explain your error, since you have not thought this through.
First, the extant copies - despite the variants you point out - are largely in agreement with one another. This agreement gives us a pretty good indication of what was contained in M.
Second, NONE of the variations actually affects Christian doctrine. So, even if we had some questions about a specific word or phrase in a given verse, so what? IOW - it's not like one manuscript says "Jesus did rise on the third day" while another reads "Jesus did not rise on the third day". Consequently, attempting to dismiss the reliability of the NT in order to bolster one's atheism is pretty thin ice.
Third, if a copy of one manuscript is in Cairo, another in Rome and still a third in Moscow, it is possible to compare them side by side to determine what these variations are. If all of the copies in the "Cairo" line contain a specific variation, but none of the copies descended from "Rome" or "Moscow" have that variation, then it can be determined that "C" was altered at some point in time. Further, by studying these variants, scholars can determine which extant manuscripts are related...as I diagrammed previously. However, once the copies were made and distributed to the churches around the Roman Empire, it was not possible for a scribe to intentionally modify ALL of them...the horses were already out of the barn, so to speak.
So, I say again: scholars are extremely confident that the texts of the NT are reproduced today with a high degree of certainty and that the doctrines of the Christian faith are unaffected by the existence of the well-documented variants.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 09:59:51 AM
So, I say again: scholars are extremely confident that the texts of the NT are reproduced today with a high degree of certainty and that the doctrines of the Christian faith are unaffected by the existence of the well-documented variants.
You're very naive. Does 325 CE ring a bell? Don't you know what happened at the council of Nicaea? Only those manuscripts that conformed to the church doctrine survived, the others that didn't were deliberately destroyed. So what you have today is a made up story that was filtered and refined over a thousand of years. And even with that, one can see in that made up story, elements from other culture/religion: born from a virgin, resurrection after 3 days, choosing 12 disciples, started ministry at 30 - all of these can be found in Egyptian, Greek, Roman mythologies, to name a few.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 10:29:42 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 10:29:42 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
You're very naive. Does 325 CE ring a bell? Don't you know what happened at the council of Nicaea? Only those manuscripts that conformed to the church doctrine survived, the others that didn't were deliberately destroyed. So what you have today is a made up story that was filtered and refined over a thousand of years. And even with that, one can see in that made up story, elements from other culture/religion: born from a virgin, resurrection after 3 days, choosing 12 disciples, started ministry at 30 - all of these can be found in Egyptian, Greek, Roman mythologies, to name a few.
Gee, according to this Wikipedia article, [lmgtfy]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea[/lmgtfy], "There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council." The development of the canon went something like this:
Council of Rome (382 A.D.)
Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent's formally defined canon. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.
Council of Hippo (393 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.
First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D.. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.
Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.)
In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.
Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.)
Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the first Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.
Second Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.
Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)
This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonicalâ€.
Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)
This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.
Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)
On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.
+++
As for the Church destroying those books that it did not approve, which do you mean? None of the following were destroyed:
First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians (once thought to be inspired in some places)
Second Letter of Clement
The Didache
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Gospel of Thomas
and many others. So, no...the Church did not destroy everything that did not conform to Church doctrine...these works still survive.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 10:43:58 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 10:43:58 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 10:29:42 AM
Gee, according to this Wikipedia article, [lmgtfy]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea[/lmgtfy], "There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council."
In a remarkable aside, the Church has admitted that, "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,
"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on January 19, 2016, 11:08:12 AM
Post by: aitm on January 19, 2016, 11:08:12 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 19, 2016, 08:08:48 AM
Perhaps you're not familiar with the rest of the myth of Jesus?
FIFY
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on January 19, 2016, 01:08:43 PM
Post by: widdershins on January 19, 2016, 01:08:43 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:08:54 AMI never said Jesus didn't exist, although I'm reluctant to believe a historian of times with few written records to say with such certainty "it is" rather than "the evidence strongly suggests" as that is not scientific. It is, to say the least, highly unusual for a purveyor of any real science to simply make an absolute claim like that, especially on such a controversial topic, without backing it with the evidence he has to support his claim. And such evidence would have to be ironclad for someone to make that claim as an absolute, surely good enough to convince any objective historian.
I'll pause to respond here.
Do I have these credentials? Of course not. But I've done a wee bit more than Google a few websites. And I can read Bart Ehrman who does have credentials. He wrote: A bunch of things not relating to dates of Biblical writings
I'm not sure how this allows you to rewrite the timelines you would like to rewrite, though. I do hope you realize that cherry-picking a single qualified person with the credentials to examine your alternative timeline in no way overrides scientific consensus. The way that would go would be for you to throw a cherry-picked scholar at me, me to throw ten more at you, you to throw two more at me, me to throw a hundred more at you and so on until we neither one had any more to throw back and forth. I would then tally the results, which would show that I have more than 95% of the scholars on my side, which is the point of "scientific consensus", and we're back to square one where you want to choose different dates and I'm telling you scientific consensus has already chosen other dates.
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:08:54 AMI trust science, the scientific process and scientific consensus. It has proven itself time and time again and I have no reason to doubt it. Was that the "obvious" answer you arrived at?
So, who do you trust? I think the answer is obvious.
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:08:54 AMAnd Jesus did exist.Perhaps. Maybe someday we'll find his corpse and the debate will be settled once and for all. I really don't have an issue with the man having existed. What I have an issue with is the claim that he went to school at Hogwarts.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on January 19, 2016, 01:36:39 PM
Post by: widdershins on January 19, 2016, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:18:38 AM"Reading books" is no substitute for "knowing the subject".
Sorry to disappoint you, but the timeline in the OP is not original with me. I read books, and I learn. Then I share what I have learned with others who haven't read.
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:18:38 AMYou say that "conservative" scholarship points to dates in the AD 70 range for the gospels (gJohn later, the epistles probably much earlier). Great. That's what "conservatives" think. However, conservatives are, you know, conservative, and they go with dates that NO ONE could seriously disagree with - at least not the majority of their fellow scholars.I am, as I have been all along, talking about "scientific consensus". You make it out as if I cherry-picked the scholars who agreed with the numbers I wanted. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply looked up the numbers which the majority of historians agreed with, the universally accepted method for determining scientific consensus. I'm not changing the rules or cherry-picking here. There is no slight of hand on my part. If they agreed with your numbers we would be in agreement because I trust scientific consensus. Does that mean it's impossible for your numbers to be correct? Certainly not, but improbable.
And a "conservative estimate" is not the same thing as "the consensus among conservative historians". That's just some grade A bullshit right there.
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:18:38 AMBut others are just as reasonable in saying, "Well, hang on...my academic reputation may take a hit, but isn't it reasonable to ask a few questions such as why the destruction of the temple or the martydoms of James, Peter and Paul are NOT mentioned anywhere in the NT?"Yeah, that's called "conjecture" and that's why they are the scientific fringe, not the consensus. Frankly, this is the same tired argument used by UFO and Bigfoot nuts when they claim something along the lines of, "My husband is a pilot and he said it could not have been a helicopter" when they want to turn "lights in the sky" into some supernatural phenomena of great mystery and importance. That some event wasn't mentioned is not "evidence" of anything. It's a lack of evidence. No scientific theory ever was built on a lack of evidence. That's just not how it works.
What you're doing is finding the fringe historians who agree with what you want to believe and simply using them instead of the scientific majority. If you want to do that, I'm actually fine with it. No problem here. But what you're asking me to do is to agree with this fringe, to accept as reality the dates they have put forth, so that you can make your future arguments stronger. I'm sorry, that's not going to happen. If you want me to accept your dates, change the scientific consensus and I will. Plain and simple, that's what it will take. I'm not qualified to consider the dates you want to use and neither are you. You're also not qualified to determine which historians are correct and which are not and, in fact, that's absolutely not what you're doing. You're just choosing the ones who are saying what you want to hear and asserting that we should all disregard the scientific consensus in support of these few who agree with you. It's simply not going to happen.
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 10:18:38 AMFirst of all, I never denied Jesus ever existed. I wasn't there. I don't know. I've never made any claim to know. If there is ever a scientific consensus one way or another, then I may feel that I know. In fact, I'm pretty sure history strongly suggests that Jesus was a real man. Certainly not the Jesus of the Bible, going all Dumbledor on some leprosy and shit, but a man, now dead and buried. But to my knowledge there's no consensus on this, so I don't know.
And those questions need to be answered.
Either way, I don't see how this does the average atheist who denies that Jesus even existed and wants to place the authorship of the NT deep into the second century much good.
Do you? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Second, I don't place the NT in the second century, a consensus of historians do. People like you blame us for everything. I suppose Hitler was an atheist, too, and if he weren't he wouldn't have been such a dick? Because REASONS! News flash, I actually do not control the majority of historians. True story. I have nothing to do with them whatsoever. The closest I ever got was having a few history teachers. I know, right? Big, mean atheist like me, NOT mind controlling historians into saying the Bible was written in the second century? What the hell? But, no, that was actually all them. Nothing to do with me.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 19, 2016, 05:30:22 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 19, 2016, 05:30:22 PM
To me, the whole question of whether Jesus existed at all is only academic: interesting to contemplate, but otherwise of no importance at all. So what if there were a real Jesus? It's not as if he was the only preacher at the time who fathered a rogue religion like Christianity. The region was a fermenting vat of various sects of not only Christianity, but of other religions altogether. The cult of Mithras (with a suspiciously similar protagonist) was being practiced right up through the first century. The man who would become known as St. Augustine came from Manicheanism. Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity, strikes me not as some sort of truth that shone through because of its merits, but rather the last survivor that the faithful gravitated towards when their own sects fell into obscurity.
In fact, dying and rising gods were in vogue at the time of Jesus (Cult of Mithras, Cult of Osiris, Baccus, etc), so it's not very surprising that had Jesus existed, he would have been mythicized by including elements from other, popular notions floating out there. So we either have a real person who has been mythicized or a mythical figure that has been historicized, and as such has both realistic and mythical attributes. Which one this is doesn't matter much to the end product: The mythical stuff is still myth, and the realistic stuff may have been attributed to anyone. It really would matter little to me if I found out that Jesus was a real person, because all the miracles attributed to him are certainly later additions in any case, and without that the rest of it is just meh.
In fact, dying and rising gods were in vogue at the time of Jesus (Cult of Mithras, Cult of Osiris, Baccus, etc), so it's not very surprising that had Jesus existed, he would have been mythicized by including elements from other, popular notions floating out there. So we either have a real person who has been mythicized or a mythical figure that has been historicized, and as such has both realistic and mythical attributes. Which one this is doesn't matter much to the end product: The mythical stuff is still myth, and the realistic stuff may have been attributed to anyone. It really would matter little to me if I found out that Jesus was a real person, because all the miracles attributed to him are certainly later additions in any case, and without that the rest of it is just meh.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on January 19, 2016, 06:12:30 PM
Post by: widdershins on January 19, 2016, 06:12:30 PM
That was a fine bit of writing right there. Not to mention that this thread isn't even about whether Jesus exists or not, but about the timeline for the books of the New Testament which we must all agree to accept in opposition to the scientific consensus before any real conversation can begin. I'm not sure why, exactly, we can't discuss religion until we've established that the majority of historians are wrong and the minority which agrees with the OP should be taken as absolute fact. I'm assuming, as I'm sure we all are, that he has some argument which, without this concession, is utterly meritless.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on January 19, 2016, 06:32:38 PM
Post by: Baruch on January 19, 2016, 06:32:38 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on January 17, 2016, 09:49:57 AM
Just as it is common among atheists to try to push the dates as late as possible, eh? Both sides have their reasons for this.
However, I laid out a reasonable timeline in the OP. Please let me know where it is in error.
Perhaps the fact that Paul was martyred in Rome around AD 65-66 hindered his ability to know that happened "post 66 CE"?
As pointed out in a later post I made in this string ... quite a few different chronologies can be argued ... and so I find it unfruitful to try to narrow things to less than a 300 year timespan in general. Certainly Paul's writings can't be later than 70 CE because the referred to Temple didn't exist after that ... we can't count the Book of Acts since it wasn't written by Paul. How much earlier Paul's writings could be it isn't clear, because the Temple (in some state of construction) existed for some decades before that, it being started by Herod the Great. There were edits and false ascriptions after 70 CE .. and I won't count those a Pauline either. It isn't clear that Paul was martyred in Rome, but it is at least likely he died there. I consider the "epistle" to the Romans to be crucial Pauline theology. It is crucial to Roman hagiography, that both Paul and Peter were martyred there . Not impossible, but loaded dice.
In general I won't give any more credence to a hagiography of Jesus or Paul, than I would of Apollonius ... a contemporary miracle worker. These were popular novellas of the time, in both pagan, Jewish and proto-Christian literature. The first full bio of the Buddha, for that matter, was 300 years after he perhaps lived as well, again not trustworthy except as literature. The epistles and homilies are different ... Romans and Hebrews are really homilies not epistles. The John who wrote the epistles, and James ... seem to be historical as well, just not was important as Paul. Though it is possible that before 70 CE, the Three Pillars which included James, Cephas and John, were more important than Paul or Barnabas.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:36:04 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:36:04 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 19, 2016, 05:30:22 PM
To me, the whole question of whether Jesus existed at all is only academic: interesting to contemplate, but otherwise of no importance at all. So what if there were a real Jesus? It's not as if he was the only preacher at the time who fathered a rogue religion like Christianity. The region was a fermenting vat of various sects of not only Christianity, but of other religions altogether. The cult of Mithras (with a suspiciously similar protagonist) was being practiced right up through the first century. The man who would become known as St. Augustine came from Manicheanism. Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity, strikes me not as some sort of truth that shone through because of its merits, but rather the last survivor that the faithful gravitated towards when their own sects fell into obscurity.
In fact, dying and rising gods were in vogue at the time of Jesus (Cult of Mithras, Cult of Osiris, Baccus, etc), so it's not very surprising that had Jesus existed, he would have been mythicized by including elements from other, popular notions floating out there. So we either have a real person who has been mythicized or a mythical figure that has been historicized, and as such has both realistic and mythical attributes. Which one this is doesn't matter much to the end product: The mythical stuff is still myth, and the realistic stuff may have been attributed to anyone. It really would matter little to me if I found out that Jesus was a real person, because all the miracles attributed to him are certainly later additions in any case, and without that the rest of it is just meh.
That's just a bunch of Horus Manure. You can read more here: http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/
However, the REASON that it's more than academic is because Jesus also claimed to be God. And He left behind some very specific instructions and teachings.
So, IF He is God, then what He had to say is anything but "academic".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on February 19, 2016, 11:58:49 PM
Post by: Baruch on February 19, 2016, 11:58:49 PM
Your response is from the domain of theology and rhetoric ... not history. Not that there is anything wrong with that ... but almost nobody here will listen to arguments of that type.
In thinking, we have underlying assumptions, that we are either aware of or not. Most theological rhetoric (apologetics in particular) involves not exposing the underlying assumptions ... sort of jumping into the middle and proceeding from there. There are unvoiced and even unexamined assumptions galore. Let me make a simplifying argument ...
We find a short story. The protagonist in the story is claimed to have performed miracles and to have been G-d is some monotheistic sense. If this story was about Mithras rather than Jesus, would you find it plausible? If not, why not? This was all argued before by the pre-Nicene Church Fathers ... but why should I agree with them, since they never knew this god-man face to face? As a person aware of how things are now, and one that isn't overly tied to science ... I would say that this story is ... just a story. It may be based on real events, like Hollywood movies claim to be. But jazzed up. I really don't believe that Rambo really existed, and killed 1000 Vietcong with his bare hands (a nod to Samson). There were Special Forces guys, who did gutsy things in a real war in Vietnam ... but I see no reason to worship a ginned up version of these guys. I certainly wouldn't accept any claim they could make for themselves, or that others would make for them, that they did miracles or were G-d in some sense. Similarly I find the Gospels to be mostly fictions, and the Book of Acts partially fiction, and the Book of Revelations entirely fiction. There is nothing wrong with fiction, either sick fantasies or "based on real events" fictions. We enjoy them all the time from Hollywood, but you would be viewed a pretty crazy if you liked them so much you thought they were real (unless registered as a Jedi in GB of course ;-).
In thinking, we have underlying assumptions, that we are either aware of or not. Most theological rhetoric (apologetics in particular) involves not exposing the underlying assumptions ... sort of jumping into the middle and proceeding from there. There are unvoiced and even unexamined assumptions galore. Let me make a simplifying argument ...
We find a short story. The protagonist in the story is claimed to have performed miracles and to have been G-d is some monotheistic sense. If this story was about Mithras rather than Jesus, would you find it plausible? If not, why not? This was all argued before by the pre-Nicene Church Fathers ... but why should I agree with them, since they never knew this god-man face to face? As a person aware of how things are now, and one that isn't overly tied to science ... I would say that this story is ... just a story. It may be based on real events, like Hollywood movies claim to be. But jazzed up. I really don't believe that Rambo really existed, and killed 1000 Vietcong with his bare hands (a nod to Samson). There were Special Forces guys, who did gutsy things in a real war in Vietnam ... but I see no reason to worship a ginned up version of these guys. I certainly wouldn't accept any claim they could make for themselves, or that others would make for them, that they did miracles or were G-d in some sense. Similarly I find the Gospels to be mostly fictions, and the Book of Acts partially fiction, and the Book of Revelations entirely fiction. There is nothing wrong with fiction, either sick fantasies or "based on real events" fictions. We enjoy them all the time from Hollywood, but you would be viewed a pretty crazy if you liked them so much you thought they were real (unless registered as a Jedi in GB of course ;-).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 20, 2016, 06:39:29 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 20, 2016, 06:39:29 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:36:04 PM
That's just a bunch of Horus Manure. You can read more here: http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/
However, the REASON that it's more than academic is because Jesus also claimed to be God. And He left behind some very specific instructions and teachings.
So, IF He is God, then what He had to say is anything but "academic".
But it's a big IF. What if Mohammed is right, that is, he is the last prophet, and therefore what He had to say is anything but "academic". What if ... (fill in the blank) and you can see that we are in deep trouble as to whom should we believe: Jesus, Mohammed or any of the thousands of preachers that roamed the planet and told everyone, " I'm god or I've been sent by god to tell you... blah, blah, blah..." Skepticism is not your strong suit.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:10:44 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:10:44 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 20, 2016, 06:39:29 AM
But it's a big IF. What if Mohammed is right, that is, he is the last prophet, and therefore what He had to say is anything but "academic". What if ... (fill in the blank) and you can see that we are in deep trouble as to whom should we believe: Jesus, Mohammed or any of the thousands of preachers that roamed the planet and told everyone, " I'm god or I've been sent by god to tell you... blah, blah, blah..." Skepticism is not your strong suit.
It's a HUGE if...one that is worthy of considerable investigation.
As for Mohammed, yes, he, too, would be worthy of investigation. However, Jesus claimed to be God...Mohammed did not. So, when you are prioritizing, you might want to start at the top and work your way down the list (if you ever need to go beyond Jesus).
What you'll find, IMO, is that most of the "thousands of preachers" aren't worth more than a cursory glance, so implying that there are simply too many "preachers" to be bothered with is a poor excuse for not investigating the most important one thoroughly.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 08:21:44 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 08:21:44 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:10:44 AM
It's a HUGE if...one that is worthy of considerable investigation.
As for Mohammed, yes, he, too, would be worthy of investigation. However, Jesus claimed to be God...Mohammed did not. So, when you are prioritizing, you might want to start at the top and work your way down the list (if you ever need to go beyond Jesus).
What you'll find, IMO, is that most of the "thousands of preachers" aren't worth more than a cursory glance, so implying that there are simply too many "preachers" to be bothered with is a poor excuse for not investigating the most important one thoroughly.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
But Mohammed says that Jesus was just a prophet, and since Mohammed is the last prophet, anyone who claims to be a prophet after him is a fake. So you lose.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:53:35 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:53:35 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 08:21:44 AM
But Mohammed says that Jesus was just a prophet, and since Mohammed is the last prophet, anyone who claims to be a prophet after him is a fake. So you lose.
Are you saying this because you have examined the evidence for Islam carefully?
Or is this simply freshman-level trolling that I can ignore?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 09:10:39 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:53:35 AM
Are you saying this because you have examined the evidence for Islam carefully?
Or is this simply freshman-level trolling that I can ignore?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
My trolling is no worse than yours. If there's no evidence for what Mohammed said is true, likewise for the Gospels. Just because you happen to be born in a Christian family/environment and you were brainwashed with christian beliefs, it doesn't make your religion better than Islam, or any other religion for that matter.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on February 24, 2016, 09:16:54 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on February 24, 2016, 09:16:54 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 09:10:39 AMIt really is a matter of geography and not of 'truth'.
My trolling is no worse than yours. If there's no evidence for what Mohammed said is true, likewise for the Gospels. Just because you happen to be born in a Christian family/environment and you were brainwashed with christian beliefs, it doesn't make your religion better than Islam, or any other religion for that matter.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 10:51:58 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:53:35 AMHe's saying it because there is as much evidence for Islam as there is for Christianity. Actually, there's more evidence, because Mohammed's existence is properly documented.
Are you saying this because you have examined the evidence for Islam carefully?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 12:02:52 PM
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 12:02:52 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:10:44 AM
It's a HUGE if...one that is worthy of considerable investigation.
As for Mohammed, yes, he, too, would be worthy of investigation. However, Jesus claimed to be God...Mohammed did not. So, when you are prioritizing, you might want to start at the top and work your way down the list (if you ever need to go beyond Jesus).
What you'll find, IMO, is that most of the "thousands of preachers" aren't worth more than a cursory glance, so implying that there are simply too many "preachers" to be bothered with is a poor excuse for not investigating the most important one thoroughly.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
In so far as Jesus claimed to be G-d ... that is a strike against him. And this is confused by the question of Trinity metaphysics.
Important? Without Moses there is no Jesus either, or Muhammad. Not everyone has the time or inclination to do an exhaustive investigation. I was fortunate enough to have done so ... but since I am anti-authoritarian ... don't take my word for it.
As a character in a story, arguably the Jesus character is the most important in Western history, because of the Roman Empire adopting a form of that religion, as the State religion (actually under Emperor Theodosius not Emperor Constantine). It was also under Emperor Theodosius, that much of the remaining Christology controversies were worked out. But Medieval Christianity wouldn't have been what it was, without the positive/negative interaction with Islam in particular ... and to a lesser degree Judaism. The family of Abrahamic religions continues to be a squabbling family ;-) Though not much discussed here, the advent of monotheism (with fits and starts not all Abrahamic) over polytheism was a major change in the psychology and sociology of religion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 24, 2016, 05:51:38 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 24, 2016, 05:51:38 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:36:04 PMIrrelevant. The relevant point was that dying-and-rising gods were in vogue, not that there was a specific connection to any one of them. Even if Christianity didn't draw from one (esp Horus) specifically, the idea of a dying-and-rising god would be out there in the ecosystem.
That's just a bunch of Horus Manure. You can read more here: http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/
I also never mentioned the Horus cult at all, so congrats on a strawman well constructed.
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:36:04 PMJesus was actually very evasive on that point. Any claims that he was god came from other people. Also, his teachings are kind of meh â€" either outdated by now, or obvious stuff every society got.
However, the REASON that it's more than academic is because Jesus also claimed to be God. And He left behind some very specific instructions and teachings.
So, IF He is God, then what He had to say is anything but "academic".
Also, if he claimed he was god, then it would be just that, a claim. A claim does nothing to establish the credentials of his godhead. Also, if that was part of his mythicization, then it's still stuff added on later.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 06:11:45 PM
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 06:11:45 PM
The Horus connection became important much later ... when the Virgin Mary was assimilated to Isis (the goddess) and her son Horus was a natural fit. St Cyril of Alexandria was responsible for pushing this, circa 400 CE.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:28:49 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:28:49 PM
The Gospels were clearly written by men who had no thought of making themselves look heroic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 01, 2016, 05:00:10 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 01, 2016, 05:00:10 PM
So, am I to take it we've given up on trying to rewrite the history of the gospels so that the OP is in a much better position for whatever secret argument he could not make until we all agreed that Jesus had a personal hand in writing them and have moved on to arguments unrelated to the original post? Because I have yet to see Randy finally either accept that "scientific consensus" trumps "this one guy I like who wrote some books" or give a reason that is not the case, but the argument does seem to have been abandoned.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 05:04:41 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:28:49 PMWhat does that mean???
The Gospels were clearly written by men who had no thought of making themselves look heroic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 05:41:49 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 05:41:49 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 05:04:41 PM
What does that mean???
It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 01, 2016, 06:09:14 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 01, 2016, 06:09:14 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 05:41:49 PMSo, what? This makes them true? I do love the old "what is not proves what is" argument. Please, do go on.
It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2016, 06:35:59 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2016, 06:35:59 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 05:41:49 PM
It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.
The Gospels weren't penned by either Jesus or by the Disciples, or they would have made themselves look better ... good point. These were written by third parties, literate people, not peasants, writing a burlesque of Jewish messianism (usually violent and not-Hellenistic) .. up to 100 years after the events described. The genuine writings of Paul are contemporary (pre-70 CE) ... and his writings don't speak of a physical Jesus, but a metaphysical one. Paul never got to put his finger in Jesus' side, unlike Thomas.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 06:41:22 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 06:41:22 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 05:41:49 PMThat is an interesting take. We do not know who wrote any of the gospels. So, how do we know how they profited or not? Nor do we know when they were written. Who is to say that the original writers had one thing in mind, but the later users and compilers of the NT had another thing in mind. We don't know. But we do know that what was included in that group of essays, called the bible, was compiled from a much larger body of works. Why did they keep some of it and discard others? And there isn't just one 'Bible'--there are many. And there isn't just one copy of the gospels, but many that do not agree one with the other. I find god's methods to be quite shoddy in this prolonged effort to give us 'the word'.
It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 09:20:59 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 05:41:49 PMAppeals to emotion are not evidence of correctness.
It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 09:52:33 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 09:52:33 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2016, 06:35:59 PM
The Gospels weren't penned by either Jesus or by the Disciples, or they would have made themselves look better ... good point. These were written by third parties, literate people, not peasants, writing a burlesque of Jewish messianism (usually violent and not-Hellenistic) .. up to 100 years after the events described. The genuine writings of Paul are contemporary (pre-70 CE) ... and his writings don't speak of a physical Jesus, but a metaphysical one. Paul never got to put his finger in Jesus' side, unlike Thomas.
Jesus the Christ/Messiah was crucified about 30 -33 AD. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before A.D. 70. Basically, the Book of Acts was written by Luke. Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He also fails to mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written at some later date. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the Gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the Gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:2, Mark 13:2). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before A.D. 70.
The Gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. There is every indication that even Revelations was written about 95 AD. That (the last book of the New Testament) would then be only a mere 60 years removed from when Jesus hung on the cross. And yet within the lifetime of some contemporaries of Jesus the Christ/Messiah or those who knew those who were.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2016, 09:55:42 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2016, 09:55:42 PM
Theological scholars have made those estimated dates. Actual physical copies that are near complete, only date from around 200 CE. Theologians have a vested interest in using the earliest estimated dates possible.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:07:13 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:07:13 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2016, 09:55:42 PMThe oldest known fragment we have from the New Testament is a tiny section of John’s gospel that contains part of only seven lines in Greek. This fragment is dated to about 125 AD.
Theological scholars have made those estimated dates. Actual physical copies that are near complete, only date from around 200 CE. Theologians have a vested interest in using the earliest estimated dates possible.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 10:09:45 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 10:09:45 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 09:52:33 PMMatthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before A.D. 70
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:07:13 PMThe oldest known fragment we have from the New Testament is a tiny section of John’s gospel that contains part of only seven lines in Greek. This fragment is dated to about 125 AD.Seems legit.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:15:55 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:15:55 PM
So, New Testament aside, How old is the oldest copy of the Old Testament? Much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts that were written 100's of years after the fact. Many are copies of copies. And yet who denies that the Trojan War never happened?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:18:10 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:18:10 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 10:09:45 PM
Seems legit.
Yet this small fragment was found in Egypt and would have likely taken years to arrive at that local.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 10:20:04 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 10:20:04 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:18:10 PMI don't think you understand how radiometric dating works.
Yet this small fragment was found in Egypt and would have likely taken years to arrive at that local.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:29:32 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:29:32 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 10:20:04 PMI don't think you understand dispersal --- the spreading of materials and knowledge --- especially in ancient times.
I don't think you understand how radiometric dating works.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 10:30:28 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2016, 10:30:28 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:29:32 PMOh I do, I really do. Better than you understand the very dating methods you're citing as evidence for your case, at the least. :lol:
I don't think you understand dispersal --- the spreading of materials and knowledge --- especially in ancient times.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 02, 2016, 09:50:57 AM
Post by: widdershins on March 02, 2016, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:15:55 PMYou are bordering on a lie right there with the deception you're throwing. Yes, much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts which were written hundreds of years after the fact, but those manuscripts, alone, are not the totality of the evidence to support the historical account, as you are slyly trying to suggest. We do not simply find a manuscript where some guy claims something happened 200 years before and say, "Wow. So, THAT happened. Let's put it into the history books." I know it would be very convenient for you if we did, but that is not how it works, because SCIENCE!
So, New Testament aside, How old is the oldest copy of the Old Testament? Much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts that were written 100's of years after the fact. Many are copies of copies. And yet who denies that the Trojan War never happened?
In fact, taking your own example, much of what YOU know about the Trojan War is undoubtedly made up and very much NOT taken as historical fact. Homer's Iliad is not considered a "historical document". It's a poem. The characters in it, though depicted in movies as historical fact, are, by historians, considered likely fictional characters. We don't know that Helen of Troy was a real person. But we do know there was a Trojan War, not because Homer spoke of it in a poem, but because the site has been excavated. It's one of the most famous archaeological sites in the world. Historians look at all these old documents, but take nothing from them as "fact" until they can match up sites and artifacts with depictions in the manuscripts, or at least with multiple other corroborating accounts. In this case all the Iliad tells us is that people at the time "knew" of a great war which had taken place at a place called both Troy and Ilium. The writing style suggests the writer expected his audience to have some knowledge of the war he was writing about beforehand. This tells historians, not that the war happened, but that it was a common belief at the time.
So, what we have is a "claim". Historians then go out to gather the "facts", the part you don't want to do because they might not (or outright don't) support your beliefs. The reason we know the Trojan War happened is because there is evidence to back it up, not simply because some guy claimed it hundreds of years after the fact. Helen of Troy and the Trojan Horse, those are not historical facts because there is no evidence for them. Yes, the Trojan War is "found" in a manuscript hundreds of years after the fact, but that manuscript is not considered even close to a historical account of the war. All it tells historians about the war is how people at the time viewed it all that time later. Nothing more.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:07:13 PM
The oldest known fragment we have from the New Testament is a tiny section of John’s gospel that contains part of only seven lines in Greek. This fragment is dated to about 125 AD.
You cannot infer, from one little fragment, the entire NT as available in 125 CE. That date is a "range" it is more like 125 - 175 CE ... with the theologians naturally taking the bottom number. You cannot even infer a whole book of the NT from one little fragment. You have to have substantial copies to date the work, not a fragment that might have been part of a pre-NT work, that was subsequently copied into a NT work. The substantial copies date from 175 - 225 CE. The earliest surviving whole Christian bible dates from around 400 CE (OT + NT) and there are revisions directly in the body of that work ... and there is a fair amount of that one missing too.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 01:03:26 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 01:03:26 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 10:15:55 PM
So, New Testament aside, How old is the oldest copy of the Old Testament? Much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts that were written 100's of years after the fact. Many are copies of copies. And yet who denies that the Trojan War never happened?
The Homer's Trojan war never happened, neither did Joshua "fit" the battle of Jericho. The earliest book surviving of the Jewish scriptures, is the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea ... circa 125 BCE. The oldest partially complete Jewish OT is from around 950 CE.
This is all literature ... to be enjoyed as such. History is a kind of literature, not factual, just fact-ish. Like the current fad for "truthiness". The original history was Greek propaganda written during the Greco-Persian wars. The winners do write the histories. That is how Caesar wrote his histories too, as current political propaganda. Didn't work though, they still assassinated him.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 02, 2016, 04:45:41 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 02, 2016, 04:45:41 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:28:49 PMFTFY
The Gospels were clearly written by men who had no thought of making themselves lookheroic.like gullible idiots.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 07:29:19 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 07:29:19 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 01:03:26 PM
The Homer's Trojan war never happened, neither did Joshua "fit" the battle of Jericho. The earliest book surviving of the Jewish scriptures, is the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea ... circa 125 BCE. The oldest partially complete Jewish OT is from around 950 CE.
This is all literature ... to be enjoyed as such. History is a kind of literature, not factual, just fact-ish. Like the current fad for "truthiness". The original history was Greek propaganda written during the Greco-Persian wars. The winners do write the histories. That is how Caesar wrote his histories too, as current political propaganda. Didn't work though, they still assassinated him.
So, one must reason that the Jews need to get out of Israel, because they rest on the Old Testament (mere fable / propaganda) for any right to that Palestinian land . You simply cannot have it both ways. I feel strongly that the present nation of Israel is the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy --- nothing more or less. And if the Bible is not the truth of God, then the stories concerning Israel are but a flight of fancy without any eternal significance because it is all a lie.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2016, 08:15:52 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2016, 08:15:52 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 07:29:19 PMSo, one must reason that the Jews need to get out of IsraelThey never really left. A lot of Western Jews did immigrate there after the mandate, which I would argue never should have happened. However...
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 07:29:19 PMbecause they rest on the Old Testament (mere fable / propaganda) for any right to that Palestinian land ....what's done is done. Descendants of those immigrants have been born and died there. You cannot reasonably ask people to leave the only home they know.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 07:29:19 PMYou simply cannot have it both ways.Well as I pointed out, you actually can. It requires a crime against humanity for it to happen, but it can be both ways.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 07:29:19 PMI feel strongly that the present nation of Israel is the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy --- nothing more or less.Feelings are not evidence.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 07:29:19 PMAnd if the Bible is not the truth of God, then the stories concerning Israel are but a flight of fancy without any eternal significance because it is all a lie.This is the first accurate statement you've made in this post.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2016, 08:15:52 PM
They never really left. A lot of Western Jews did immigrate there after the mandate, which I would argue never should have happened. However...
...what's done is done. Descendants of those immigrants have been born and died there. You cannot reasonably ask people to leave the only home they know.
Well as I pointed out, you actually can. It requires a crime against humanity for it to happen, but it can be both ways.
Feelings are not evidence.
This is the first accurate statement you've made in this post.
The prophetic message in the Bible is that the Jews would be dispersed across the earth. This is true, as they were.
The nation of Israel would be resurrected according to the Bible. This too is a fact, as roughly 2000 years later (with little hope that such an event could possibly occur) it did.
You can attempt to explain it all away anyway you wish; however, the facts and the Jews speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2016, 08:44:21 PM
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2016, 08:44:21 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2016, 08:15:52 PM.
This is the first accurate statement you've made in this post.
It is the first accurate post he has made since he came here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2016, 08:45:35 PM
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2016, 08:45:35 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PM
as roughly 2000 years later
..because all powerful gods usually take 2000 years to return the phone call….LOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 02, 2016, 08:57:40 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 02, 2016, 08:57:40 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PMPlease, Jews weren't the first or even the last people to be dispersed 'across the earth.' A recent example of a people dispersed 'across the earth' are Africans â€" and they were much more dispersed across the earth than the Jews were in ancient times.
The prophetic message in the Bible is that the Jews would be dispersed across the earth. This is true, as they were.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PMThe modern Israel is decidedly not the same entity as the "ancient Israel." Not only is modern Israel missing parts up north that belong now to Lebanon, it has claimed more as Israel than the ancient kingdom. Hell, the kingdom of Israel hardly included all of the Jews at the time. The name "Jew" comes from Judea, which was a separate kingdom from that of the kingdom of Israel.
The nation of Israel would be resurrected according to the Bible. This too is a fact, as roughly 2000 years later (with little hope that such an event could possibly occur) it did.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PMYes, they do. :whistle:
You can attempt to explain it all away anyway you wish; however, the facts and the Jews speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:59:37 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: aitm on March 02, 2016, 08:45:35 PM
..because all powerful gods usually take 2000 years to return the phone call….LOLOLOLOL
How many nations can you name that came back after total destruction some 2000 years afterwards. God did what most logical minds would say is an impossibility. And you are simply unwilling to see just how miraculous this all is. Were is Crete? Were are the Hittites? Were are the Etruscans? HELLO!!!!!
The Jews have the same text that Jesus read from in the temple at Jerusalem at age 12. You are simply tossing data away because it points to GOD's promise. And a GOD that doesn't exist cannot fulfill promises He made. This alone undermines your atheistic logic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2016, 09:06:18 PM
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2016, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:59:37 PM
How many nations can you name that came back after total destruction some 2000 years
The babble promises that the jews will rule over the gentile nations( damn..so close) So you are offering that now that now because the gentile nations gave the Jews "their" land back since old god could not, that somehow, now, 3000 years later that this fulfills the babble? LOLOLOLOL…..yeah peeps be loving you in a card game
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 09:30:21 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 09:30:21 PM
Quote from: aitm on March 02, 2016, 09:06:18 PM
The babble promises that the jews will rule over the gentile nations( damn..so close) So you are offering that now that now because the gentile nations gave the Jews "their" land back since old god could not, that somehow, now, 3000 years later that this fulfills the babble? LOLOLOLOL…..yeah peeps be loving you in a card game
They will---- once Christ returns along with the raptured CHURCH after the 7 years of Tribulation. The Jews will fully understand that Jesus is the Messiah and the entire world will be under Christ's rule for 1000 years. Christ will fulfill the Davidic promise as the heir to the throne.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 09:51:10 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 09:51:10 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 07:29:19 PM
So, one must reason that the Jews need to get out of Israel, because they rest on the Old Testament (mere fable / propaganda) for any right to that Palestinian land . You simply cannot have it both ways. I feel strongly that the present nation of Israel is the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy --- nothing more or less. And if the Bible is not the truth of God, then the stories concerning Israel are but a flight of fancy without any eternal significance because it is all a lie.
Exactly correct. Most Jews today aren't religious. Most have only tenuous descent from ancient Jews. The Palestinians there today are Muslim Jews mostly. Very few Arabs (other than Bedouin who have been there forever) actually stayed, they passed thru to better places. Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew, it is a new language, like Esperanto. Sounds good, but it matches Biblical Hebrew no better than Spanish matches Latin. So there are Jewish people already there, back 100+ years ago, but not European half-breed Jews who are atheist/communist, working for the Rothschild banking family. Those are the kind of Jews who made the push into Palestine before WW I. I understand your feeling of prophecy however. It is just that the prophecy can't be fulfilled by "these" Jews. There are Hasidic Jews in Jerusalem however, who reject modern Israel and ally with Hamas. That is prophetic ... in the same way that there were Jews like that in Jerusalem 900 years ago, when the first Crusaders came and killed everyone; Muslim, Jew and non-Catholic Christian that they found there. Modern atheist Israel has been part of the same Crusader movement (as reinvented by Anglo-American Israelitism 100 years ago) ... using the Jewish immigrants as patsies and cannon fodder against the ME.
No, as a Jew, I can admit that ancient Jewish literature, is special to many people, not all of them Jews. It is flattering. But one has to be very careful with the "word of G-d" stuff ... given that I consider Muhammad to be much like the ancient Jewish prophets, yet he isn't Jewish. Muhammad at least is more or less historical, whether you like his words or not. I like Jesus' words better ... particularly as oracularly proclaimed by Paul .. a Jew ;-) There wasn't and isn't just one Judaism. But if the Pope wants to cross-dress in a yarmulka ... I guess we can let him ;-)
The Etruscans never left their homeland, it is called Tuscany today ... in Italy. There were multiple dialects of Latin in ancient times (some with Etruscan loan words perhaps), and multiple dialects of modern Italian, until the Boot was reunified in the mid 19th century.
The Bible isn't a lie, it is a creative literature of immense influence. How Jewish is that? ;-) But originally, the Torah along with Deuteronomy, was a political propaganda by King Josiah (though based on earlier materials, as all literature is).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 02, 2016, 10:47:24 PM
Post by: reasonist on March 02, 2016, 10:47:24 PM
Quote from: widdershins on November 27, 2015, 01:33:12 PM
I believe it is pretty well established that much of the New Testament was copied from older works that all the writers would have had access to. In fact, if memory serves, a couple of the books in the NT have exactly the same stories, word for word or close to it. If much of it was copied from other works then all you can really do is date the older works by your methods.
And if you're trying to establish a timeline for the writings of the books of the NT for the basis of future discussions and you have to use words like "suggests" and "possibly" then you really haven't "established" anything.
Aside from that, I am not a Biblical scholar, and you are not likely to be either. If you want to establish the approximate dates of the writing of the books of the New Testament, rather than argue a case you are not qualified to argue and I am not qualified to check, isn't it easier, better and by far more accurate to go with the dates which are generally accepted among the people who are qualified to come to such conclusions? The answer is yes. Yes it is. So, rather than analyze your argument, do a bunch of research and, after many hours of checking, give you a still-unqualified opinion on your conclusions, I'm just going to refer you to the dates given by qualified historians, who are quite at odds with your conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament)
So, if you would like to lay the foundation for future discussions by establishing the dating of the four gospels, the generally accepted dating, thus the dating valid for discussion, is given in the link above. So, what discussion would you like to have?
I agree that the NT is a collection of copies from earlier mythologies, especially the Jewish 'Old Testament'. But many more parallels can be found in Egyptian and Sumerian mythologies dating as far back as 3,000 BC. From virgin births, crucifixion and resurrection to walking on water, the flood and ark and many more, the NT is basically a rehashing of primitive myths. Today it would be called a blatant copyright infringement.
What about the Apocryphic gospels? Why were they excluded from the NT? The secret book of Mary Magdalen, the gospel of truth, acts of Thomas, all omitted from the good book, lingering in the secret Vatican library. Humans like you and I decided what is the word of God and what isn't.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2016, 11:22:16 PM
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2016, 11:22:16 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:59:37 PM
How many nations can you name that came back after total destruction some 2000 years afterwards. God did what most logical minds would say is an impossibility. And you are simply unwilling to see just how miraculous this all is. Were is Crete? Were are the Hittites? Were are the Etruscans? HELLO!!!!!
The Jews have the same text that Jesus read from in the temple at Jerusalem at age 12. You are simply tossing data away because it points to GOD's promise. And a GOD that doesn't exist cannot fulfill promises He made. This alone undermines your atheistic logic.
The nation was not destroyed. The diaspora is a myth.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14504-Israel-s-founding-is-a-myth-the-diaspora-didn-t-happen-Palestinians-are-the-descendants-of-Judah#.Vte5_fkrLcs
Exodus is also a myth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/staks-rosch/the-biblical-exodus-story-is-fiction_b_1408123.html
The diaspora is a Jewish myth as is Exodus. Judaism was not destroyed. The culture existed there from the time of Christ to modern day. The "Exodus" of modern times were Jewish refugees from Europe seeking a new homeland in the Middle East. There were already Jews there to meet them.
Oh and by the way, the Rapture is also a myth.
http://www.ucg.org/world-news-and-prophecy/the-rapture-a-popular-but-false-doctrine
It didn't exist before 1830 and it is not biblical.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 03, 2016, 06:26:35 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 03, 2016, 06:26:35 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 05:41:49 PM
It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.
Speculation on your part. To claim that you know the psychological make-up of people who lived 2,000 years ago is quite a stretch, don't you think?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 03, 2016, 08:27:54 AM
Post by: reasonist on March 03, 2016, 08:27:54 AM
A papyrus fragment of John 18 has been dated to about 140 CE. This is the oldest manuscript of the New Testament in existence and is currently held at the University of Manchester in England. This manuscript was written in Egypt probably around 120 CE. There is another manuscript in Geneva, which is almost complete, that has been dated to about 150 CE. The point of noting these ancient manuscripts is to emphasize that the Gospel of John wasn't written any earlier than 120 CE. That means it was written almost 100 years after Jesus.
Tom Harpur "The Pagan Christ"
He also writes: " Since the translation of the books of old Egypt - the Book of the Dead, the Pyramid texts, the Amduat and the book of Thoth for example, there is irrefutable proof that not a single doctrine, rite, tenet, or usage in Christianity was in reality a fresh contribution to the world of religion. The entire body of Christian doctrine is simply a revamped and mutilated Egyptianism."
If the good books are the word of a deity, then he was either too stupid or too lazy to come up with something new. Which was it?
Regarding the situation in the Middle East, specifically the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I cannot get over the fact that a group of people are 'chosen' above all other folks on this planet and that a patch of land is holier than the rest of the world. This is the most insane proposition and will eventually lead to an all out (nuclear?) war.
Tom Harpur "The Pagan Christ"
He also writes: " Since the translation of the books of old Egypt - the Book of the Dead, the Pyramid texts, the Amduat and the book of Thoth for example, there is irrefutable proof that not a single doctrine, rite, tenet, or usage in Christianity was in reality a fresh contribution to the world of religion. The entire body of Christian doctrine is simply a revamped and mutilated Egyptianism."
If the good books are the word of a deity, then he was either too stupid or too lazy to come up with something new. Which was it?
Regarding the situation in the Middle East, specifically the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I cannot get over the fact that a group of people are 'chosen' above all other folks on this planet and that a patch of land is holier than the rest of the world. This is the most insane proposition and will eventually lead to an all out (nuclear?) war.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 03, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 03, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
reasonist--I like your reasoning! :)) Maybe you could take some time and introduce yourself to us in the into thread?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 03, 2016, 10:56:26 AM
Post by: reasonist on March 03, 2016, 10:56:26 AM
Tried that but I am a technomoron
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 03, 2016, 11:06:10 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 03, 2016, 11:06:10 AM
Quote from: reasonist on March 03, 2016, 10:56:26 AMClick on the 'home' button at the top of the page. When that comes up, look in 'The Lobby', second section down under 'Introductions'--click on that, then fill us in on who you are. I look forward to reading about you.
Tried that but I am a technomoron
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 03, 2016, 03:31:21 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 03, 2016, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 09:30:21 PMCome now, LittleNipper, even you must realize how hollow that rings. You guys have been predicting the end of the world for nearly as long as Jesus has been dead, and not once have you been right. A sane person would have thrown up their hands and admitted that, if the end were coming, they don't know when that would be.
They will---- once Christ returns along with the raptured CHURCH after the 7 years of Tribulation. The Jews will fully understand that Jesus is the Messiah and the entire world will be under Christ's rule for 1000 years. Christ will fulfill the Davidic promise as the heir to the throne.
Also, what makes you think that you are the guys who are going to be raptured to heaven, rather than people who honestly don't believe there is a God but try to be good people anyway?
Tell me, have you read Robert G. Ingersoll's Some mistakes of Moses? I guarantee that it'll be an entertaining read, because it's not just about mistakes that Moses supposedly made.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 03, 2016, 03:56:57 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 03, 2016, 03:56:57 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PMThe prophetic message in the Bible is that the Jews would be dispersed across the earth. This is true, as they were.So were the Chinese. But much like the Jews, there never stopped being Chinese in China.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PMThe nation of Israel would be resurrected according to the Bible. This too is a fact, as roughly 2000 years later (with little hope that such an event could possibly occur) it did.The modern state of Israel does not include the entirety of the old kingdom. Also even if this were a fulfillment of prophecy, wouldn't it actually be proof in favor of Judaism? Seems to me that if it's a Christian prophecy, Israel should be a Christian rather than a Jewish state.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 08:37:02 PMYou can attempt to explain it all away anyway you wish; however, the facts and the Jews speak for themselves.To echo Hakurei's earlier statement: indeed they do.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 09:30:21 PMThey will---- once Christ returns along with the raptured CHURCH after the 7 years of Tribulation. The Jews will fully understand that Jesus is the Messiah and the entire world will be under Christ's rule for 1000 years. Christ will fulfill the Davidic promise as the heir to the throne.I'm pretty sure the Jews have their own timetable for their Messiah's arrival, and it has nothing to do with the Book of Revelations.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 06:11:13 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 06:11:13 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 03, 2016, 03:56:57 PM
So were the Chinese. But much like the Jews, there never stopped being Chinese in China.
The modern state of Israel does not include the entirety of the old kingdom. Also even if this were a fulfillment of prophecy, wouldn't it actually be proof in favor of Judaism? Seems to me that if it's a Christian prophecy, Israel should be a Christian rather than a Jewish state.
To echo Hakurei's earlier statement: indeed they do.
I'm pretty sure the Jews have their own timetable for their Messiah's arrival, and it has nothing to do with the Book of Revelations.
Well, the Old Testament prophecies regarding the fact that the Messiah would be born under the linage of David was covered by both the mother of Jesus and His step father Joseph. There is not anyway of positively tracing that linage back at this time. The mother of Jesus was a virgin as prophesied in the Bible --- how many practice abstinence today? Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea but was ultimately raised in Nazareth as predicted by the scriptures. Sorry, I love the Jewish people, but unless they are Messianic, they missed the boat and the Bible is more than clear --- "His own (the Jews) would receive Him not."
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 03, 2016, 06:31:28 PM
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 03, 2016, 06:31:28 PM
Big problem here is that Nazareth didn't exist when Jesus was supposed to be around.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 06:36:59 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 06:36:59 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 03, 2016, 06:31:28 PM
Big problem here is that Nazareth didn't exist when Jesus was supposed to be around.
Baloney.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2016, 06:42:31 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2016, 06:42:31 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 06:36:59 PM
Baloney.
Archeology is not your friend, on many points.
Jewish views of messiahs today is ... they are all false. There is no point in waiting for one to arrive, because a real messiah never does. Any modern Jew who is messianic is heretical. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 03, 2016, 06:42:56 PM
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 03, 2016, 06:42:56 PM
And Jesus never existed in the first place. Get your act together.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 03, 2016, 06:53:55 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 03, 2016, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 06:11:13 PMThe mother of Jesus was a virgin as prophesied in the BibleYou mean something predicted in the Bible later happened in the Bible? Well color me shocked! :lol:
By your logic, the fact that Anakin Skywalker was prophesied to "bring balance to the Force" and then later did so by killing all Jedi and Sith is evidence that Star Wars actually happened.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 03, 2016, 07:05:47 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 03, 2016, 07:05:47 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 06:36:59 PMVery elegant reply. It really sums up how a christian reasons. Well, how they don't reason. They believe. And whatever they believe just is. And if you don't believe it, then 'baloney' to you.
Baloney.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 10:08:04 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 10:08:04 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 03, 2016, 07:05:47 PMRight...
Very elegant reply. It really sums up how a christian reasons. Well, how they don't reason. They believe. And whatever they believe just is. And if you don't believe it, then 'baloney' to you.
Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?
28 May, 2012 â€"27 Comments
Nazareth house
Not so very long ago, many internet critics of Christianity were pointing out that there was no archaeological evidence of settlements at Bethlehem and Nazareth in the first century. This demonstrates, they said, despite the fact that few scholars agreed with them, that these towns didn’t exist, and that therefore the Bible accounts are not historical.
But three years later the situation has changed.
Nazareth
Until a few years ago, the only archaeological evidence for Nazareth amounted to little more than the remains of a winepress, a few tombs and a few artifacts. However in December 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority issued a press release announcing that a house in Nazareth (see photo above) had now been excavated and had been found to contain artifacts from the “early Roman period†(first and second centuries). The archaeologists also found a pit hewn out of stone with a concealed entrance, which they believe was constructed as protection during the Jewish revolt of 67 CE.
This was seen by the Authority and others (The Guardian and the Huffington Post) as conclusive evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist in the first century. Based on the number of tombs found previously, they conclude that it was a small hamlet of about 50 houses.
Those who believe Nazareth didn’t exist have adjusted to this evidence, and tend to denigrate it as “sensationalist†(Nazareth: the town that theology built), or argue that the evidence doesn’t relate to the exact period of Jesus’ life, but several decades later (nazarethmyth.info). Nevertheless, scholars, who generally didn’t doubt that Nazareth existed as a small village, have been reinforced in their conclusions.
Bethlehem
There was even less archaeological evidence for Bethlehem â€" virtually nothing before the fourth century â€" giving sceptics even more basis for their arguments that this showed the unreliability of the New Testament. But that has changed slightly in the past few weeks.
Bethlehem bulla
Recently the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that archaeologists working in the city of David area of Jerusalem had discovered a small (1.5 cm) ‘bulla’ (see photo), a piece of clay used to make an impression in wax, sealing a document so it couldn’t be altered. This small bulla apparently accompanied a delivery of goods to the king of Judah about 7 centuries BCE, and identifies that the shipment was despatched from Bethlehem.
This shows the existence of town named Bethlehem seven centuries before Jesus, the first independent corroboration of the Bible’s references to the town. This doesn’t prove it existed in Jesus’ day also, but if it was there 700 years before and 400 years afterwards, it suggests that it probably did indeed exist at the time of Jesus (see report in the Los Angeles Times).
Cautionary tales
Scholars say that only a very small fraction of the artifacts of the time have ever been discovered, and no-one knows what discoveries are yet to come. This makes perilous any argument that a place doesn’t exist based on the lack of finds, and most scholars are cautious about making such claims.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2016, 10:21:29 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2016, 10:21:29 PM
A recent satellite archeology survey of Egypt, maintains that only 1% of Egypt has been excavated so far ... that centuries of additional on ground research will remain to be done.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 03, 2016, 11:18:14 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 03, 2016, 11:18:14 PM
Ah, yes, the homestead of Nazareth. Very convincing. Oh wait. It isn't.
A single house does not a city, town, or even a village make. People certainly settled in the Nazareth region long before a town was founded. Indeed, that people settled in the region was the reason there would be a town to begin with.
Find something like what we found at Hisarlik dated to the right period, and you might have a case:
(http://media.philly.com/images/600*450/20100131_inq_he1gold17-x.JPG)
And keep in mind, the Hisarlik site is for a city that is thousands of years older than Jesus's Nazareth.
A single house does not a city, town, or even a village make. People certainly settled in the Nazareth region long before a town was founded. Indeed, that people settled in the region was the reason there would be a town to begin with.
Find something like what we found at Hisarlik dated to the right period, and you might have a case:
(http://media.philly.com/images/600*450/20100131_inq_he1gold17-x.JPG)
And keep in mind, the Hisarlik site is for a city that is thousands of years older than Jesus's Nazareth.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 11:32:59 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 11:32:59 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 03, 2016, 11:18:14 PM
Ah, yes, the homestead of Nazareth. Very convincing. Oh wait. It isn't.
A single house does not a city, town, or even a village make. People certainly settled in the Nazareth region long before a town was founded. Indeed, that people settled in the region was the reason there would be a town to begin with.
Find something like what we found at Hisarlik dated to the right period, and you might have a case:
(http://media.philly.com/images/600*450/20100131_inq_he1gold17-x.JPG)
And keep in mind, the Hisarlik site is for a city that is thousands of years older than Jesus's Nazareth.
Philadelphia is many hundreds of years older than me. SO? Nazareth was a little nothing of a town (if that). It was not the education capital of the world. It wasn't a cultural or artistic mecca. It was a poor likely rundown area. And Christ was born in a stable in Bethlehem. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 04, 2016, 06:32:17 AM
Post by: Baruch on March 04, 2016, 06:32:17 AM
What is shocking is that the NT never mentions the two largest towns in the area, both within walking distance ... Sepphoris and Tiberias. The majority of the population of Galilee were in those two towns ... wasn't that an opportunity for preaching, better than a little fishing town like Capernaum?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 04, 2016, 08:59:44 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 04, 2016, 08:59:44 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 10:08:04 PMLet me tell you a little story. George Washington was clearly, a real live person. And he was as honest as the day is long................and we know this from grade school. He was so honest, from such an early age, that he could not keep from getting the blame of a chopped down cherry tree by lying about it. He 'fessed right up. Except that didn't happen. Oh, he may have been honest, but the story was a made up story by a Paster Weems who had wanted to make a character study by using good old George. I guess his intentions were okay--Character Counts is a good class, but why make stuff up. So, that illustrates two things for me. Just because a person really existed, does not mean every story about them is real. One still needs to use critical thinking and good sources to evaluate what one reads or hears about a person or event. And that christians are more intent upon the outcome than the journey there--in other words, the ends justify the means. And for a good christian those means could easily consist of fibs/lies, cheating, stealing, fraud, or anything else on up to and including murder.
Right...
Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?
28 May, 2012 â€"27 Comments
Nazareth house
Not so very long ago, many internet critics of Christianity were pointing out that there was no archaeological evidence of settlements at Bethlehem and Nazareth in the first century. This demonstrates, they said, despite the fact that few scholars agreed with them, that these towns didn’t exist, and that therefore the Bible accounts are not historical.
But three years later the situation has changed.
Nazareth
Until a few years ago, the only archaeological evidence for Nazareth amounted to little more than the remains of a winepress, a few tombs and a few artifacts. However in December 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority issued a press release announcing that a house in Nazareth (see photo above) had now been excavated and had been found to contain artifacts from the “early Roman period†(first and second centuries). The archaeologists also found a pit hewn out of stone with a concealed entrance, which they believe was constructed as protection during the Jewish revolt of 67 CE.
This was seen by the Authority and others (The Guardian and the Huffington Post) as conclusive evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist in the first century. Based on the number of tombs found previously, they conclude that it was a small hamlet of about 50 houses.
Those who believe Nazareth didn’t exist have adjusted to this evidence, and tend to denigrate it as “sensationalist†(Nazareth: the town that theology built), or argue that the evidence doesn’t relate to the exact period of Jesus’ life, but several decades later (nazarethmyth.info). Nevertheless, scholars, who generally didn’t doubt that Nazareth existed as a small village, have been reinforced in their conclusions.
Bethlehem
There was even less archaeological evidence for Bethlehem â€" virtually nothing before the fourth century â€" giving sceptics even more basis for their arguments that this showed the unreliability of the New Testament. But that has changed slightly in the past few weeks.
Bethlehem bulla
Recently the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that archaeologists working in the city of David area of Jerusalem had discovered a small (1.5 cm) ‘bulla’ (see photo), a piece of clay used to make an impression in wax, sealing a document so it couldn’t be altered. This small bulla apparently accompanied a delivery of goods to the king of Judah about 7 centuries BCE, and identifies that the shipment was despatched from Bethlehem.
This shows the existence of town named Bethlehem seven centuries before Jesus, the first independent corroboration of the Bible’s references to the town. This doesn’t prove it existed in Jesus’ day also, but if it was there 700 years before and 400 years afterwards, it suggests that it probably did indeed exist at the time of Jesus (see report in the Los Angeles Times).
Cautionary tales
Scholars say that only a very small fraction of the artifacts of the time have ever been discovered, and no-one knows what discoveries are yet to come. This makes perilous any argument that a place doesn’t exist based on the lack of finds, and most scholars are cautious about making such claims.
The places of the bible are not so much of an importance as is the content that is supposed to deal with real people. Fictional people are put into a real physical setting all the time.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 09:28:32 AM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 09:28:32 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 04, 2016, 08:59:44 AMWhat about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
Let me tell you a little story. George Washington was clearly, a real live person. And he was as honest as the day is long................and we know this from grade school. He was so honest, from such an early age, that he could not keep from getting the blame of a chopped down cherry tree by lying about it. He 'fessed right up. Except that didn't happen. Oh, he may have been honest, but the story was a made up story by a Paster Weems who had wanted to make a character study by using good old George. I guess his intentions were okay--Character Counts is a good class, but why make stuff up. So, that illustrates two things for me. Just because a person really existed, does not mean every story about them is real. One still needs to use critical thinking and good sources to evaluate what one reads or hears about a person or event. And that christians are more intent upon the outcome than the journey there--in other words, the ends justify the means. And for a good christian those means could easily consist of fibs/lies, cheating, stealing, fraud, or anything else on up to and including murder.
The places of the bible are not so much of an importance as is the content that is supposed to deal with real people. Fictional people are put into a real physical setting all the time.
And http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/pontius-pilate-faq.htm
And you may wish to consider this: http://untencm.com/apologetics/was-there-really-a-census-during-the-time-of-caesar-augustus/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 10:16:25 AM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 10:16:25 AM
It may be astounding to most young people today that prior to the internet and computer files, hundreds of thousands upon millions of documents and artifacts were routinely simply thrown away, trashed, incinerated ---- etc. I know for a fact that the matrixes (original molds) to most of the National Phonograph Co. recording were simply thrown away and destroyed at a North New Jersey dump. I know for a fact that the RCA Victor record achieves which were protected and mentioned and revered in the 1950's and on to the 1980's are largely unaccounted for today. It is feared that most of this valuable historical evidence of the early recorded history has been irretrievably lost.
Now, you may say, what has this to do with anything? Well, if important facts were being thrown away only "yesterday" why would anyone be so insensitive to the fact that 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, year old information is scant to say the least!
If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.
Now, you may say, what has this to do with anything? Well, if important facts were being thrown away only "yesterday" why would anyone be so insensitive to the fact that 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, year old information is scant to say the least!
If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 10:44:48 AM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 10:44:48 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 10:16:25 AM
It may be astounding to most young people today that prior to the internet and computer files, hundreds of thousands upon millions of documents and artifacts were routinely simply thrown away, trashed, incinerated ---- etc. I know for a fact that the matrixes (original molds) to most of the National Phonograph Co. recording were simply thrown away and destroyed at a North New Jersey dump. I know for a fact that the RCA Victor record achieves which were protected and mentioned and revered in the 1950's and on to the 1980's are largely unaccounted for today. It is feared that most of this valuable historical evidence of the early recorded history has been irretrievably lost.
Goodness, I found out that all the records of my retired family doctor were entirely deposed of. This included dates of births, illnesses, examinations, complications, epidemics. I was told that most of the files were impossible to read and considered insignificant if not private. You will find that most documentation of students who once attended now closed schools, say even 40 years ago, has been lost!
Now, you may say, what has this to do with anything? Well, if important files and objects were being thrown away only "yesterday" why would anyone be so insensitive to the fact that 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, year old information is scant to say the least!
If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct --------- but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 04, 2016, 11:12:00 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 04, 2016, 11:12:00 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 10:16:25 AMReally????! And you get to determine that? In actual fact, it is up to nobody to 'prove' or 'disprove' the bible (oh, BTW, which one????? There are many many more than just one.); more accurately, it is up to me and me alone to determine that. And I have determined that by reading it and also reading where the various parts of it came from, and who the various authors were and the documentation of how it came to be in it's present form(s). It is a falsehood that there is "The Bible"--there never was. It comes in many forms and variations. One cannot be shown to be more accurate than the other. So, apparently, you chose a version to deem to be "The Bible"--are there reasons why you chose that version?
If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 04, 2016, 12:00:56 PM
Post by: reasonist on March 04, 2016, 12:00:56 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 10:08:04 PM
Right...
Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?
28 May, 2012 â€"27 Comments
Nazareth house
Not so very long ago, many internet critics of Christianity were pointing out that there was no archaeological evidence of settlements at Bethlehem and Nazareth in the first century. This demonstrates, they said, despite the fact that few scholars agreed with them, that these towns didn’t exist, and that therefore the Bible accounts are not historical.
But three years later the situation has changed.
Nazareth
Until a few years ago, the only archaeological evidence for Nazareth amounted to little more than the remains of a winepress, a few tombs and a few artifacts. However in December 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority issued a press release announcing that a house in Nazareth (see photo above) had now been excavated and had been found to contain artifacts from the “early Roman period†(first and second centuries). The archaeologists also found a pit hewn out of stone with a concealed entrance, which they believe was constructed as protection during the Jewish revolt of 67 CE.
This was seen by the Authority and others (The Guardian and the Huffington Post) as conclusive evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist in the first century. Based on the number of tombs found previously, they conclude that it was a small hamlet of about 50 houses.
Those who believe Nazareth didn’t exist have adjusted to this evidence, and tend to denigrate it as “sensationalist†(Nazareth: the town that theology built), or argue that the evidence doesn’t relate to the exact period of Jesus’ life, but several decades later (nazarethmyth.info). Nevertheless, scholars, who generally didn’t doubt that Nazareth existed as a small village, have been reinforced in their conclusions.
Bethlehem
There was even less archaeological evidence for Bethlehem â€" virtually nothing before the fourth century â€" giving sceptics even more basis for their arguments that this showed the unreliability of the New Testament. But that has changed slightly in the past few weeks.
Bethlehem bulla
Recently the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that archaeologists working in the city of David area of Jerusalem had discovered a small (1.5 cm) ‘bulla’ (see photo), a piece of clay used to make an impression in wax, sealing a document so it couldn’t be altered. This small bulla apparently accompanied a delivery of goods to the king of Judah about 7 centuries BCE, and identifies that the shipment was despatched from Bethlehem.
This shows the existence of town named Bethlehem seven centuries before Jesus, the first independent corroboration of the Bible’s references to the town. This doesn’t prove it existed in Jesus’ day also, but if it was there 700 years before and 400 years afterwards, it suggests that it probably did indeed exist at the time of Jesus (see report in the Los Angeles Times).
Cautionary tales
Scholars say that only a very small fraction of the artifacts of the time have ever been discovered, and no-one knows what discoveries are yet to come. This makes perilous any argument that a place doesn’t exist based on the lack of finds, and most scholars are cautious about making such claims.
None of what you are stating makes any of the supernatural claims true. The provable fact is that the story of Jesus is identical to the story of Horus from 2,500 years earlier. The Egyptians meant all their fables to be nothing but mythically/spiritually/metaphorically. Only the early Christians took the story literally and mutilated beautiful metaphors and poetry into a monotheistic nightmare. Jesus never existed in flesh and blood, neither did Horus, the sUn of God. Jesus is but the latest sun god. The truth lies in the Gnostic or Apocryphic gospels, which were excluded from the NT. And for a good reason, because they state exactly what I just wrote.
A really good book on the subject, which I quoted from before, is Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ". The author is a Rhodes scholar, Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto. I would say he knows what he is talking about. He is actually making a good case for Christianity but in a different context. If you read it, the question if Bethlehem or Nazareth existed during 'Jesus'/Horus' time is a complete non sequitur.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 04, 2016, 12:44:58 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 04, 2016, 12:44:58 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 10:16:25 AM...No, it is not. That is not even CLOSE to how it works. If it were I could have you running in circles for the rest of your life proving that all the stupid things I claimed weren't true. I would start by simply claiming there was a little troll-like creature which stood 2' 5" tall and inhabited the Amazon forest 85,000,000 years ago. I just made that up, just now, but it's up to YOU to prove it. And how, exactly, are you going to do that? You can't find one and ask him to give you a deposition saying that he never existed. You can't look for graves marked, "No 2' 5" troll-like creature lies here because they never existed". You can't find ancient documents listing this creature and specifically claiming that I would make them up at some point in the future. I didn't describe its exact location, behavior or anatomy, so you can't look for missing evidence where there should be some. More to the point, you would be wasting your time because the claim is ridiculous. It is NOT "up to me" to prove your beliefs are false. You're the one claiming Jesus ran around casting magic spells left and right 2,000 years ago and all you have to do to prove it to me is cast a magic spell right now. You don't have to show me Jesus, you don't have to introduce me to God, all you have to do is, say, grow back, an arm on an amputee. That should do it for me.
If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.
Now, before you get all huffy about how God has nothing to prove to me and how miracles don't work that way, let me remind you, that's not what Jesus said.
Mark 16:
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.â€
He didn't say "these signs MAY accompany SOME of those who REALLY, REALLY believe and hold high up offices, and then only on the 5th Tuesday of the month in odd numbered years divisible by 17 when absolutely NO atheists are present..." He said "And these signs WILL accompany THOSE WHO BELIEVE..." You believe. So show me the sings the Bible says WILL accompany you. Cast a spell. Go to the terminal ward of the nearest children's hospital right now and clean it out and I GUARANTEE YOU I will follow you to the ends of the Earth and hang on your every word.
Alternatively, you could simply either ignore this post or start making excuses for why you can't do what Jesus said you would be able to or how that's not what he meant. Maybe it was a parable, huh? Maybe he was talking about "spiritual" healing? That's not what he said, but hey, whatever excuse gets you through the night with your beliefs intact.
As for proving the Bible isn't a "historical" document, no problem. Show me ONE other document ANYWHERE which is both taken as historically accurate AND has copious claims of magical powers in it. Just one. Come up with just a single document about magical powers which is accepted as historical fact. My proof that the Bible is not "historically correct" is that NO documents claiming magical powers are taken as "historically correct". Not one. And the Bible isn't special until that children's hospital is out of business.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 05:29:50 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 05:29:50 PM
Quote from: widdershins on March 04, 2016, 12:44:58 PMDid you ever think that there is no other "religious" document that is equal with the Bible? The Bible is not a book of magic. It is a book of salvation and a wise pattern to live by.
No, it is not. That is not even CLOSE to how it works. If it were I could have you running in circles for the rest of your life proving that all the stupid things I claimed weren't true. I would start by simply claiming there was a little troll-like creature which stood 2' 5" tall and inhabited the Amazon forest 85,000,000 years ago. I just made that up, just now, but it's up to YOU to prove it. And how, exactly, are you going to do that? You can't find one and ask him to give you a deposition saying that he never existed. You can't look for graves marked, "No 2' 5" troll-like creature lies here because they never existed". You can't find ancient documents listing this creature and specifically claiming that I would make them up at some point in the future. I didn't describe its exact location, behavior or anatomy, so you can't look for missing evidence where there should be some. More to the point, you would be wasting your time because the claim is ridiculous. It is NOT "up to me" to prove your beliefs are false. You're the one claiming Jesus ran around casting magic spells left and right 2,000 years ago and all you have to do to prove it to me is cast a magic spell right now. You don't have to show me Jesus, you don't have to introduce me to God, all you have to do is, say, grow back, an arm on an amputee. That should do it for me.
Now, before you get all huffy about how God has nothing to prove to me and how miracles don't work that way, let me remind you, that's not what Jesus said.
Mark 16:
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.â€
He didn't say "these signs MAY accompany SOME of those who REALLY, REALLY believe and hold high up offices, and then only on the 5th Tuesday of the month in odd numbered years divisible by 17 when absolutely NO atheists are present..." He said "And these signs WILL accompany THOSE WHO BELIEVE..." You believe. So show me the sings the Bible says WILL accompany you. Cast a spell. Go to the terminal ward of the nearest children's hospital right now and clean it out and I GUARANTEE YOU I will follow you to the ends of the Earth and hang on your every word.
Alternatively, you could simply either ignore this post or start making excuses for why you can't do what Jesus said you would be able to or how that's not what he meant. Maybe it was a parable, huh? Maybe he was talking about "spiritual" healing? That's not what he said, but hey, whatever excuse gets you through the night with your beliefs intact.
As for proving the Bible isn't a "historical" document, no problem. Show me ONE other document ANYWHERE which is both taken as historically accurate AND has copious claims of magical powers in it. Just one. Come up with just a single document about magical powers which is accepted as historical fact. My proof that the Bible is not "historically correct" is that NO documents claiming magical powers are taken as "historically correct". Not one. And the Bible isn't special until that children's hospital is out of business.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 04, 2016, 05:39:06 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 04, 2016, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 05:29:50 PMYes, at one time I thought that may be the case. Then I read it. And then I studied it even more deeply. And my conclusion is that it is not a book at all, but a collection of essays. Those essays were cobbled together by a group of people who had an agenda and it was not one of a spiritual nature. Have you ever wondered why the NT was put into the order it is? It is not by historical chronology. It is not by facts. It is not by the story, for the beginning is not at the beginning. Why this particular order? I don't have an answer, but only a guess. It was for politics and control. A simple experiment. Read the NT in the order of the books chronological composition. Read all of Paul's writings first. Then Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts and John--etc. The impact is quite different. But for a person of your conviction it would be a very difficult thing for you to do, I understand that. But if you are sure of your faith, give it a shot.
Did you ever think that there is no other "religious" document that is equal with the Bible? The Bible is not a book of magic. It is a book of salvation and a wise pattern to live by.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hydra009 on March 04, 2016, 06:06:21 PM
Post by: Hydra009 on March 04, 2016, 06:06:21 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 05:29:50 PMDid you ever think that there is no other "religious" document that is equal with the Bible?Yes. Literally all of them. Legendary figures. Supernatural powers. Miraculous events. The main difference between my beliefs and yours if that I don't look at them and think that one book is special.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 04, 2016, 06:08:46 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 04, 2016, 06:08:46 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 03, 2016, 11:32:59 PMHisarlik's only claim to fame was that it may have been the site of Homer's Troy. Troy was not a cultural or artistic mecca either, nor was it the educational capital of the world â€" it was a well-off satellite state of the Hittites. It (and the Illiad) was thought a myth until Schliemann dug it up. Yet there it is, in among the rubble that entombed it, after Greeks and other invaders did their level best to wipe it from the map. It was clearly a city â€" in fact, a whole succession of cities of a thousand years of near-consistent settlement.
Philadelphia is many hundreds of years older than me. SO? Nazareth was a little nothing of a town (if that). It was not the education capital of the world. It wasn't a cultural or artistic mecca. It was a poor likely rundown area. And Christ was born in a stable in Bethlehem. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
It is a site even older and even more obscure than Nazareth, yet it survived the thousands of years to be dug up at the dawn of archeology.
What archeologists have found at your Nazareth is a house. One. Singular. If your Nazareth was a town like you claim, there should be other ruins located quite close to this house, at least as well-preserved as Hisarlik.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: leo on March 04, 2016, 06:53:20 PM
Post by: leo on March 04, 2016, 06:53:20 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 02, 2016, 09:30:21 PMI want some of what you are smoking. Seriously Jesus will never fulfill the " Davidic " promise because Jesus isn't the jewish Messiah. Tribal affiliation is determined by the father side according to the Bible and the new testament claims Jesus never has a human father. The new testament genealogy is ridiculous. Joseph "davidic" ancestry is irrevelant because he wasn't the father of Jesus. Old testament prophecies about " Jesus " are mostly based in mistranslations. The Isaiah " prophecy " about virgin birth is horseshit. The original Hebrew Text says young woman and it's mistranslated virgin in the Christian Bibles. The suffering servant songs in Isaiah are NOT about Jesus. It's actually about the nation of Israel. Infact in the previous Isaiah chapters ( previous Isaiah 53 ) Israel is identified as the suffering servant several times. According to Judaism Jesus isn't the Messiah because he never fulfilled a single prophecy: A) There isn't world peace .B) There isn't universal and direct knowledge of the Israel god. Most people are debating the existence of god and atheists are winning the debate by the way. C) There isn't resurrection of the death. D) In the messianic era the third temple will be build and what about the ingathering of Israel ? In the messianic era all jews will return to Israel. The concept of the second coming is horseshit. The jewish messiah is supposed to accomplish everything in one coming. Also the jewish Messiah will be married and have offspring. I don't believe in Judaism but I can understand why the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah.
They will---- once Christ returns along with the raptured CHURCH after the 7 years of Tribulation. The Jews will fully understand that Jesus is the Messiah and the entire world will be under Christ's rule for 1000 years. Christ will fulfill the Davidic promise as the heir to the throne.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 12:32:48 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 12:32:48 AM
Time to break out my favorite argument.
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.
I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:
It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.
Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.
The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.
Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.
tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.
I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.
Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.
The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.
Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.
tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2016, 07:20:07 AM
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2016, 07:20:07 AM
Warning ... rhetorical abuse or logic error ...
"If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?"
If a human and a cat are both living, why have separate terms at all?
If a desk and a human are both made up of atoms, why have separate terms at all?
If (in theory of everything) EM and Grav have the same ultimate material cause, why have separate terms at all?
The point you may be trying to make is if "natural" is a good enough explanation, then per Ockham's Razor, why add more explanations? Given that a monotheistic god and the universe are "nearly the same thing".
The idea of pantheism et al ... is that one can view the whole of human experience in more than one way ... and that one of these ways is theistic. As opposed to something less in size/importance. An atheist would say ... there is only one way to view things ... which coincidentally happens to be my way (interestingly theists often say the same). This is a question of objective/subjective and egomania. Besides ... an actual pantheist (such as myself) does not view the universe and G-d as indistinguishable ... that is putting a false statement in an opponent's mouth, it is rhetoric. G-d is metaphysical, the universe is physical, these are not identical. The etymology of "universe" aka everything is a term that doesn't actually include everything, just everything a materialist is willing to consider. This is also a logical mistake, like including the color wheel but ignoring white/black. It is also a logical mistake to admit there is physics, but deny there is metaphysics (the basis for human discussion as per Aristotle). I am willing to admit both.
Both theism and atheism as exclusive views are ideological ... a discussion that isn't honest, no more than a discussion of capitalism vs communism. I admit I am ideological ... but I also admit there are other ideologies. By the nature of ideology, there is no one true ideology ... because there is no one true truth. Truth comes from the barrel of a gun ... because polite honest discussions in fact, never get anywhere.
"If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?"
If a human and a cat are both living, why have separate terms at all?
If a desk and a human are both made up of atoms, why have separate terms at all?
If (in theory of everything) EM and Grav have the same ultimate material cause, why have separate terms at all?
The point you may be trying to make is if "natural" is a good enough explanation, then per Ockham's Razor, why add more explanations? Given that a monotheistic god and the universe are "nearly the same thing".
The idea of pantheism et al ... is that one can view the whole of human experience in more than one way ... and that one of these ways is theistic. As opposed to something less in size/importance. An atheist would say ... there is only one way to view things ... which coincidentally happens to be my way (interestingly theists often say the same). This is a question of objective/subjective and egomania. Besides ... an actual pantheist (such as myself) does not view the universe and G-d as indistinguishable ... that is putting a false statement in an opponent's mouth, it is rhetoric. G-d is metaphysical, the universe is physical, these are not identical. The etymology of "universe" aka everything is a term that doesn't actually include everything, just everything a materialist is willing to consider. This is also a logical mistake, like including the color wheel but ignoring white/black. It is also a logical mistake to admit there is physics, but deny there is metaphysics (the basis for human discussion as per Aristotle). I am willing to admit both.
Both theism and atheism as exclusive views are ideological ... a discussion that isn't honest, no more than a discussion of capitalism vs communism. I admit I am ideological ... but I also admit there are other ideologies. By the nature of ideology, there is no one true ideology ... because there is no one true truth. Truth comes from the barrel of a gun ... because polite honest discussions in fact, never get anywhere.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 09:56:43 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 09:56:43 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2016, 07:20:07 AMWarning ... rhetorical abuse or logic error ...Cats and humans are distinguishable.
"If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?"
If a human and a cat are both living, why have separate terms at all?
If a desk and a human are both made up of atoms, why have separate terms at all?
If (in theory of everything) EM and Grav have the same ultimate material cause, why have separate terms at all?
Desks and humans are distinguishable.
EM and Gravity are distinguishable.
For awhile in paleontology, brontosaurus and apatosaurus were ruled indistinguishable, and lumped under the same name. It is only since last year that brontosaurus has become its own thing again.
I chose my words carefully, Baruch. You should do the same. ;)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on March 05, 2016, 10:03:42 AM
Post by: stromboli on March 05, 2016, 10:03:42 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 09:56:43 AM
Cats and humans are distinguishable.
Desks and humans are distinguishable.
EM and Gravity are distinguishable.
For awhile in paleontology, brontosaurus and apatosaurus were ruled indistinguishable, and lumped under the same name. It is only since last year that brontosaurus has become its own thing again.
I chose my words carefully, Baruch. You should do the same. ;)
Don't need to be on here anymore. You got it covered, bro.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 10:04:46 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 10:04:46 AM
Quote from: stromboli on March 05, 2016, 10:03:42 AMHey now, even I need backup from time to time!
Don't need to be on here anymore. You got it covered, bro.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 05, 2016, 10:38:57 AM
Post by: reasonist on March 05, 2016, 10:38:57 AM
"Both theism and atheism as exclusive views are ideological ... a discussion that isn't honest, no more than a discussion of capitalism vs communism. I admit I am ideological ... but I also admit there are other ideologies. By the nature of ideology, there is no one true ideology ... because there is no one true truth. Truth comes from the barrel of a gun ... because polite honest discussions in fact, never get anywhere."
I've heard so many times that atheism is just another religion...no, it's actually a simple negation without content. No dogma to defend, no claims made, nothing to prove and yet ample of evidence. Maybe 'ideology' is even too strong a word.
I've heard so many times that atheism is just another religion...no, it's actually a simple negation without content. No dogma to defend, no claims made, nothing to prove and yet ample of evidence. Maybe 'ideology' is even too strong a word.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 05, 2016, 12:31:11 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 05, 2016, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: reasonist on March 05, 2016, 10:38:57 AMLike you, I tend to see atheism as a simple negation--no god/gods. There is no 'content', as you put it. There is no ideology attached. After an atheist says there are no god/gods, everything else is open to discussion. No two atheists think alike. There is no default position; no ideology to refer to or lean on. So, all claims or thoughts or reasoning need to be looked at and evaluated on their own merits. I like that.
"Both theism and atheism as exclusive views are ideological ... a discussion that isn't honest, no more than a discussion of capitalism vs communism. I admit I am ideological ... but I also admit there are other ideologies. By the nature of ideology, there is no one true ideology ... because there is no one true truth. Truth comes from the barrel of a gun ... because polite honest discussions in fact, never get anywhere."
I've heard so many times that atheism is just another religion...no, it's actually a simple negation without content. No dogma to defend, no claims made, nothing to prove and yet ample of evidence. Maybe 'ideology' is even too strong a word.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2016, 02:02:11 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2016, 02:02:11 PM
Hijiri and and Stromboli ... you didn't understand what I said ... but lets just pass on it ;-)
Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way). Is this too difficult? Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.
It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't. But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.
Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way). Is this too difficult? Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.
It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't. But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 02:31:53 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 05, 2016, 02:31:53 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2016, 02:02:11 PMWe can recognize that no one is truly unbiased, while still making an effort to inject as little bias as possible into a conversation.
Hijiri and and Stromboli ... you didn't understand what I said ... but lets just pass on it ;-)
Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way). Is this too difficult? Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.
It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't. But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.
My favorite arguments are the ones most likely to start a fight. I reserve them for the most ardent believers, because there is no point trying to convince them. Arguments like this (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.msg1120333#msg1120333) are for fence-sitters in the crowd, and not the person I'm actually speaking to.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 05, 2016, 05:17:15 PM
Post by: reasonist on March 05, 2016, 05:17:15 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2016, 02:02:11 PM
Hijiri and and Stromboli ... you didn't understand what I said ... but lets just pass on it ;-)
Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way). Is this too difficult? Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.
It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't. But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.
Ideology (from Greek 'idea') seems to me more of a dogmatic approach to an issue. Atheism, or antitheism to me is more a rejection than an ideology. I reject the claim of a celestial dictator with supernatural powers. Therefore the 3 'good books' are rejected as the divine inspiration of a deity. I reject the violence and bloodshed they caused over thousands of years but have no political agenda. I reject the meddling of religion in people's private lives but have no platform to advocate. Just simple negation, rejection, declination whatever one wants to call it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 05, 2016, 05:51:17 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 05, 2016, 05:51:17 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2016, 02:02:11 PMI guess. But with your definition of ideology everybody has one. But since none of them are identical that definition isn't of much use. My point was that atheism isn't attached to any ideology; each person would have one, but that is true of an atheist or theist.
Hijiri and and Stromboli ... you didn't understand what I said ... but lets just pass on it ;-)
Ideology = there is just one way to think, the right way (which happens to be my way). Is this too difficult? Claiming a position is concept free, agenda free ... is disingenuous ... but one can try it anyway.
It is also inaccurate to call X a religion, when it isn't. But everything is an ideology ... there are no neutral people.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 05, 2016, 06:08:17 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 05, 2016, 06:08:17 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 05, 2016, 12:31:11 PM
Like you, I tend to see atheism as a simple negation--no god/gods. There is no 'content', as you put it. There is no ideology attached. After an atheist says there are no god/gods, everything else is open to discussion. No two atheists think alike. There is no default position; no ideology to refer to or lean on. So, all claims or thoughts or reasoning need to be looked at and evaluated on their own merits. I like that.
You seem to take issue with the thought that man designed various methods to please God. God on the other hand (biblically) says that man can NOT please God. Man wants to placate God. It can be understood that the wages of any sin in any form is DEATH and eternal separation from GOD. God had to pay the penalty Himself and suffer in our place ---- the perfect for that which is imperfect.
There is no ideology involved. I believe God sent Christ to suffer and die in my place. I admit to God that I'm imperfect and thank Him for His gift and ask God to continue His transformation of me towards the model of Jesus. It doesn't cost me anything. I don't have to go to a particular building on a particular day. I don't have to conform to the opinions of anyone else. I don't have to be politically correct. I don't have to perform penitence. And I don't have to be concerned with what others think.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 05, 2016, 07:04:01 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 05, 2016, 07:04:01 PM
Quote from: leo on March 04, 2016, 06:53:20 PMThe objection that tribal affiliation is only through the father is not always true. If a man has only daughters, the tribal inheritance is through the daughters (Num. 27:7ff, 36:6-8). This might well have been the case with Mary, since only her sister is mentioned (John 19:25), and not a brother. But even so, since Mary was still living at home and Joseph was not the father of her child, there would be no one else to trace the child’s heritage through other than Mary and her father. This is exactly the implication of Luke 3:23: that Jesus was a descendant of Eli.
I want some of what you are smoking. Seriously Jesus will never fulfill the " Davidic " promise because Jesus isn't the jewish Messiah. Tribal affiliation is determined by the father side according to the Bible and the new testament claims Jesus never has a human father. The new testament genealogy is ridiculous. Joseph "davidic" ancestry is irrevelant because he wasn't the father of Jesus. Old testament prophecies about " Jesus " are mostly based in mistranslations. The Isaiah " prophecy " about virgin birth is horseshit. The original Hebrew Text says young woman and it's mistranslated virgin in the Christian Bibles. The suffering servant songs in Isaiah are NOT about Jesus. It's actually about the nation of Israel. Infact in the previous Isaiah chapters ( previous Isaiah 53 ) Israel is identified as the suffering servant several times. According to Judaism Jesus isn't the Messiah because he never fulfilled a single prophecy: A) There isn't world peace .B) There isn't universal and direct knowledge of the Israel god. Most people are debating the existence of god and atheists are winning the debate by the way. C) There isn't resurrection of the death. D) In the messianic era the third temple will be build and what about the ingathering of Israel ? In the messianic era all jews will return to Israel. The concept of the second coming is horseshit. The jewish messiah is supposed to accomplish everything in one coming. Also the jewish Messiah will be married and have offspring. I don't believe in Judaism but I can understand why the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on March 05, 2016, 08:41:07 PM
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on March 05, 2016, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 05, 2016, 06:08:17 PMThere is no ideology involved. I believe God sent Christ to suffer and die in my place.
Your belief IS your ideology. Those two words mean the same thing in this context.
You make a very poor ambassador for your beliefs if you don't know enough about your beliefs to express them coherently.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 05, 2016, 06:08:17 PMAnd I don't have to be concerned with what others think.
If you want to continue posting to this forum, you do have to be concerned with what others thing.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 05, 2016, 09:04:58 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 05, 2016, 09:04:58 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 05, 2016, 06:08:17 PMIf you are unconcerned with what others think, then why are you here?
You seem to take issue with the thought that man designed various methods to please God. God on the other hand (biblically) says that man can NOT please God. Man wants to placate God. It can be understood that the wages of any sin in any form is DEATH and eternal separation from GOD. God had to pay the penalty Himself and suffer in our place ---- the perfect for that which is imperfect.
There is no ideology involved. I believe God sent Christ to suffer and die in my place. I admit to God that I'm imperfect and thank Him for His gift and ask God to continue His transformation of me towards the model of Jesus. It doesn't cost me anything. I don't have to go to a particular building on a particular day. I don't have to conform to the opinions of anyone else. I don't have to be politically correct. I don't have to perform penitence. And I don't have to be concerned with what others think.
The key word in all of this is 'believe'. You have belief. And you have no critical thinking, no evidence, no facts, no proof.
I don't take issue with your god--that would be like taking issue with Bugs Bunny, or Pecos Bill or Superman. They are fictional, so how can I have an issue with them??? What I have issue with is that people who believe as you do want to tell me how to believe and they want to control all of my actions so I act as they deem to be the moral or correct way. In my view, that is vile. And immoral.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on March 05, 2016, 09:30:42 PM
Post by: aitm on March 05, 2016, 09:30:42 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 05, 2016, 06:08:17 PM
You seem to take issue with the thought that man designed various methods to please God.
Of the tens of thousands of gods man has invented, they most all demand that man must "please" the god. Yours is no different, just another ridiculously embarrassing myth that you accept because your parents told you to. You are not special, you are simply deluded and embarrassed to admit it. That is why you are here, to justify your embarrassment. You continue to toss out hand picked verses like they are anything other than mythology. But alas, in the end, your god is still 2000 years late and you are simply to embarrassed by the obvious to admit your were fooled, by your parents. It is alright, billions share your dilemma, you you were taught by your parents and surely they could not be wrong eh? You have convinced yourself, you cannot convince people who understand fact from fiction.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:02:29 AM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:02:29 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 05, 2016, 09:04:58 PM
If you are unconcerned with what others think, then why are you here?
The key word in all of this is 'believe'. You have belief. And you have no critical thinking, no evidence, no facts, no proof.
I don't take issue with your god--that would be like taking issue with Bugs Bunny, or Pecos Bill or Superman. They are fictional, so how can I have an issue with them??? What I have issue with is that people who believe as you do want to tell me how to believe and they want to control all of my actions so I act as they deem to be the moral or correct way. In my view, that is vile. And immoral.
I want you to have eternal life. For proof there exists the written Word, the dramatic changed lives of a multitude of people (both historical & contemporary), the continued unreasonable hate leveed towards the Jewish people, and the fulfillment of prophecy. Everyone has an opinion that is going to upset someone. The problem is, whose opinion is society to allow at the expense of whom?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 06, 2016, 08:05:45 AM
Post by: Baruch on March 06, 2016, 08:05:45 AM
If you don't know what "eternity" means, how do you know what "eternal life" means? It doesn't mean sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya forever and ever, amen. It simply means poetically, to be fully alive. We all strive for this, each in our own way (otherwise there is no point in having more than one person exist). Eternity doesn't equal interminable.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 06, 2016, 08:30:30 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 06, 2016, 08:30:30 AM
Everything is aside, why would anyone want to have 'eternal' life? Can anyone even begin to comprehend the meaning of existing for all eternity? What does that even mean?
And how is it that you don't ask these questions, but just want to have an 'eternal' life?
And how is it that you don't ask these questions, but just want to have an 'eternal' life?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 06, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 06, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 06, 2016, 08:30:30 AMEverything is aside, why would anyone want to have 'eternal' life?Because the best movie in history told me to.
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/537c04b591027886f64ef2cd95b8c875/tumblr_ncqzk6ujDH1r6rjufo1_500.png)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 06, 2016, 09:54:35 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 06, 2016, 09:54:35 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 06, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
Because the best movie in history told me to.
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/537c04b591027886f64ef2cd95b8c875/tumblr_ncqzk6ujDH1r6rjufo1_500.png)
Bu he means the opposite. They are all going to be giant bug food soon.
And no you won't be having daily unisex group showers. :lol:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 06, 2016, 09:56:33 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 06, 2016, 09:56:33 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 06, 2016, 09:54:35 AM(http://media.riffsy.com/images/e01f3bcec523243690650e6143a8bc8e/raw)
Bu he means the opposite. They are all going to be giant bug food soon.
And no you won't be having daily unisex group showers. :lol:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 06, 2016, 10:47:44 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 06, 2016, 10:47:44 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 06, 2016, 09:56:33 AM
(http://media.riffsy.com/images/e01f3bcec523243690650e6143a8bc8e/raw)
Oh. OK, OK I get it now. :lol:
But still no unisex showers. :sad2:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 06, 2016, 12:19:12 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 06, 2016, 12:19:12 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:02:29 AMEternal life, like the Fountain of Youth, is what everybody wants--a very popular fiction. But there is no proof for either bit of fiction. The written Word as you like to call it, is also a work of fiction. Read it and it will be clear to you. Study how it came about, and it will be clear that it is fiction and why it is put together the way it is. BTW, when you say 'The Word', which one is it exactly? Do you know? Look in the cover and tell me what the name of this 'book' is and when it was compiled. Then I'll know which Bible you are referring to.
I want you to have eternal life. For proof there exists the written Word, the dramatic changed lives of a multitude of people (both historical & contemporary), the continued unreasonable hate leveed towards the Jewish people, and the fulfillment of prophecy. Everyone has an opinion that is going to upset someone. The problem is, whose opinion is society to allow at the expense of whom?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 06, 2016, 01:00:35 PM
Post by: reasonist on March 06, 2016, 01:00:35 PM
Yes, littlenipper, you quote from a book, and as proof of it's authenticity you use.....the same book. Circular reasoning at it's finest.
Let's assume the OT is the true word of a god. If you read it carefully, you will find that this omnibenevolent father of your hero killed over 2 million people! Not my numbers; all can be checked and verified. Satan on the other hand, killed only 10 (ten!) people in the good book. Now as a reasonable person, littlenipper, you have to worship Satan if anything.
Now in YOUR book, the NT, please read Matthew 5:17-18 and you will find that your invisible friend wants "every jot and tittle" of his father's word adhered to. That includes stoning of disobedient children, adulterers, fortune tellers, people who work on Saturdays and so many more. Now either you ignore Jesus according to Matthew or you go out on a killing spree. If you don't, you are a cherry picker with selective adherence to the book you so often quote.
However, I understand completely why you ignore all the evidence we presented here. We would all be like you even 200 years ago. Because we didn't know better! Today we have the internet, libraries, book stores, science magazines and so much more to tell us what makes the universe work the way it does. In order to keep your faith, you HAVE to ignore all the evidence. That's the only way to stay in your bubble of wish thinking.
Let's assume the OT is the true word of a god. If you read it carefully, you will find that this omnibenevolent father of your hero killed over 2 million people! Not my numbers; all can be checked and verified. Satan on the other hand, killed only 10 (ten!) people in the good book. Now as a reasonable person, littlenipper, you have to worship Satan if anything.
Now in YOUR book, the NT, please read Matthew 5:17-18 and you will find that your invisible friend wants "every jot and tittle" of his father's word adhered to. That includes stoning of disobedient children, adulterers, fortune tellers, people who work on Saturdays and so many more. Now either you ignore Jesus according to Matthew or you go out on a killing spree. If you don't, you are a cherry picker with selective adherence to the book you so often quote.
However, I understand completely why you ignore all the evidence we presented here. We would all be like you even 200 years ago. Because we didn't know better! Today we have the internet, libraries, book stores, science magazines and so much more to tell us what makes the universe work the way it does. In order to keep your faith, you HAVE to ignore all the evidence. That's the only way to stay in your bubble of wish thinking.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: leo on March 06, 2016, 02:08:35 PM
Post by: leo on March 06, 2016, 02:08:35 PM
And don't forget Christianity is based in the false premise that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. The Jews are right about Jesus don't being their messiah but they are wrong about the Messiah. The messiah will never come because there isn't such a thing as the messiah. A completely made up concept.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 06, 2016, 04:42:17 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 06, 2016, 04:42:17 PM
Quote from: leo on March 06, 2016, 02:08:35 PMAnd what many don't realize is that the first messiah was Joshua. Moses brought the Jews into the desert and to the edge of the Promised Land. Joshua actually took them into the Promised Land and secured it at Jericho. BTW, Joshua and Jesus are the same name and mean the same--Savior. The Jews created the first Messiah and have been yearning for him ever since.
And don't forget Christianity is based in the false premise that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. The Jews are right about Jesus don't being their messiah but they are wrong about the Messiah. The messiah will never come because there isn't such a thing as the messiah. A completely made up concept.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:20:33 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:20:33 PM
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on March 05, 2016, 08:41:07 PM
Your belief IS your ideology. Those two words mean the same thing in this context.
You make a very poor ambassador for your beliefs if you don't know enough about your beliefs to express them coherently.
If you want to continue posting to this forum, you do have to be concerned with what others thing.
It isn't my ideology, because I didn't institute it nor formulate it. I am compelled to accept it because nothing else fills the void in understanding nature for me. The following questions are answered: Why am I here? Where am I headed? And what happens to me if I don't do anything?
Out of these, the 'What happens if I don't do anything?', is the most haunting for me; as it comes with what the personal variable of choice. As a person of some age, I have witnessed the change in American culture, from one of soul searching to one of shifting blame.
There are of course other belief systems; however, I am far from perfect. If I'm required to be perfect, there is no hope for me. If I am not required to do anything then doing something isn't going to hurt me in the least. If I need to do something I want to know what that is and where do I find out.
The reason I posted here at all, is that I felt spiritually led to. I "accidentally" came across this forum. I cannot imagine that this is a mutual admiration society, and that thought provoking debate isn't desires by those logging in. I have no reason not to believe in heaven and hell, and not accepting such will not make such go away if indeed heaven and hell do exist.
I have talked to real people who are "Born-Again" Christians, and they do NOT come across usually as unreasonable or hateful to say the least. In fact, they seem very understanding of human weaknesses and far from unforgiving. What some see as hateful is the unwavering absolute conviction that certain forms of behavior need to be forgiven at all and not just another very acceptable way to live without any ramifications.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 06, 2016, 07:30:15 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 06, 2016, 07:30:15 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:20:33 PMI must admit that this is your first honest (that is a poor word, I probably mean accurate because I don't consider you to be a liar--blind maybe, but not really dishonest) post on this site. And I appreciate it. This, I especially appreciate: "It isn't my ideology, because I didn't institute it nor formulate it. I am compelled to accept it because nothing else fills the void in understanding nature for me. The following questions are answered: Why am I here? Where am I headed? And what happens to me if I don't do anything? " You are answering those eternal questions we all ask ourselves and you are answering them as best you can. I can't fault that. What I find interesting and if you want to, we can explore the different answers I came up with; for I did and do ask myself those very same questions. My answers lead me directly away from believing in any god or gods. I am convinced that there cannot be a god. I will give you a quick reply to those questions:
It isn't my ideology, because I didn't institute it nor formulate it. I am compelled to accept it because nothing else fills the void in understanding nature for me. The following questions are answered: Why am I here? Where am I headed? And what happens to me if I don't do anything?
Out of these, the 'What happens if I don't do anything?', is the most haunting for me; as it comes with what the personal variable of choice. As a person of some age, I have witnessed the change in American culture, from one of soul searching to one of shifting blame.
There are of course other belief systems; however, I am far from perfect. If I'm required to be perfect, there is no hope for me. If I am not required to do anything then doing something isn't going to hurt me in the least. If I need to do something I want to know what that is and where do I find out.
The reason I posted here at all, is that I felt spiritually led to. I "accidentally" came across this forum. I cannot imagine that this is a mutual admiration society, and that thought provoking debate isn't desires by those logging in. I have no reason not to believe in heaven and hell, and not accepting such will not make such go away if indeed heaven and hell do exist.
I have talked to real people who are "Born-Again" Christians, and they do NOT come across usually as unreasonable or hateful to say the least. In fact, they seem very understanding of human weaknesses and far from unforgiving. What some see as hateful is the unwavering absolute conviction that certain forms of behavior need to be forgiven at all and not just another very acceptable way to live without any ramifications.
--Why am I here? There is no why--it is all happenstance and biology. Nature does not care one way or the other if I exist or not. Whatever meaning my life has comes from me and nowhere else. Lest you think that is rather bleak, I assure you it is not. My life has meaning and always did. The meaning is derived from doing that which makes me feel good--and that which makes me feel good is to treat those around me with respect and courtesy. And to love and care for those who are in my immediate life.
--Where am I headed? Who knows. I do know that one can never predict tomorrow with any degree of accuracy. One must life in the moment to live life fully. That does not mean one does not plan ahead; but one must be aware that life has a way of 'happening' and one then has to chose how to deal with life. It is in the life choices we make that determines (as much as can be) what lies ahead--or at least how one handles what lies ahead.
--What happens to me if I don't do anything? Not sure how to address this one. I guess if I did not give any thought to how I chose to move forward from the happenings of life and just go with the flow, my life would feel out of control. And even if it really is, I do know that for the most part I have practiced making and not making good sound choices. I feel that I am in as much control as I can be.
--What happens when I die? You did not list this, but I'm sure you have thought of it. I go into the ground and am returned slowly into atoms that are part of the universe. That's that. Does that frighten me? No. Does that upset me? No. I was lucky enough to have been afforded a stretch of existence we call life. I am grateful for that--and I have enjoyed the journey and suspect I will continue to do so.
So, you see, we think the same questions and come up with totally different answers. And that is the way of the world--or should be. You should be free to ask and meet those questions as you see fit--as long as you don't infringe on my ability to do the same. I am in total disagreement on the answers you have come up for you. But you have every right (to be dead wrong) to chose what is right for you. And it is even more interesting to me that we have read the same basic literature (the Bible--although I don't know which version you have read) and have come up with the opposite thoughts about it. I regard it as proof that you are wrong--and you regard it as proof you are right.
I'm not sure what force drove you to come here and preach, but I do know that whatever souls you think you are rescuing don't exist here. But if you'd like to have a discussion as to why you and I come to totally different answers to the same questions, I'm willing to have that discussion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 06, 2016, 07:45:46 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 06, 2016, 07:45:46 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:20:33 PMThe reason I posted here at all, is that I felt spiritually led to. I "accidentally" came across this forum. I cannot imagine that this is a mutual admiration society, and that thought provoking debate isn't desires by those logging in. I have no reason not to believe in heaven and hell, and not accepting such will not make such go away if indeed heaven and hell do exist.We love thought-provoking debates here. People like you are just very poor suppliers. :lol:
You only came here to preach at us, that much is clear. If, by some small chance, you are making a sincere attempt at creating a dialogue, you are doing a poor job at it. Most everyone here is a skeptic of one variety or another. We arrived at our current positions because we found facts more compelling than feelings; but all you offer is the latter, and we long ago put that method of thinking behind us.
Some atheists do indeed convert (or revert) to theism in one form or another, and vice-versa. I do not dismiss their thinking on account of that conversion, nor do they dismiss mine. What you will find common amongst those people, however, is that they do not resort to emotional arguments like you do: they have thought their ideas through and decided that they make logical sense. If they choose to argue, they will attempt to use facts and logic for the most part. And I respect them for that: I would much rather surround myself with thinkers who don't agree with me than with morons who do.
I'm not asking you to agree with the atheist position. I just want you to meet us in the middle with some critical thinking.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: leo on March 06, 2016, 07:56:41 PM
Post by: leo on March 06, 2016, 07:56:41 PM
And the problem is that this littlenipper dude want us to convert to his Christian religion. You must prove that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. First things first. And you must prove your deity exists.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on March 06, 2016, 08:10:08 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on March 06, 2016, 08:10:08 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:20:33 PMI have talked to real people who are "Born-Again" Christians, and they do NOT come across usually as unreasonable or hateful to say the least. In fact, they seem very understanding of human weaknesses and far from unforgiving. What some see as hateful is the unwavering absolute conviction that certain forms of behavior need to be forgiven at all and not just another very acceptable way to live without any ramifications.
I was a Christian for the majority of my life. I've had experience with Pentecostals, Lutherans, and Baptists. I wonder what denomination you are, but despite the big differences between all three, in my experience, they all have big weaknesses that are tied to their beliefs. First, the Pentecostals, or to be more specific, the United Pentecostal church, of which the majority of my family identify with... I could write a whole book on how screwed up they are. From senselessly holding on to the social norms of the 1800's (mostly rules applying to what women can wear, do with their hair, etc) to competing in babble free-for-alls in church (their interpretation of "speaking in tongues"), I can find no redeeming qualities in their population.
Then there are the Lutherans. Out of the three, these are the most tolerable of the bunch. Out of the three, they are generally the most open minded. However, despite being a Protestant denomination, they hold onto a lot of the traditions of the Catholics. In my experience, Lutherans are so confused by their self-conflicting beliefs that they often rely on personal experience to find their answers. This makes them highly emotional, as they allow their imagined convictions from God to dictate their life decisions. They're supposedly forgiven, yet they won't stop feeling guilty about all the evil things they do like... Well, most of them never did anything really bad, but they're "sinners" by default no matter what they've done. They strike me as atheists waiting to come out, and they would be much more emotionally healthy if they do.
And lastly, there's the Baptists. At first, I liked this denomination the best because it most accurately teaches and applies Biblical teachings. Now that I'm not a Christian anymore, I loathe it because it most accurately teaches and applies Biblical teachings. Their first weakness comes from trying to apply the Bible, a book written in and for a much more barbaric society, to modern times. They ignore common sense and science in favor of the "truths" of scripture, which were debunked and dismissed by secular people ages ago. But besides being a plague on Western society, holding back progress, they're also incredibly self-righteous. Because they see their personal interpretations as fact, they tend to unapologetically tell everyone else what they should do with their own lives, and judge others "in love." Hell, there was even one who overheard my conversation about the movie "Taken," and chastised me for endorsing violence. Yeah, I'm sure that if his daughter was kidnapped and sold into the sex slave trade, then he would have so much sympathy for the kidnappers.
All in all, my experience with Christians is that they are judgemental, overemotional, and give too much credit to their own opinions. There are good Christians out there, but they are good despite being Christian. The real reason you cannot see this, even though the truth is right in front of you, is that your definition of "goodness" is tied to religious piety. The more "Christian" they are, the better human beings they are in your eyes. But people who are not Christians who look at how Christians behave do not see them as model citizens. Instead, they judge Christians by their actions, and the number one word used to describe them is this: "hypocrites."
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 07, 2016, 03:42:03 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 07, 2016, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 04, 2016, 05:29:50 PMSo what you're saying is that you are unable to refute a single thing I said, so rather than offer any evidence in support of your beliefs you have once again resorted to nothing more than asserting that you are correct.
Did you ever think that there is no other "religious" document that is equal with the Bible? The Bible is not a book of magic. It is a book of salvation and a wise pattern to live by.
As for the Bible not being a book of magic, have you ever read it? You don't recall Moses vs Pharaohs magician? You don't recall the woman with "familiar spirits" raising the ghost of Samuel? You don't recall 10 plagues of Egypt, Jesus healing the sick, water into wine or 2 people being raised from the dead? I don't care if you prefer to call most of that "miracles", it's just magic by another name, and Pharaoh's "magician" was magic by no other name.
That there is no other religious document equal to the Bible, that's your opinion. Any high school kid can tell you that whether a book is "good" or "bad" is purely opinion. I'm not sure why that's hard for you to figure out. As for it being a "wise pattern to live by", I suppose that depends on which parts you "live by", doesn't it? Because you don't live by the whole of the Bible. I'm going to assume you don't go around killing every witch you see per the instructions in Exodus 22:18. I'm going to assume you don't live in a household with one husband, several wives and several more concubines, legally purchased from their fathers per Biblical teachings. I'm going to assume this is also not a household where the woman has to go live alone in the forest 7 days out of every month. I'm also assuming that you don't keep track of how long a woman is "unclean" after having a baby, 7 days if it's a boy, 14 if it's a girl. If any of that is wrong, please, feel free to correct me. If all of my assumptions are wrong then congratulations! You live by even the unpopular parts of the Bible. I'm sure you'll be very popular in prison after your murder conviction.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on March 07, 2016, 08:59:12 PM
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on March 07, 2016, 08:59:12 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 06, 2016, 06:20:33 PMIt isn't my ideology, because I didn't institute it nor formulate it. I am compelled to accept it because nothing else fills the void in understanding nature for me. The following questions are answered: Why am I here? Where am I headed? And what happens to me if I don't do anything?
If it is what you believe, then it is your ideology. You do not have to originate it for it to be your ideology. Quit playing semantic games with me.
It is your belief, it is your religion, it is your ideology. You didn't create it, but it is yours.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 07, 2016, 09:47:53 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 07, 2016, 09:47:53 PM
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on March 07, 2016, 08:59:12 PM
If it is what you believe, then it is your ideology. You do not have to originate it for it to be your ideology. Quit playing semantic games with me.
It is your belief, it is your religion, it is your ideology. You didn't create it, but it is yours.
Is this your ideology?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 07, 2016, 11:05:19 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 07, 2016, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 07, 2016, 09:47:53 PMDid he mention hookers and blackjack? Then no.
Is this your ideology?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on March 08, 2016, 11:58:20 AM
Post by: stromboli on March 08, 2016, 11:58:20 AM
Based on the fact that we get many so-called Christians on here that have different beliefs than the orthodox views, religion is yours. You internalize it and accept it, it is yours. Every church I went to maintained that a relationship with Jesus was a personal one.
You believe in Jesus without any objective or outside evidence. Without the bible and Christian claims, Jesus doesn't exist. to wit:
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/de1f373a2f3a8ecfe11a70c6dde0ead2/tumblr_o3nch6g75k1rpw0zao1_1280.jpg)
So guess what? Until you can objectively prove Jesus even existed, your belief is of myth and superstition. Have fun with that.
You believe in Jesus without any objective or outside evidence. Without the bible and Christian claims, Jesus doesn't exist. to wit:
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/de1f373a2f3a8ecfe11a70c6dde0ead2/tumblr_o3nch6g75k1rpw0zao1_1280.jpg)
So guess what? Until you can objectively prove Jesus even existed, your belief is of myth and superstition. Have fun with that.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2016, 01:01:36 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2016, 01:01:36 PM
This is why a spiritual Jesus (like the spirit of Christmas) trumps the historical Jesus anytime. As long as children believe in Santa Claus, then spiritually Santa Claus will come alive every December.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 08, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
Post by: trdsf on March 08, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
I think the much more interesting and important question is: how many edits and translations have they gone through before the versions currently in circulation? We don't have any of the source documents; the earliest complete copies of any of the NT books date to 350CE and the earliest fragments to 150-175CE, and those are also in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic -- translations from the very start. And not many of us understand Koine Greek to read them for ourselves anyway.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 08, 2016, 02:18:25 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 08, 2016, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 08, 2016, 02:10:09 PMThat is so true! And if I remember correctly, none of the fragments agree with other fragments. Plus, errors upon errors were compounded when the King James Version was worked on; and that is because the first printings of the bible were hurried for economic reasons, of course. Not the greatest of care was taken as to the accuracy of of any of the translated bibles first printed. The bottom line is that 'The Bible' did not just drop out of the sky straight out of God's hands, complete and error free.
I think the much more interesting and important question is: how many edits and translations have they gone through before the versions currently in circulation? We don't have any of the source documents; the earliest complete copies of any of the NT books date to 350CE and the earliest fragments to 150-175CE, and those are also in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic -- translations from the very start. And not many of us understand Koine Greek to read them for ourselves anyway.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on March 08, 2016, 08:33:21 PM
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on March 08, 2016, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 07, 2016, 09:47:53 PM
Is this your ideology?
It's called "English", do you speak it?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 08, 2016, 09:24:49 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 08, 2016, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on March 08, 2016, 08:33:21 PMWorks better if you link the video.
It's called "English", do you speak it?
[spoiler=The Video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvWDNPriUY8[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2016, 10:14:31 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2016, 10:14:31 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 08, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
I think the much more interesting and important question is: how many edits and translations have they gone through before the versions currently in circulation? We don't have any of the source documents; the earliest complete copies of any of the NT books date to 350CE and the earliest fragments to 150-175CE, and those are also in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic -- translations from the very start. And not many of us understand Koine Greek to read them for ourselves anyway.
Judeo-Greek ... not Koine (pagan). But a mere technicality. There was a whole kaleidoscope of Jesus genre literature ... and before that, oral traditions as well (see Gospel of Thomas). The version labeled Mark is the closest to the spoken language, but this could have been artificial. The other synoptics and the Gospel of John are written compositions. Yet most of the evangelists (who may or may not have known anyone named Jesus) were illiterate. By tradition, the apostle John was from a priestly family, so he could probably read and write ... Paul was clearly literate, yet not well, because he had to use a secretary that he dictated to. Jesus is described as someone who knew what the weekly Torah portion was ... but not that he could actually read or write. This was part of the philosopher game ... Socrates hated books.
Not fluent, but I have studied Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Greek and Pagan Greek off and on over the past 9 years.
We will probably not get much more "buried scrolls" in the future, but you can never say never. Nobody expected the Nag Hammadhi scrolls.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 09, 2016, 02:05:08 PM
Post by: trdsf on March 09, 2016, 02:05:08 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 08, 2016, 02:18:25 PMAnd the KJV in particular was a political translation, with the English phrases turned in such a way to promote one interpretation over another and one sect of English Protestantism over others.
That is so true! And if I remember correctly, none of the fragments agree with other fragments. Plus, errors upon errors were compounded when the King James Version was worked on; and that is because the first printings of the bible were hurried for economic reasons, of course. Not the greatest of care was taken as to the accuracy of of any of the translated bibles first printed. The bottom line is that 'The Bible' did not just drop out of the sky straight out of God's hands, complete and error free.
Pretty much every codification of the bible was political in nature anyway, whether to promote one view, or to crush a "heresy".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 09, 2016, 02:54:53 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 09, 2016, 02:54:53 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 09, 2016, 02:05:08 PMExactly. And what most christians don't realize (or want to realize) is that with the invention of the printing press, the bible in all of it's forms was seen as a cash cow. There was very little concern about the accuracy of the copies, just that they were printed and sold.
And the KJV in particular was a political translation, with the English phrases turned in such a way to promote one interpretation over another and one sect of English Protestantism over others.
Pretty much every codification of the bible was political in nature anyway, whether to promote one view, or to crush a "heresy".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 05:33:32 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 05:33:32 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 09, 2016, 02:54:53 PM
Exactly. And what most christians don't realize (or want to realize) is that with the invention of the printing press, the bible in all of it's forms was seen as a cash cow. There was very little concern about the accuracy of the copies, just that they were printed and sold.
If Benjamin Franklin had his way, Hebrew would have become the national language.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 11, 2016, 05:38:19 PM
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 11, 2016, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 05:33:32 PM
If Benjamin Franklin had his way, Hebrew would have become the national language.
And where does that come from? Another of your crackpot theory?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 06:05:44 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 06:05:44 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 11, 2016, 05:38:19 PMPlease see:http://www.jewishpathways.com/jewish-history/jews-and-founding-america
And where does that come from? Another of your crackpot theory?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 06:47:32 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 06:47:32 PM
People believe total propaganda about the supermen who built the US, while flying around in spandex. The reality is much less than it seems. It would have been better for the US, if the US had adopted the turkey (as Benjamin Franklin suggested) rather than the bald eagle.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 11, 2016, 06:54:20 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 11, 2016, 06:54:20 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 05:33:32 PMWhat does this statement have to do with anything I've said? I take you at your word--you are here because you have been directed to be here--by whom or what you have not mentioned. Most likely it is a fiction that you have invented or liked ---most likely the holy rolly spirit or some such shit--and simply do drive-by's, addressing nothing, just leaving your stupid, vapid, fictional crap all over this board.
If Benjamin Franklin had his way, Hebrew would have become the national language.
I had hoped to have a little discussion about topics you like. But I think discussion is beyond your limited capacity. I'm not saying you are exactly stupid. But your ideas are. And you are simply a mouth piece vomiting back what you have been spoon fed. To bad--but very christian. Why don't you save your finger energy(it's clear you are not using any mental energy) and post on a different board?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on March 11, 2016, 07:20:01 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on March 11, 2016, 07:20:01 PM
LittleNipper, if you're going to just ignore our arguments, you may as well quit. We're not going to be swayed by your blind faith. We care about evidence and logic. So far, you've produced none of either, and ignored or dismissed all the evidence presented to you. You don't have to change your mind, but we do ask that you at least try to present intelligent arguments.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 07:24:57 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 07:24:57 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 06:47:32 PM
People believe total propaganda about the supermen who built the US, while flying around in spandex. The reality is much less than it seems. It would have been better for the US, if the US had adopted the turkey (as Benjamin Franklin suggested) rather than the bald eagle.
Well, they did. We usually eat turkey on the Lord's Thanksgiving Celebration Day. I know of no one eating eagle.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 07:37:52 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 07:37:52 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 11, 2016, 06:54:20 PM
What does this statement have to do with anything I've said? I take you at your word--you are here because you have been directed to be here--by whom or what you have not mentioned. Most likely it is a fiction that you have invented or liked ---most likely the holy rolly spirit or some such shit--and simply do drive-by's, addressing nothing, just leaving your stupid, vapid, fictional crap all over this board.
I had hoped to have a little discussion about topics you like. But I think discussion is beyond your limited capacity. I'm not saying you are exactly stupid. But your ideas are. And you are simply a mouth piece vomiting back what you have been spoon fed. To bad--but very christian. Why don't you save your finger energy(it's clear you are not using any mental energy) and post on a different board?
And I suppose you believe the Universe began as a lot of nothing that was tightly packed together and exploded forming the entire Universe billions and billions and billions of years ago. And at some point earth came to be and life began from some primordial slime struck by lightening. And this has been not been spoon fed to you because you figured this all out yourself! You have all the proof filed right inside your little noggin. How scientific of you --- and you imagine that you are not religious..... Everybody believes something.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hydra009 on March 11, 2016, 07:59:01 PM
Post by: Hydra009 on March 11, 2016, 07:59:01 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 07:37:52 PMAnd I suppose you believe the Universe began as aFIFY and yes, that's what I actually believe. And that's based on what experts have found out so far about the universe. We know that galaxies are moving away from each other. We know about background cosmic radiation. And we know that all life on Earth consisted only of single-celled organisms at one point. What we're left with are some pretty inescapable conclusions. The fact that they may not jive with your religious beliefs is irrelevant to me.lot of nothing that was tightly packed togethersingularity andexplodedexpanded forming the entire Universebillions and billions and billions ofroughly 13.8 billion years ago. And at some point earth came to be and life began fromsome primordial slime struck by lighteningnon-life through abiogenesis.
QuoteAnd this has been not been spoon fed to you because you figured this all out yourself! And like everyone who receives a basic education, I've been You have all the proof filed right inside your little noggin. How scientific of you --- and you imagine that you are not religious..... Everybody believes something.I received a basic education which communicated the prevailing models of the history life on Earth and the history of the universe. I consider myself fortunate to be able to rely on expert knowledge on such things and not to have to resort to some illiterate bronze age herdsman's fanciful tale about what the early universe was like.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:07:08 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:07:08 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 11, 2016, 07:59:01 PM
FIFTY and yes, that's what I actually believe. And that's based on what experts have found out so far about the universe. We know that galaxies are moving away from each other. We know about background cosmic radiation. And we know that all life on Earth consisted only of single-celled organisms at one point. What we're left with are some pretty inescapable conclusions. The fact that they may not give with your religious beliefs is irrelevant to me.
I received a basic education which communicated the prevailing models of the history life on Earth and the history of the universe. I consider myself fortunate to be able to rely on expert knowledge on such things and not to have to resort to some illiterate bronze age herdsman's fanciful tale about what the early universe was like.
And I believe what the Creator reveals in His inerrant Word. I am happy to say that I'll experience an eternity with God were your story will be irrelevant.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 08:12:37 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 08:12:37 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:07:08 PM
And I believe what the Creator reveals in His inerrant Word. I am happy to say that I'll experience an eternity with God were your story will be irrelevant.
Don't be so certain, that would be immodest ... on "word" ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wujVMIYzYXg
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:31:38 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:31:38 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 08:12:37 PM
Don't be so certain, that would be immodest ... on "word" ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wujVMIYzYXg
John 3:16
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 11, 2016, 08:45:04 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 11, 2016, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:07:08 PMWhen did you last hear the Creator's word then? Last week? Thursday three years ago? When was the last time the cloud's parted and this fellow
And I believe what the Creator reveals in His inerrant Word. I am happy to say that I'll experience an eternity with God were your story will be irrelevant.
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/1/13/Monty_python_god_animation_talking_.png/revision/latest?cb=20100430205337)
looked down upon you to speak his word to you?
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:31:38 PMBut that's John's word, not Yahuwahu's.
John 3:16
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hydra009 on March 11, 2016, 08:54:21 PM
Post by: Hydra009 on March 11, 2016, 08:54:21 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:07:08 PMSo...basically this is who I'm communicating with:
And I believe what the Creator reveals in His inerrant Word. I am happy to say that I'll experience an eternity with God were your story will be irrelevant.
(http://i.imgur.com/evHQkNH.gif)
*snaps fingers in hope of a reaction*
Nope, just a vacant stare.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on March 11, 2016, 09:15:08 PM
Post by: stromboli on March 11, 2016, 09:15:08 PM
The Hebrew Bible was used by the Puritans in response to the Church of England's punitive ways. Hebrew was influential early on, such that William and Mary and other early universities even gave speeches in it.
As far as Franklin or anyone else wanting Hebrew as a language, it was meant in terms of the use of the Hebrew Bible. As to whether Franklin proposed it as a language is another story. In any case it was done in opposition to England as much as any other reason
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48955806.html
Couple of things: the Jews as a whole have never accepted Christ as their savior. This is the 21st century, not the 16th. Early political and cultural divisions in U. S. history are incidental to anything to do with the truth of Christianity or anything in terms of evidence.
The argument that Christianity is a fabrication is backed by a litany of historical data that contradicts claims by Christian apologists. All of the main events of the bible are fable, allegory or outright fiction.
The Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark come from Babylonian myth. Exodus never happened and Jesus Christ was not mentioned in any account of that day that would pertain to Israel. Carry on.
Quote"At the time of the American Revolution, the interest in the knowledge of Hebrew was so widespread as to allow the circulation of the story that 'certain members of Congress proposed that the use of English be formally prohibited in the United States, and Hebrew substituted for it.'"
As far as Franklin or anyone else wanting Hebrew as a language, it was meant in terms of the use of the Hebrew Bible. As to whether Franklin proposed it as a language is another story. In any case it was done in opposition to England as much as any other reason
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48955806.html
Couple of things: the Jews as a whole have never accepted Christ as their savior. This is the 21st century, not the 16th. Early political and cultural divisions in U. S. history are incidental to anything to do with the truth of Christianity or anything in terms of evidence.
The argument that Christianity is a fabrication is backed by a litany of historical data that contradicts claims by Christian apologists. All of the main events of the bible are fable, allegory or outright fiction.
The Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark come from Babylonian myth. Exodus never happened and Jesus Christ was not mentioned in any account of that day that would pertain to Israel. Carry on.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 11, 2016, 09:38:52 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 11, 2016, 09:38:52 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 11, 2016, 08:54:21 PMYou are not 'communicating' with anybody. Communication happens when another party hears you and says something back that indicates he understood what you said. Littlenipper has not done that. He doesn't care what you say--he is lost in his own fictional world and cannot be communicated with.
So...basically this is who I'm communicating with:
(http://i.imgur.com/evHQkNH.gif)
*snaps fingers in hope of a reaction*
Nope, just a vacant stare.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 11:28:53 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 11:28:53 PM
The Bible is meant to be heard, not read ... listen to at least GofJ 1:1 ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lb2HPeO00I
The beginning of the Gospel of John (actually by anonymous) is a chiastic poem, that is not identifiable as Christian vs Pagan. It is preamble hymn borrowed from another Mystery religion like Pythagoreanism. The word "logos" is a technical term from Greek philosophy, starting with the philosopher Heraclitus, but more general than the Pythagorean "arithmos". It is similar in idea to the transcendental "dharma" of Mahayana Buddhism. It also has antecedents in ancient Egyptian mythology and OT theology. In Greek gnosticism, a personalized "logos" is not unlike "demiurge" ... a subordinate god, under the high mother goddess "sophia" ... like in Greek pagan mythology with Hephaestus under Zeus (who also goes under the name Dios).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lb2HPeO00I
The beginning of the Gospel of John (actually by anonymous) is a chiastic poem, that is not identifiable as Christian vs Pagan. It is preamble hymn borrowed from another Mystery religion like Pythagoreanism. The word "logos" is a technical term from Greek philosophy, starting with the philosopher Heraclitus, but more general than the Pythagorean "arithmos". It is similar in idea to the transcendental "dharma" of Mahayana Buddhism. It also has antecedents in ancient Egyptian mythology and OT theology. In Greek gnosticism, a personalized "logos" is not unlike "demiurge" ... a subordinate god, under the high mother goddess "sophia" ... like in Greek pagan mythology with Hephaestus under Zeus (who also goes under the name Dios).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 12, 2016, 09:33:50 PM
Post by: trdsf on March 12, 2016, 09:33:50 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 08:07:08 PMAh, yes. The "inerrant" word that says pi is equal to exactly three, gives four conflicting and in some cases mutually exclusive accounts of what happened during the crucifixion story, and can't agree on Jeshua bar-Joseph's genealogy back to David, even though a) that's supposed to have been prophesied and b) only really matters if Joseph was bio-dad, not step-dad.
And I believe what the Creator reveals in His inerrant Word. I am happy to say that I'll experience an eternity with God were your story will be irrelevant.
See, you can't just say that this book is the inerrant word of your god. You can believe it, if you like, but you have no business whatsoever expecting us to have to believe it too. That's a bit to big an ask to just take your word for it. You need to demonstrate it, not assert it.
Lemme give you a good place to start (http://bibviz.com/); when you've cleared those up rather than pretending they don't exist and can make one logical whole out of a collection of disparate re- and mis-translated texts written twenty to twenty-five centuries ago by non-historians, which were then twisted to suit the political and philosophical needs of almost every major political figure in Western Europe since, let us know.
Otherwise, you're just preaching, and this is a non-prophet organization.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 12, 2016, 09:40:36 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 12, 2016, 09:40:36 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 12, 2016, 09:33:50 PM
Ah, yes. The "inerrant" word that says pi is equal to exactly three, gives four conflicting and in some cases mutually exclusive accounts of what happened during the crucifixion story, and can't agree on Jeshua bar-Joseph's genealogy back to David, even though a) that's supposed to have been prophesied and b) only really matters if Joseph was bio-dad, not step-dad.
See, you can't just say that this book is the inerrant word of your god. You can believe it, if you like, but you have no business whatsoever expecting us to have to believe it too. That's a bit to big an ask to just take your word for it. You need to demonstrate it, not assert it.
Lemme give you a good place to start (http://bibviz.com/); when you've cleared those up rather than pretending they don't exist and can make one logical whole out of a collection of disparate re- and mis-translated texts written twenty to twenty-five centuries ago by non-historians, which were then twisted to suit the political and philosophical needs of almost every major political figure in Western Europe since, let us know.
Otherwise, you're just preaching, and this is a non-prophet organization.
Let me give you a little food for thought. That the equation for that large bowl at the Temple is also presenting its thickness. I suppose you didn't see that coming...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 13, 2016, 11:51:02 AM
Post by: trdsf on March 13, 2016, 11:51:02 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 12, 2016, 09:40:36 PMNo it isn't. It gives the diameter, and the perimeter, and the calculation is obvious. And you have ignored everything else I said, and thought that I would be distracted by this nonsense that you created whole-cloth.
Let me give you a little food for thought. That the equation for that large bowl at the Temple is also presenting its thickness. I suppose you didn't see that coming...
Try answering my points rather than going HEY LOOK OVER THERE! and hoping no one notices you ducking and running.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 13, 2016, 06:51:42 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 13, 2016, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 13, 2016, 11:51:02 AM
No it isn't. It gives the diameter, and the perimeter, and the calculation is obvious. And you have ignored everything else I said, and thought that I would be distracted by this nonsense that you created whole-cloth.
Try answering my points rather than going HEY LOOK OVER THERE! and hoping no one notices you ducking and running.
Try being less demanding and more inquisitive.
The "Jewish" or "Bible" Value of "pi"
Do the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim (sections of Jewish scripture, comprising parts of the Christian "Old Testament") really say that the value of pi is three? Not actually but, due to the social pressures to look down on all things Judeo-Christian and the perverse joy certain people get out of tormenting others, I keep receiving queries on this issue. Before we do the calculations to put this old chestnut to rest, let's lay a little groundwork.
The Quote
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." â€" First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
There is a similar description in Second Chronicles 4, verses 2 through 5.
Hiram and the Phoenicians
The Phoenicians lived in what is now Lebanon. They were the creators of "royal purple", made by boiling a particular sea snail. While they did not invent glass, they did invent glass-blowing. They invented the first alphabet, from which we derive our own Latin alphabet. And they were skilled builders and artisans who exported their talents along with their legendary wood products, the fabled "cedars of Lebanon".
Hiram was the Phoenician artisan recorded as having been hired by King Solomon to design and supervise the building of the Jewish temple. The huge bowl (or "sea") at issue was used within the temple.
The Measurements
The text refers to dimensions measured in "cubits" and "handbreadths". Back in those days, measurements were not standardized as they are now. People used seat-of-the-pants measurements. Have you ever estimated the length of a bookcase by seeing how long it was compared to your outstretched arms? And then walked over to the spot where you wanted to move the bookcase, and stood against the wall, making sure that the length you'd just measured against your own body would fit in the open space? If so, then you have used "measurements" similar to those that ancient civilizations used.
The cubit was the length from the elbow to the tip of the outstretched fingers. It is commonly "standardized" today as being about eighteen inches (or about forty-six centimeters). To measure the length of a desk, say, in cubits, you would put your elbow at one end of the desk, with your hand outstretched toward the other end of the desk. Put the index finger of your other hand on the desk where your outstretched fingertips end, to mark the end of that cubit. Then move your cubit-arm over your index finger (which is marking the first cubit) so your elbow is now at your index finger, with your outstretched fingers still aiming at the other end of the desk. This measures "two cubits". Continue laying out cubits until you run out of desk, counting as you go. My desk, being seventy-two inches long, comes out to being about four and a half cubits long, as measured by my forearm.
A handsbreadth is the "hand" used to measure horses. It is the width of the palm of the person doing the measuring, and is "standardized" as being four inches (or about ten centimeters). To measure the height of the desk, start at the floor. Open your left hand with your palm facing you and your thumb up in the air (so it's out of the way). Rest your hand on the floor, with the back of your open hand against the desk, your palm still facing you, and your "pinkie" finger on the floor. Now open your right hand (again sticking your thumb up in the air so it's out of the way), and rest it on top of your left hand (so your right "pinkie" finger is across the top of your left index finger). This measures "two hands". Continue alternating hands up the side of your desk, counting as you go. My desk, being thirty inches tall, comes out to being about eleven handbreadths, as measured by my skinny little hands.
Since cubits and handbreadths are measured against a person's body, and since bodies vary, actual measurements (as opposed to "standardized" measurements) will vary from person to person. Your desk might be thirty inches tall, just like mine, but you might have bigger hands, so you might get a body-measure of only ten handbreadths. This variation is normal. Since we have no idea what Hiram's body measurements were, we'll have to approximate by using the standardized values for cubits and handbreadths.
Some Reasonable Assumptions
If this discussion of a "sea", or large bowl, had been referring to what is called an "ideal" bowl (a mathematical object, not existing in a physical sense, and having no thickness that could be felt or handled), then the text would indeed be claiming that the value of pi is three. But the text is referring to a real-world physical object, having the thick sidewalls necessary to support its own weight.
Now that you know how to measure cubits, can you see that it would be rather difficult to measure the curved surface of a bowl in cubits? Instead, a straightened rope would be used to measure the length. The rope would then have been moved to outline a circle with the desired circumference. Also, Hiram would not have just tossed some brass in the furnace and waited to see what came out. He would have designed the piece and would have given his workmen instructions.
To make a "sea" like this would likely have required a mold. The outer mold would have one dimension, and the inner mold would have another. Hiram would have given his workmen instructions regarding these measurements.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Phoenicians, being the renowned craftsmen that they were, had discovered a "rule of thumb"? Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"? When Egyptians and Babylonians came up with rules of thumb or accidentally discovered formulae like this, we credit them with being clever. Can't we do the same for the Phoenicians, even if they did occasionally â€" gasp! â€" cooperate with Jews?
Now that you have some background information, let's look at the actual numbers:
The Calculations
Here again is the quote being referred to:
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." â€" First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
The bowl is said to have had a circumference of thirty cubits and a diameter of ten cubits. The diameter is said to be "from one rim to the other", so this would be the outer diameter; that is, the diameter of the outer mold used to make the bowl.
The outer diameter, from rim to rim, was ten cubits.
The circumference is not specified as being the inner or outer circumference, but since using the outer circumference would give us the "ideal" bowl (with no width or thickness), let's instead use the inner circumference, which also, reasonably, would have been the circumference of the mold used to form the inside of the bowl. That is, we will use the two measurements which were necessary for the casting of the piece. Copyright © Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved
Using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:
outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches
To find the "Jewish" or "Bible" value for pi, we need to have the inner radius. Once we have that value, we can plug it into the formula for the circumference and compare with the given circumference value of 540 inches.
Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be:
90 â€" 4 = 86 inches
Let's do the calculations:
inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches
The inner radius and the inner circumference.
The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:
540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)
Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.
Um... Isn't "3.14" the approximation we all use for pi? Perhaps those Phoenicians were fairly accurate after all.
Top | Return to Index
Cite this article as:
Stapel, Elizabeth. "The 'Jewish' or 'Bible' Value of 'pi'." Purplemath. Available from
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm. Accessed 13 March 2016
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 13, 2016, 07:57:21 PM
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 13, 2016, 07:57:21 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 06:05:44 PM
Please see:http://www.jewishpathways.com/jewish-history/jews-and-founding-america
So the author of your article quotes another author of another book who wrote:
QuoteAt the time of the American Revolution, the interest in the knowledge of Hebrew was so widespread as to allow the circulation of the story that "certain members of Congress proposed that the use of English be formally prohibited in the United States, and Hebrew substituted for it."
According to you, hearsay from another hearsay = evidence. Yeah, I see why you're so gullible. Sure, there were Jews who followed the other Europeans to colonize the "new" world, and some of them had illustrious careers, but that is a far fetch jump to believe that "If Benjamin Franklin had his way, Hebrew would have become the national language." So far, you have failed in showing any evidence that any god exists, and you've also failed to support another crackpot theory of yours, that Benjamin would have instituted Hebrew as the national language of the USA. But I have to tell you're consistent... in being a failure...LOL.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 13, 2016, 08:33:09 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 13, 2016, 08:33:09 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 13, 2016, 06:51:42 PMIrrelevant. As long as they used the same hand/arm/whatever for measuring off the diameter and the circumference, there should have been about one and a half more whatever no matter what they used as a measure.
The Measurements
The text refers to dimensions measured in "cubits" and "handbreadths". Back in those days, measurements were not standardized as they are now. People used seat-of-the-pants measurements.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 13, 2016, 06:51:42 PMAncient peoples knew about rope. And about marked-off straightedges.
Have you ever estimated the length of a bookcase by seeing how long it was compared to your outstretched arms? And then walked over to the spot where you wanted to move the bookcase, and stood against the wall, making sure that the length you'd just measured against your own body would fit in the open space? If so, then you have used "measurements" similar to those that ancient civilizations used.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 13, 2016, 06:51:42 PMAgain, it doesn't matter whose hand/arm/whatever was used to measure out the measurements, pi is going to have the same ratio.
<snip shit about standardized body measures>
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 13, 2016, 06:51:42 PMPure conjecture.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Phoenicians, being the renowned craftsmen that they were, had discovered a "rule of thumb"? Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"?
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 13, 2016, 06:51:42 PMHmmm... now that's a particular phrase: "compass it round about." Let's take a look at "compass" used as a verb:
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." â€" First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
10.
to go or move round; make the circuit of:
It would take a week to compass his property on foot.
11.
to extend or stretch around; hem in; surround; encircle:
An old stone wall compasses their property.
12.
to attain or achieve; accomplish; obtain.
13.
to contrive; plot; scheme:
to compass a treacherous plan.
14.
to make curved or circular.
15.
to comprehend; to grasp, as with the mind:
His mind could not compass the extent of the disaster.
Meanings 12-15 seem irrelevant. Meanings 10 and 11 seem to indicate that one moves around the sea/cauldron on foot, or stretch a cord along the lip. Stretching a cord around the lip to measure circumference would be the most obvious measurement to make in terms of expressing how big it is. Furthermore, other versions of the bible makes it clear that this is an after-the-fact measurement, not a specification of a plan of the inner diameter as claimed. In short, this is an outer circumference, not an inner one as claimed.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 13, 2016, 06:51:42 PMYep. And the outer diameter should be 31 and about a half cubits. And this is the one we were given, not your "inner circumference" baloney.
The outer diameter, from rim to rim, was ten cubits.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: The Atheist on March 14, 2016, 02:22:24 AM
Post by: The Atheist on March 14, 2016, 02:22:24 AM
One of the best arguments for an early date of the synoptic gospels is the fact that the Pharisees and Saduccees are portrayed in a palpable way as oppressors of Jesus. Matthew/Mark/Luke were most likely written for communities still facing persecution by these Jewish religious leaders, which may be why their authors focused so much on Jesus one-upping them at every turn. The religious leaders were very powerful until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70, which may explain why John's gospel (written circa 90-110) hardly mentions them.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 14, 2016, 06:23:12 AM
Post by: Baruch on March 14, 2016, 06:23:12 AM
Quote from: The Atheist on March 14, 2016, 02:22:24 AM
One of the best arguments for an early date of the synoptic gospels is the fact that the Pharisees and Saduccees are portrayed in a palpable way as oppressors of Jesus. Matthew/Mark/Luke were most likely written for communities still facing persecution by these Jewish religious leaders, which may be why their authors focused so much on Jesus one-upping them at every turn. The religious leaders were very powerful until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70, which may explain why John's gospel (written circa 90-110) hardly mentions them.
Maybe ... but Jewish authorities oppressed Messianic Jews all the way until the end of the Bar Kochba war in 135 CE. And any description could be retrospective ... this matches the survival of substantial Gospel books we have, around 200 CE.
None of that makes Hellenistic novellas into history. And the Johannine material in particular, is more miraculous in content and less Jewish than say the Gospel of Matthew. The theology of the Gospel of John is closest to the genuine letters of Paul, who was the first NT writer.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 14, 2016, 07:21:25 AM
Post by: trdsf on March 14, 2016, 07:21:25 AM
Thank you, you have just destroyed your own claim that the bible is inerrant.
If it's inerrant, you don't get to engage in interpretation, you have to take what it says. You don't get to make assumptions about Phoenician potters and rim widths. You're stuck with the words on the page. As soon as you start talking about what it "really meant", you have admitted that the text is not inerrant since you need to refer to non-textual assumptions.
Your copied text doesn't even try to hide behind the fig leaf of not having original source material and dealing with translations, and I quite frankly doubt that you can explain it in your own words, much less perform the calculations therein. It was just the first thing you grabbed after googling for the appropriate biblical apologetics.
I mean, really, just claiming that "god can make a circle with a circumference to diameter ratio of 3" would have been more intellectually honest. It would still have been wrong, but it would have been more honest.
Any luck with the four conflicting reports on what happened during the crucifixion, or the simple fact that if Joseph was descended from King David and Jeshua 'bar-Joseph' wasn't actually his son but your god's then Jeshua wasn't descended from David as prophesied?
If it's inerrant, you don't get to engage in interpretation, you have to take what it says. You don't get to make assumptions about Phoenician potters and rim widths. You're stuck with the words on the page. As soon as you start talking about what it "really meant", you have admitted that the text is not inerrant since you need to refer to non-textual assumptions.
Your copied text doesn't even try to hide behind the fig leaf of not having original source material and dealing with translations, and I quite frankly doubt that you can explain it in your own words, much less perform the calculations therein. It was just the first thing you grabbed after googling for the appropriate biblical apologetics.
I mean, really, just claiming that "god can make a circle with a circumference to diameter ratio of 3" would have been more intellectually honest. It would still have been wrong, but it would have been more honest.
Any luck with the four conflicting reports on what happened during the crucifixion, or the simple fact that if Joseph was descended from King David and Jeshua 'bar-Joseph' wasn't actually his son but your god's then Jeshua wasn't descended from David as prophesied?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 14, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 14, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 14, 2016, 07:21:25 AM
Thank you, you have just destroyed your own claim that the bible is inerrant.
If it's inerrant, you don't get to engage in interpretation, you have to take what it says. You don't get to make assumptions about Phoenician potters and rim widths. You're stuck with the words on the page. As soon as you start talking about what it "really meant", you have admitted that the text is not inerrant since you need to refer to non-textual assumptions.
This is the most ridiculous thing anyone could believe. There is no problem with trying to understand that the Bible is inerrant using outside information anymore then trying to prove Jesus existed researching old historical documents that are otherwise secular /unbiblical. I already gave an explanation as to why Jesus only need the bloodline of Mary and how the Old Testament even supports such a rightful claim. However, it is interesting to realize that Jesus was related to David both through a direct blood line and through adoption. The same holds true with the early Christians. There were those who had a direct bloodline back to Jacob and then there were gentiles who were adopted into the fold.
No one is making assumptions. One simply needs to know that a bowl was fabricated. If I was to tell you that the bowl was somewhat elliptical, you would still not accept the information. Some simply do not want God to exist and yet will badger those that do, because it makes them feel somehow secure concerning their life choices.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 15, 2016, 02:12:22 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 15, 2016, 02:12:22 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 14, 2016, 10:25:52 PMThere is no problem with trying to understand that the Bible is inerrant using outside information anymore then trying to prove Jesus existed researching old historical documents that are otherwise secular/unbiblical.To paraphrase AronRa:
Any document written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so profound that no rational human being could deny the value of its contents. This text would not be subject to different interpretations, as any interpretation could only detract from the document's profundity. It would also be 100% consistent with all scientific observation, requiring no faith to believe its contents. There would therefore be no religion based on this document since its validity would be so painfully obvious that no cult following would be necessary to promote it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 15, 2016, 06:36:55 AM
Post by: Baruch on March 15, 2016, 06:36:55 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 14, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
This is the most ridiculous thing anyone could believe. There is no problem with trying to understand that the Bible is inerrant using outside information anymore then trying to prove Jesus existed researching old historical documents that are otherwise secular /unbiblical. I already gave an explanation as to why Jesus only need the bloodline of Mary and how the Old Testament even supports such a rightful claim. However, it is interesting to realize that Jesus was related to David both through a direct blood line and through adoption. The same holds true with the early Christians. There were those who had a direct bloodline back to Jacob and then there were gentiles who were adopted into the fold.
No one is making assumptions. One simply needs to know that a bowl was fabricated. If I was to tell you that the bowl was somewhat elliptical, you would still not accept the information. Some simply do not want God to exist and yet will badger those that do, because it makes them feel somehow secure concerning their life choices.
You have to use a dictionary (in whatever language you speak) to read the Bible ... and any such dictionary is unbiblical. There is no way to avoid this, even if one reads Hebrew and Greek. And interpretation comes at least thru that dictionary, if not from the deconstruction of the text by the reader.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 15, 2016, 11:11:19 AM
Post by: widdershins on March 15, 2016, 11:11:19 AM
I'm just going to assume that's a "You are correct" on LittleNipper's inability to refute anything I said, with a side of "AND you've just shown me that the Bible is, indeed, a book of magic in which pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament contains nothing but horrible patterns to live by and I was only thinking of specific, feel-good parts of the New Testament, a very small portion of the whole work, which are actually wise patterns to live by."
And all this time I thought you were simply obstinate and ignorant by choice, simply choosing to ignore anything you couldn't refute and pretend it didn't exist. Boy did you prove me wrong.
I'll leave you with a couple of inspirational and thought provoking quotes. You may want to look into the author to see if his works are a "wise pattern to live by" as well. He did, after all, believe in God.
"Anyone can deal with victory. Only the mighty can bear defeat."
"If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower."
"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"
And all this time I thought you were simply obstinate and ignorant by choice, simply choosing to ignore anything you couldn't refute and pretend it didn't exist. Boy did you prove me wrong.
I'll leave you with a couple of inspirational and thought provoking quotes. You may want to look into the author to see if his works are a "wise pattern to live by" as well. He did, after all, believe in God.
"Anyone can deal with victory. Only the mighty can bear defeat."
"If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower."
"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: The Atheist on March 15, 2016, 01:17:43 PM
Post by: The Atheist on March 15, 2016, 01:17:43 PM
Even though I'm atheist, I love reading about early Christianty. It's a fascinating subject!
Papias, a Christian who wrote circa 100 AD, discussed the gospel texts. His writings are lost, though fragments exists as quotes in other writings. One quote from Papias supports modern scholars' understanding of Mark, which is that Mark is composed of "chiasmus," or isolated anecdotes that can be arranged in any chronological order. Modern scholarship agrees with Papias that Mark is constructed as simply a string of random anecdotes and that its author was unconcerned with chronological accuracy.
To quote Papias:
Also of note is that Papias was critical of any written account of Jesus, because they were prone to inaccuracy. To paraphrase him in another passage, he "preferred the living voice of those who knew the Apostles over the dead voice of written words."
Interesting stuff.
Papias, a Christian who wrote circa 100 AD, discussed the gospel texts. His writings are lost, though fragments exists as quotes in other writings. One quote from Papias supports modern scholars' understanding of Mark, which is that Mark is composed of "chiasmus," or isolated anecdotes that can be arranged in any chronological order. Modern scholarship agrees with Papias that Mark is constructed as simply a string of random anecdotes and that its author was unconcerned with chronological accuracy.
To quote Papias:
QuoteMark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.
Also of note is that Papias was critical of any written account of Jesus, because they were prone to inaccuracy. To paraphrase him in another passage, he "preferred the living voice of those who knew the Apostles over the dead voice of written words."
Interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 15, 2016, 01:48:38 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 15, 2016, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: The Atheist on March 15, 2016, 01:17:43 PMIt has been awhile since I've read the early church fathers. But I must agree. Interesting stuff.
Even though I'm atheist, I love reading about early Christianty. It's a fascinating subject!
Papias, a Christian who wrote circa 100 AD, discussed the gospel texts. His writings are lost, though fragments exists as quotes in other writings. One quote from Papias supports modern scholars' understanding of Mark, which is that Mark is composed of "chiasmus," or isolated anecdotes that can be arranged in any chronological order. Modern scholarship agrees with Papias that Mark is constructed as simply a string of random anecdotes and that its author was unconcerned with chronological accuracy.
To quote Papias:
Also of note is that Papias was critical of any written account of Jesus, because they were prone to inaccuracy. To paraphrase him in another passage, he "preferred the living voice of those who knew the Apostles over the dead voice of written words."
Interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 15, 2016, 02:53:58 PM
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 15, 2016, 02:53:58 PM
LittleNipper's latest position:
The bible can be subject to many interpretations but it's inerrant.
:rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao:
The bible can be subject to many interpretations but it's inerrant.
:rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 15, 2016, 02:58:21 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 15, 2016, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 14, 2016, 10:25:52 PMYou came to an atheist site and WE are badgering YOU? Typical Christian persecution complex.
...Some simply do not want God to exist and yet will badger those that do, because it makes them feel somehow secure concerning their life choices.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 15, 2016, 06:07:09 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 15, 2016, 06:07:09 PM
Quote from: The Atheist on March 15, 2016, 01:17:43 PM
Even though I'm atheist, I love reading about early Christianty. It's a fascinating subject!
Papias, a Christian who wrote circa 100 AD, discussed the gospel texts. His writings are lost, though fragments exists as quotes in other writings. One quote from Papias supports modern scholars' understanding of Mark, which is that Mark is composed of "chiasmus," or isolated anecdotes that can be arranged in any chronological order. Modern scholarship agrees with Papias that Mark is constructed as simply a string of random anecdotes and that its author was unconcerned with chronological accuracy.
To quote Papias:
Also of note is that Papias was critical of any written account of Jesus, because they were prone to inaccuracy. To paraphrase him in another passage, he "preferred the living voice of those who knew the Apostles over the dead voice of written words."
Interesting stuff.
This is why few of the writings of Papias survived ... the Church burned them, along with other early Church fathers deemed heretical by later authority such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. In short, many writers only survived thru meager quotations in the writings of others, usually unsympathetic.
Echoing Socrates, one modern commentator has said that the writing of the gospels and the hallowing of some epistolic letters ... is the original sin of the Church. The proper presentation of the Gospel is in the living words and lives of saints (aka gurus).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 15, 2016, 07:05:57 PM
Post by: trdsf on March 15, 2016, 07:05:57 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 14, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
This is the most ridiculous thing anyone could believe.
The person who thinks there's an invisible sky daddy says I believe something ridiculous? Oh, that's priceless.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 14, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
There is no problem with trying to understand that the Bible is inerrant using outside information anymore then trying to prove Jesus existed researching old historical documents that are otherwise secular /unbiblical. I already gave an explanation as to why Jesus only need the bloodline of Mary and how the Old Testament even supports such a rightful claim. However, it is interesting to realize that Jesus was related to David both through a direct blood line and through adoption. The same holds true with the early Christians. There were those who had a direct bloodline back to Jacob and then there were gentiles who were adopted into the fold.
No one is making assumptions. One simply needs to know that a bowl was fabricated. If I was to tell you that the bowl was somewhat elliptical, you would still not accept the information. Some simply do not want God to exist and yet will badger those that do, because it makes them feel somehow secure concerning their life choices.
Then the bible is not inerrant. It's as simple as that. You have to interpret it to make it not contradict reality, therefore it is not in itself inerrant.
It has nothing to do with wanting a god of any sort to exist. There isn't one shred of evidence for it. There's no independent evidence for Jeshua bar-Joseph for that matter. There are a couple of references in Roman records that are anything but unequivocal, and the Josephus account is known to have been altered by a later scribe.
I got no problem with you believing there's a god. But what you can't do is say you know there's a god, unless you can offer hard, irrefutable evidence, and I have a serious problem with you expecting me to have to believe it on just your word. The only evidence you offer is a book that's known to have been deliberately re-translated to serve very temporal aims and for which there is no original source material, no corroborating contemporaneous accounts, and no simple, solid, demonstrable observations that support it.
On that basis, there's more reason to believe that Hogwarts really exists -- it's in a book that a lot of people read, and it hasn't gone through thousands of years of re- and mis-translations, we have it in the original. That's the level of evidence you're offering. And on that level of evidence, you should also be praying to Alexander the Great. He claimed to be a god. There's ancient documents claiming it -- and a lot more that attest to the historical existence of Alexander (and his divinity) than there are attesting to the historical existence of Jeshua bar-Joseph.
How many slaves do you own, or wives do you have? Owning slaves and polygamy are biblical. If the bible is inerrant as written, you should be practicing both.
This is what your level of evidence requires of you. I insist on better.
As far as badgering goes, you came here, sunshine. I didn't invade a believers' forum and try to deconvert anyone. If you're going to walk into a lion's den with a steak strapped to you, you have no business complaining when you get bit.
And, I'm still waiting for you to address the rest of the contradictions. Not just throw down an easily refuted non sequiter and claim victory on no basis at all.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on March 15, 2016, 07:49:16 PM
Post by: stromboli on March 15, 2016, 07:49:16 PM
True story bro. :2thumbs:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 15, 2016, 07:51:18 PM
Post by: reasonist on March 15, 2016, 07:51:18 PM
"How many slaves do you own, or wives do you have? Owning slaves and polygamy are biblical. If the bible is inerrant as written, you should be practicing both."
That's the gist of it. There are no Christians out there. Not one. Not even the Pope; especially not the Pope. Have you ever met or heard about anybody who kills people who work on Saturdays? Or kill divorced women who marry again? Or killed their cursing children? Of course not. They are all cherry pickers. The lame excuse is always that these pernicious verses are in the Jewish Bible or OT, but Matthew 5:17 states very clearly not to change 'a jot or tittle' of his father's word. So that's out. And since there are no Christians, they firstly will all go to hell for disobeying God's word and secondly there is no true Christianity.
Therefore the question is not if the Bible is the inerrant word of a God but rather why do the faithful not adhere to the book they so vehemently claim is inerrant? To say this is divine scripture and then just discard half of it, doesn't cut it.
That's the gist of it. There are no Christians out there. Not one. Not even the Pope; especially not the Pope. Have you ever met or heard about anybody who kills people who work on Saturdays? Or kill divorced women who marry again? Or killed their cursing children? Of course not. They are all cherry pickers. The lame excuse is always that these pernicious verses are in the Jewish Bible or OT, but Matthew 5:17 states very clearly not to change 'a jot or tittle' of his father's word. So that's out. And since there are no Christians, they firstly will all go to hell for disobeying God's word and secondly there is no true Christianity.
Therefore the question is not if the Bible is the inerrant word of a God but rather why do the faithful not adhere to the book they so vehemently claim is inerrant? To say this is divine scripture and then just discard half of it, doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 15, 2016, 07:56:07 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 15, 2016, 07:56:07 PM
In the philosophy of Structuralism ... personality and culture are a house of cards, always ready to collapse. In the philosophy of Post-Structuralism it is OK to kick the whole mess over. Now apply this to Christianity and Post-Christianity. Same process.
In a house of cards, the first rule is to not admit it is a house of cards. The second rule is to not admit that it can fall over. The third rule is to not do anything that will contradict the first two rules. The Matrix.
In a house of cards, the first rule is to not admit it is a house of cards. The second rule is to not admit that it can fall over. The third rule is to not do anything that will contradict the first two rules. The Matrix.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 08:54:47 AM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 08:54:47 AM
Quote from: widdershins on March 15, 2016, 02:58:21 PM
You came to an atheist site and WE are badgering YOU? Typical Christian persecution complex.
You label a thread site "religious" and then expect everyone to agree with atheism. Typical atheistic superiority complex.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 09:04:47 AM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 09:04:47 AM
Quote from: reasonist on March 15, 2016, 07:51:18 PM
"How many slaves do you own, or wives do you have? Owning slaves and polygamy are biblical. If the bible is inerrant as written, you should be practicing both."
That's the gist of it. There are no Christians out there. Not one. Not even the Pope; especially not the Pope. Have you ever met or heard about anybody who kills people who work on Saturdays? Or kill divorced women who marry again? Or killed their cursing children? Of course not. They are all cherry pickers. The lame excuse is always that these pernicious verses are in the Jewish Bible or OT, but Matthew 5:17 states very clearly not to change 'a jot or tittle' of his father's word. So that's out. And since there are no Christians, they firstly will all go to hell for disobeying God's word and secondly there is no true Christianity.
Therefore the question is not if the Bible is the inerrant word of a God but rather why do the faithful not adhere to the book they so vehemently claim is inerrant? To say this is divine scripture and then just discard half of it, doesn't cut it.
Jesus didn't change one jot or tittle of His Word. What Christ did was fulfill it. He did everything perfectly and through HIM we are saved --- those who put their faith and trust in Him and Him alone. Those that place their trust in keeping the LAW --- by the LAW are condemned already.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on March 16, 2016, 09:52:03 AM
Post by: stromboli on March 16, 2016, 09:52:03 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 09:04:47 AM
Jesus didn't change one jot or tittle of His Word. What Christ did was fulfill it. He did everything perfectly and through HIM we are saved --- those who put their faith and trust in Him and Him alone. Those that place their trust in keeping the LAW --- by the LAW are condemned already.
Jesus didn't change anything because it served the purposes of the people who invented him not to. Everything written down after the fact by supposed ""witnesses" that never actually met the subject of their writing is suspect. The "Gospel according to" is not the "gospel by......." Jesus, if he even existed, never wrote a word.
Your law that was not changed a jot or tittle still includes punishment of people for ridiculous reasons like tattoos, allowing the keeping of slaves and claiming a woman for a bride by raping her.
If your head was any farther up your ass you could give yourself a Tonsillectomy with your teeth. I mean that in a loving way.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
Quote from: stromboli on March 16, 2016, 09:52:03 AMYou would have to discredit the witnesses. You need to read the Bible. Jesus never married or got a tattoo --- he was poor.
Jesus didn't change anything because it served the purposes of the people who invented him not to. Everything written down after the fact by supposed ""witnesses" that never actually met the subject of their writing is suspect. The "Gospel according to" is not the "gospel by......." Jesus, if he even existed, never wrote a word.
Your law that was not changed a jot or tittle still includes punishment of people for ridiculous reasons like tattoos, allowing the keeping of slaves and claiming a woman for a bride by raping her.
If your head was any farther up your ___ you could give yourself a Tonsillectomy with your teeth. I mean that in a loving way.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on March 16, 2016, 10:24:10 AM
Post by: stromboli on March 16, 2016, 10:24:10 AM
I have read the bible. I've been studying religion for 26 years. That is why I am an atheist. Now read the objective criticisms that show the fallacies of the bible
You are a prisoner of your own beliefs. Challenge them. Use the link and refute what is written. You haven't done that because you can't. You are nothing but a fearful man shaking his crucifix at the bad people and proselyting pointlessly to people that know better.
QuoteIf the Bible is true, then these conditions are real and verifiable outside of the Bible:http://biblicalfallacies.blogspot.com/
The universe is only six thousand years old, dinosaurs never existed, the world is flat and the earth is in the center of the universe, the Sun goes around the earth, demons, invisible spirits, ghosts, holy ghosts, demons, angels, snakes, bushes, and donkeys, can talk, virgin birth is possible, god and jesus live in the clouds above, prayer has secret powers over this god, miracles and blessing do occur, invisible souls can either be saved or unsaved, depending on what a person decides to believe in their heart, the heart is the center of all thought and emotion, people can talk to god and jesus with their heart, there is no such thing as a brain, people can be raised from the dead, people can walk on water, water can be turned into wine, 5000 people can easily be fed with two loaves and two fishes, only invisible jesus can save invisible souls, diseases are caused by demons, science is of the devil, a person can live in the belly of a whale for three days and nights, a whales'stomach acid has no effect upon humans.
You are a prisoner of your own beliefs. Challenge them. Use the link and refute what is written. You haven't done that because you can't. You are nothing but a fearful man shaking his crucifix at the bad people and proselyting pointlessly to people that know better.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 16, 2016, 12:32:37 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 16, 2016, 12:32:37 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 08:54:47 AMSome of the people you've spoken with here are theists, not atheists. We don't disagree with you because you're a theist. We disagree with you because you're a thick-headed zealot.
You label a thread site "religious" and then expect everyone to agree with atheism. Typical atheistic superiority complex.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: stromboli on March 16, 2016, 10:24:10 AMIf the Bible is true, then these conditions are real and verifiable outside of the Bible:
The universe is only six thousand years old, dinosaurs never existed, the world is flat and the earth is in the center of the universe, the Sun goes around the earth, demons, invisible spirits, ghosts, holy ghosts, demons, angels, snakes, bushes, and donkeys, can talk, virgin birth is possible, god and jesus live in the clouds above, prayer has secret powers over this god, miracles and blessing do occur, invisible souls can either be saved or unsaved, depending on what a person decides to believe in their heart, the heart is the center of all thought and emotion, people can talk to god and jesus with their heart, there is no such thing as a brain, people can be raised from the dead, people can walk on water, water can be turned into wine, 5000 people can easily be fed with two loaves and two fishes, only invisible jesus can save invisible souls, diseases are caused by demons, science is of the devil, a person can live in the belly of a whale for three days and nights, a whales'stomach acid has no effect upon humans.
There are certain variables that cannot be explained if the earth is as old as is thought by evolutionists. One is that the moon is moving away from the earth. There were theories once accepted that the moon originated from the Pacific Ocean because of the this evidence. There was not enough cosmic dust found on the moon to indicate that it is billions of years old.
I never said dinosaurs never existed, and any Creationists will say that there are enough universal dragon tales around to indicate that man had at least saw dinosaurs if not had run ins with them. The Bible never said that the sun goes around the earth. Every one I've ever talked to says the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, and yet everyone knows that the Sun doesn't set much less move from East to West. However, from the perspective of planet Earth the sun appears to do this. What color is Snow? The Bible is presented to man from his vantage point. God's very act of SALVATION seems to be confusing enough for some without going off on a tangent over particulars that most people don't regard.
The rest of you logic is without logic. Only God can raise the dead. Jesus is God and therefore can raise the dead. Only God can still a storm. Jesus stilled the storm and proves He is God. God is Lord over matter. Jesus fed 5000 with just a little --- so why not?
Jesus saves invisible souls. Have you ever seen a person die? Something certainly has left the room and it isn't the body. And now we come to Jonah! Well the Bible says that this great fish was prepared by God for that moment. AND it would seem that when Jonah arrived in Nineveh he caused a great stir throughout the city. WHY?
Well, what would you look like if you spent three days in the stomach of some creature. The people were scared to death! Jonah obvious looked like death warmed over. They would likely have thought it a miracle that this man/body could even walk let alone talk. He had to be a messenger from GOD HIMSELF, he likely look the part! And what of Nineveh? It did eventually meet its fate when it reverted to it old ways...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 12:45:58 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 12:45:58 PM
What was the sin of Jonah? He didn't refuse to preach, he refused to preach to Gentiles. And that is why the book of Jonah is mentioned by Jesus himself.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 16, 2016, 12:57:50 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 16, 2016, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 12:36:33 PMI never said dinosaurs never existed and any Creationists will say that there are enough universal dragon tales around to indicate that man had at least saw dinosaurs if not had run ins with them.Which actually proves that dinosaurs and humans never coexisted, because dinosaurs don't look a thing like dragons (despite Hollywood's insistence to the contrary). The real tyrannosaurus rex could never be mistaken for anything but a giant chicken.
(http://orig00.deviantart.net/f7fb/f/2015/236/a/1/saurian_tyrannosaurus_rex_by_arvalis-d970uqo.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 01:03:18 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 01:03:18 PM
Chickens are like little dinosaurs. Even my dad recognized it before it was confirmed. The T-Rex female was larger than the male, and probably went "cluck, cluck" real loud ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 16, 2016, 01:12:15 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 16, 2016, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 01:03:18 PMThe T-Rex female was larger than the male, and probably went "cluck, cluck" real loud ;-)Be careful when stating that as fact. The idea that the T. rex hens were larger than the cocks comes from comparisons to crocodilians, which exist on a much more primitive branch of Archosauria than dinosaurs. In modern birds, if either sex is larger it is usually the cock, not the hen.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 16, 2016, 01:36:17 PM
Post by: trdsf on March 16, 2016, 01:36:17 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 10:15:14 AMYour bible is not a witness. It is only a book, without anything supporting its claims.
You would have to discredit the witnesses. You need to read the Bible. Jesus never married or got a tattoo --- he was poor.
I notice you're not even bothering trying to answer me anymore. Doubtless you'll say that I'm "beyond reaching" -- I say it's because you cannot answer.
Where is your evidence?
If your answer is only that your bible says so, then on the same evidence I can say the Greek gods exist because of ancient Hellenic writings, I can say Ahura Mazda exists because of the Avesta, I can say all the Hindu gods exist because of the Ṛgveda.
If those books do not count as evidence, then neither does yours.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 06:55:33 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 16, 2016, 01:12:15 PM
Be careful when stating that as fact. The idea that the T. rex hens were larger than the cocks comes from comparisons to crocodilians, which exist on a much more primitive branch of Archosauria than dinosaurs. In modern birds, if either sex is larger it is usually the cock, not the hen.
OK, but recent research confirms what I said. Just saying ...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 17, 2016, 03:39:07 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 17, 2016, 03:39:07 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 08:54:47 AMDon't try to turn things around. You had to go to "atheistforums.com" before you could find the section labeled "religion". And I never claimed I expected everyone to "agree" with atheism. I really don't care what bullshit you waste your life on. It's yours to waste. I simply pointed out that you are the one that came to us, not the other way around. To avoid being "badgered" one of us would have to leave, and it's our home.
You label a thread site "religious" and then expect everyone to agree with atheism. Typical atheistic superiority complex.
Again, typical Christian persecution complex, putting words in my mouth so that you can feel like my deeds are the dastardly ones. The reality is that you're here because you wanted to argue. There is no other reason for the typical Christian to come to an atheist site. We are giving you exactly what you want. Likewise, having you here breaks the monotony for us. It's a win-win for both of us, so long as your comments don't cross the line into just plain annoying. Thus, nobody is "badgering" anyone, as you claimed, and everyone is getting what they want.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 06:10:40 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 06:10:40 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 12:45:58 PM
What was the sin of Jonah? He didn't refuse to preach, he refused to preach to Gentiles. And that is why the book of Jonah is mentioned by Jesus himself.
God told Jonah to warn the citizens of Nineveh. Jonah ran in the other direction thinking he could run away from God. Jonah hated "those" people, and in fact showed more concern for a gourd plant that died than for the fate of that city.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 06:13:29 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 06:13:29 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 12:45:58 PMThat's all well and good. But what did Pecos Bill say about that?
What was the sin of Jonah? He didn't refuse to preach, he refused to preach to Gentiles. And that is why the book of Jonah is mentioned by Jesus himself.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 06:48:02 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 06:48:02 PM
Quote from: widdershins on March 17, 2016, 03:39:07 PM
Don't try to turn things around. You had to go to "atheistforums.com" before you could find the section labeled "religion". And I never claimed I expected everyone to "agree" with atheism. I really don't care what _________ you waste your life on. It's yours to waste. I simply pointed out that you are the one that came to us, not the other way around. To avoid being "badgered" one of us would have to leave, and it's our home.
Again, typical Christian persecution complex, putting words in my mouth so that you can feel like my deeds are the dastardly ones. The reality is that you're here because you wanted to argue. There is no other reason for the typical Christian to come to an atheist site. We are giving you exactly what you want. Likewise, having you here breaks the monotony for us. It's a win-win for both of us, so long as your comments don't cross the line into just plain annoying. Thus, nobody is "badgering" anyone, as you claimed, and everyone is getting what they want.
I have no problem with differences of opinion. And if all you want to visit your "home" are yes men, then you are going to have one boring website. I like debate, not personal ridicule, slander and unwarranted explicatives.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 17, 2016, 07:19:39 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 17, 2016, 07:19:39 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 06:48:02 PMYou aren't debating, though. You're just preaching. And since your're not supposed to do that on this forum, people aren't going to be as nice to you as they might be otherwise.
I have no problem with differences of opinion. And if all you want to visit your "home" are yes men, then you are going to have one boring website. I like debate, not personal ridicule, slander and unwarranted explicatives.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 07:46:00 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 07:46:00 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 17, 2016, 07:19:39 PM
You aren't debating, though. You're just preaching. And since you're not supposed to do that on this forum, people aren't going to be as nice to you as they might be otherwise.
One cannot talk about the Christianity without any understanding of what the Bible has to say in that regard. I find most people today are Biblically illiterate. And it is counterproductive when an atheist spouts that God promotes slavery, when it fact no verses are presented and when atheists are unwilling to even consider that regulation is not the same as promotion.
If I am asked why I believe what I believe, it is very hard not to say anything that isn't going to cause someone to bristle. The spiritual is very often a feeling, or a direction, or a series of unexplainable events. When people say there is no GOD I find it very hard to believe that they have lived a life without any unexplainable events. Coincidence is simply a copout word that means essentially, I have no other explanation.
I think it would be far better for atheists to explain how they account for specific events in their lives that have no "logical" explanation. I'm sorry if anyone here is now an atheist because he or she was somehow hurt by a Christian (I cannot pretend to assume blame for those who are in fact not Christian but of other faiths). What you may regard as preaching may be what I consider a Biblical explanation as opposed to gut feelings (which biblically are not acceptable for a Christ centered belief).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 17, 2016, 07:52:41 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 17, 2016, 07:52:41 PM
Your world and their world have little overlap, hence diminished capacity to communicate. I straddle both worlds, so I get what you are saying, but also what they are saying. And some people here aren't ignorant of the Bible. Unfortunately most believers (yourself NOT included) are ignorant of the Bible.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 17, 2016, 08:28:46 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 17, 2016, 08:28:46 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 07:46:00 PMI find most people today are Biblically illiterate.Yourself included, given your willful ignorance of the passages being presented to you.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 08:36:35 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 08:36:35 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 06:48:02 PMThat, my friend, is a bald faced lie. You do not debate--that requires one to answer questions that you are asked--you don't do that. You preach. And not very well.
I have no problem with differences of opinion. And if all you want to visit your "home" are yes men, then you are going to have one boring website. I like debate, not personal ridicule, slander and unwarranted explicatives.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on March 17, 2016, 08:40:39 PM
Post by: aitm on March 17, 2016, 08:40:39 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 16, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
I never said dinosaurs never existed, and any Creationists will say that there are enough universal dragon tales around to indicate that man had at least saw dinosaurs if not had run ins with them.
Holy crap..this kid is a full blown retard.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: aitm on March 17, 2016, 08:40:39 PMAhhhh, come on, aitm, you are giving retards a bad name.
Holy crap..this kid is a full blown retard.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on March 17, 2016, 08:54:45 PM
Post by: stromboli on March 17, 2016, 08:54:45 PM
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/55666701.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 18, 2016, 06:48:33 AM
Post by: trdsf on March 18, 2016, 06:48:33 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 07:46:00 PM
Coincidence is simply a copout word that means essentially, I have no other explanation.
So is 'god'. That's the sound you make when you don't want to have to even bother trying to explain, more accurately. Not only a cop-out, but lazy.
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 17, 2016, 07:46:00 PM
I think it would be far better for atheists to explain how they account for specific events in their lives that have no "logical" explanation.
Very, very simple.
Statistics, and the fact that our brains have evolved to be such good pattern matchers, we even try to identify patterns when they don't exist.
It was exceedingly useful for our ancestors that they could take an unexpected rustle and a faint glimpse of orange and go "YEOW! TIGER!" and get to safety without having to process that information in a more explicit manner. And the ones that couldn't do that aren't your ancestors. Over evolutionary time, that means we became more and more finely honed pattern matchers.
So, we went down the path of making false positives. The caveman who erred on the side of "Yeow! Tiger!" and got to safety when there was no need to is your thousand-times-great-grandfather, while the caveman who erred on the side of "Oh, that's just the wind" is fossilized saber-toothed tiger shit.
As our intellectual capacities developed, this instinctive pattern matching did not go away, and because it is instinctive, it is an exceptionally powerful force inside us. We expect patterns to exist, and now when we think we've spotted one and it's not an imminent risk like a tiger in the grass, we have the intellectual capacity to try to figure out what it "really" was... but what does it mean to try to rationalize a non-existent tiger?
And this feeds directly into the statistics side.
We are horrible seat-of-the-pants statisticians. This is why people play the lottery. More importantly, this is why seemingly random and "coincidental" events get mistaken for deliberate and meaningful events.
You remember the remarkable things that happen to you. But you do not remember the almost-infinitely-many more remarkable thinks that don't happen to you. And of course the media will sometimes make great play out of really weird events, like twins who haven't seen each other in 30 years happening to move next door to each other, or chance patterns in toast that may or may not resemble Marlene Dietrich or some such.
At this point, strange coincidences no longer become strange because not only are there billions of potential reporters of strange events, the number of potential strange events is orders of magnitude higher. Someone somewhere bumps into someone else who looks almost exactly like them and takes a selfie and zoom -- another "unexplained", "strange" coincidence.
But it's not unexplained, and strange is not quantitative. The statistics of large numbers of individuals who subconsciously look for patterns whether or not they're there means that these events get noticed, and reported, and the non-strange non-coincidences don't. That's not a pattern, that's a self-selected set of events: strange coincidences get reported to others and non-strange non-coincidences don't.
So it doesn't matter if John reports seeing a pattern in his toast that resembles Marlene Dietrich, or some such. If it didn't happen to him, there are billions of others it could have happened to. And if it wasn't Marlene Dietrich, it might have resembled Rasputin or Bruce Lee ... or the popularly-conceived (and ethnographically incorrect) image of Jeshua bar-Joseph.
As it is, I do look for patterns in my toast, simply because I know I am a supreme pattern matching machine, honed over millions of years of biological evolution, and because I know heat flow is a stochastic process that by pure chance can generate interesting features. So far the only pattern I can identify is that the heat flow is uneven, because I can't get a properly brown piece of toast out of my toaster. In fact, I always carry a camera because you never know what chance things you might see in the clouds, like sharks (https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7290/10551470476_0a62595d29_b.jpg) and numbers (https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8085/8360900928_af027cbd33_b.jpg) and counter-top blenders (https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8428/7689532830_7d4d1efd82_c.jpg).
And this brings us to the final part: assigning meaning. Strange events don't have to be meaningful, they can just be strange events. It's perfectly all right to go "Whoa, that was weird!" and get on with the rest of your life. In your world-view, these should be considered meaningful events and you have pre-decided for yourself what that meaning is so you retro-fit the event to your pre-existing notion.
Of course, I expect you tuned out as soon as I said 'evolution' (assuming you even bothered reading in the first place), but there's your answer.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 18, 2016, 10:10:41 AM
Post by: widdershins on March 18, 2016, 10:10:41 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 08:36:35 PMThis is exactly right. "Debate" is the furthest thing from the truth about what LittleNipper does her. Argue, preach, judge, complain...those would be more accurate words.
That, my friend, is a bald faced lie. You do not debate--that requires one to answer questions that you are asked--you don't do that. You preach. And not very well.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 18, 2016, 10:30:04 AM
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 18, 2016, 10:30:04 AM
I know this is VERY early - what we're still in March - but I nominate LittleNipper for the CHEWTOY AWARD of the year 2016.
It will be up to future new members to beat LittleNipper for this prestigious nomination.
It will be up to future new members to beat LittleNipper for this prestigious nomination.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: leo on March 20, 2016, 02:28:35 PM
Post by: leo on March 20, 2016, 02:28:35 PM
I think is time to send little nipper to the troll cage ( purgatory )
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:28:34 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:28:34 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 08:36:35 PM
That, my friend, is a bald faced lie. You do not debate--that requires one to answer questions that you are asked--you don't do that. You preach. And not very well.
Debate is a two way question and answer cession. It isn't enough that I simply answer your questions, and as many as you can throw ----- while telling me that biblical explanations are not answers but preaching.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:33:24 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:33:24 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 17, 2016, 08:28:46 PM
Yourself included, given your willful ignorance of the passages being presented to you.
And which Bible passages are they exactly?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 20, 2016, 10:37:12 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 20, 2016, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:28:34 PMOkay, let's talk. Which means I ask questions or answer yours and you do the same. If I ask a question you need to try to answer--and I need to do the same. How about you pick a section of the Bible that you can show proves or proves a point and I will then respond to your assertion?
Debate is a two way question and answer cession. It isn't enough that I simply answer your questions, and as many as you can throw ----- while telling me that biblical explanations are not answers but preaching.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 17, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Ahhhh, come on, aitm, you are giving retards a bad name.
Actually, you both seem to be giving atheism a black eye all by yourselves.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:44:00 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:44:00 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 20, 2016, 10:37:12 PMHokey doe-key.
Okay, let's talk. Which means I ask questions or answer yours and you do the same. If I ask a question you need to try to answer--and I need to do the same. How about you pick a section of the Bible that you can show proves or proves a point and I will then respond to your assertion?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 21, 2016, 12:02:58 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 21, 2016, 12:02:58 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:28:34 PMAS MANY as we can throw at you? I seem to remember a post back on page 8 of this thread, followed by another post on page 11 and a third on page 13 where I tried repeatedly to get you to respond. You have yet to explain to my why neither you nor any other Christian can do the things he stated would accompany "those who believe" in Mark 16:17-18. More accurately, you have yet to explain exactly how what Jesus is not what he meant, but rather had some secret yet easy to understand meaning other than what he said, while really being what he said, if only I would bother to look up the words in their original hoodoo, or whatever excuse you have for why God can't seem to speak in plain English when he's saying something which clearly proves you wrong.
Debate is a two way question and answer cession. It isn't enough that I simply answer your questions, and as many as you can throw ----- while telling me that biblical explanations are not answers but preaching.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 23, 2016, 01:50:43 PM
Post by: trdsf on March 23, 2016, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 20, 2016, 10:28:34 PMThat's because biblical "explanations" don't actually explain anything. You need evidence, not fairy tales. And you're still not answering any of my questions. You have no interest in informed debate -- I assume you typed 'cession' in error, but it's appropriate for what you're doing, which is simply stopping engaging, standing in one place, and yelling in complete and blissful and willful ignorance.
Debate is a two way question and answer cession. It isn't enough that I simply answer your questions, and as many as you can throw ----- while telling me that biblical explanations are not answers but preaching.
You came to us. We didn't ask you here. If you genuinely believed that just waltzing in here and telling us 'the bible says so' would convert us all, you're more delusional than most believers.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 02:10:07 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 23, 2016, 01:50:43 PMPerhaps you could provide a specific instance?
That's because biblical "explanations" don't actually explain anything. You need evidence, not fairy tales. And you're still not answering any of my questions. You have no interest in informed debate -- I assume you typed 'cession' in error, but it's appropriate for what you're doing, which is simply stopping engaging, standing in one place, and yelling in complete and blissful and willful ignorance.
You came to us. We didn't ask you here. If you genuinely believed that just waltzing in here and telling us 'the bible says so' would convert us all, you're more delusional than most believers.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 23, 2016, 03:45:31 PM
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 23, 2016, 03:45:31 PM
LittleNipper has changed his position:
Before: the bible has many interpretations, but it's inerrant.
Now: biblical "explanations" don't actually explain anything
:rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao:
Before: the bible has many interpretations, but it's inerrant.
Now: biblical "explanations" don't actually explain anything
:rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 23, 2016, 05:39:51 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 23, 2016, 05:39:51 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 23, 2016, 03:45:31 PMOne has to change one's position on a rather regular, circumstance-dependent basis when one holds so many conflicting and mutually exclusive beliefs.
LittleNipper has changed his position:
Before: the bible has many interpretations, but it's inerrant.
Now: biblical "explanations" don't actually explain anything
:rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 23, 2016, 09:01:22 PM
Post by: trdsf on March 23, 2016, 09:01:22 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 02:10:07 PMNo. You don't get to keep dodging the questions already put to you. I have several outstanding that you've ignored because I am confident that you don't have any answer other than because you say your book says so. If you want to debate, you need to tackle what's already on the ground.
Perhaps you could provide a specific instance?
Now you're just adding cowardice to ignorance. You know what questions I've already put. Answer them.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 23, 2016, 09:01:22 PM
No. You don't get to keep dodging the questions already put to you. I have several outstanding that you've ignored because I am confident that you don't have any answer other than because you say your book says so. If you want to debate, you need to tackle what's already on the ground.
Now you're just adding cowardice to ignorance. You know what questions I've already put. Answer them.
The prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled. There is nothing wrong with the Bible. The coward is the one who rejects absolutes for personal desires.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on March 23, 2016, 11:29:10 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on March 23, 2016, 11:29:10 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
The prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled. There is nothing wrong with the Bible. The coward is the one who rejects absolutes for personal desires.
I opened a fortune cookie that said, "Something good will happen to you this week." Then I got a raise. Hallelujah! All praise the prophetic power of the fortune cookie! Fortune cookie, share with me your profound, and limitless wisdom for next week!
"Patience is bitter, but it's fruit is sweet."
The furtune cookie has spoken!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 23, 2016, 11:49:14 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 23, 2016, 11:49:14 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 10:14:22 PMEvidence, please. Preferably of the extra-biblical kind.
The prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 24, 2016, 11:09:59 AM
Post by: widdershins on March 24, 2016, 11:09:59 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 10:14:22 PMThe fool is the one who imagines absolutes for personal desires.
The prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled. There is nothing wrong with the Bible. The coward is the one who rejects absolutes for personal desires.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: leo on March 24, 2016, 11:15:51 AM
Post by: leo on March 24, 2016, 11:15:51 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 10:14:22 PMNothing is fulfilled . Jesus isn't the messiah.
The prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled. There is nothing wrong with the Bible. The coward is the one who rejects absolutes for personal desires.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LittleNipper on March 24, 2016, 11:16:36 PM
Post by: LittleNipper on March 24, 2016, 11:16:36 PM
Quote from: leo on March 24, 2016, 11:15:51 AM
Nothing is fulfilled . Jesus isn't the messiah.
Jesus is the Messiah! He isn't through as of yet.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 24, 2016, 11:52:00 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 24, 2016, 11:52:00 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 24, 2016, 11:16:36 PMAnd neither is Pecos Bill!!!
Jesus is the Messiah! He isn't through as of yet.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 25, 2016, 12:30:22 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 25, 2016, 12:30:22 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 24, 2016, 11:16:36 PMSaying it repeatedly doesn't make it so.
Jesus is the Messiah! He isn't through as of yet.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hydra009 on March 25, 2016, 01:57:01 AM
Post by: Hydra009 on March 25, 2016, 01:57:01 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 24, 2016, 11:16:36 PMJesus is the Messiah! He isn't through as of yet.Oh give it a rest already! Just from a literary perspective, the character is done. When you have a guy say "It is finished" in his big death scene, you can't have him come back in the sequel. This isn't the Lord of the Rings trilogy. All onscreen deaths are final. Besides, the Word of God says he's in heaven.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: ApostateLois on March 25, 2016, 10:13:32 PM
Post by: ApostateLois on March 25, 2016, 10:13:32 PM
Back when I was a Christian, I used to believe that the biblical prophecies had been, or were being, fulfilled. I was really fascinated with prophecy for awhile and read everything I could about it. It didn't take me long to realize that every Christian writer, pastor, and evangelist had a different idea of what the prophecies were all about, as well as when (at least approximately, often precisely) they were to come true. Some claimed to have had scary visions about the coming end times, and proclaimed themselves the receptors of special divine knowledge on the subject.
A very famous example of this is "The Late, Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey. He predicted the return of Jesus in the early 1980s, if I'm not mistaken. That book is long out of print, but you can still buy used copies here and there. And the guy STILL has a big following! His prophecies failed, yet not one Christian has called for him to be stoned or burned at the stake or covered in jam and then tied to a fire-ant nest, or whatever the bible says to do with false prophets.
And speaking of that, Jesus, himself, should be labeled a false prophet. He promised to return within the lifetime of his disciples, and here we are, more than 2000 years later, and his modern disciples are still looking for him like little lost puppies. When I took a good look at biblical predictions, I realized that the reason nobody agreed on them was because they were so vague. None of them offer any specific dates, times, names, or facts which we could use to nail down even the roughest time frame for the events they allegedly predict. And the events they don't even mention, such as mass transportation, worldwide communication, and space travel, are more significant than the vaguely ominous pipe-dreams of multiple-headed monsters with crowns. How could an all-knowing deity NOT know about the Internet, one of the most important tools humans have ever invented?
No Bible prophecies have been, or ever will be, fulfilled because they don't predict anything. Christians will, however, go on expecting fulfillment for as long as their religion exists, never bothering to look back over the last couple thousand years of failed predictions. They don't want to know about that. It would force them to ask too many questions that are even scarier than the monsters that the priests have put into their dreams.
A very famous example of this is "The Late, Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey. He predicted the return of Jesus in the early 1980s, if I'm not mistaken. That book is long out of print, but you can still buy used copies here and there. And the guy STILL has a big following! His prophecies failed, yet not one Christian has called for him to be stoned or burned at the stake or covered in jam and then tied to a fire-ant nest, or whatever the bible says to do with false prophets.
And speaking of that, Jesus, himself, should be labeled a false prophet. He promised to return within the lifetime of his disciples, and here we are, more than 2000 years later, and his modern disciples are still looking for him like little lost puppies. When I took a good look at biblical predictions, I realized that the reason nobody agreed on them was because they were so vague. None of them offer any specific dates, times, names, or facts which we could use to nail down even the roughest time frame for the events they allegedly predict. And the events they don't even mention, such as mass transportation, worldwide communication, and space travel, are more significant than the vaguely ominous pipe-dreams of multiple-headed monsters with crowns. How could an all-knowing deity NOT know about the Internet, one of the most important tools humans have ever invented?
No Bible prophecies have been, or ever will be, fulfilled because they don't predict anything. Christians will, however, go on expecting fulfillment for as long as their religion exists, never bothering to look back over the last couple thousand years of failed predictions. They don't want to know about that. It would force them to ask too many questions that are even scarier than the monsters that the priests have put into their dreams.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: AllRight on March 26, 2016, 06:39:43 AM
Post by: AllRight on March 26, 2016, 06:39:43 AM
Quote from: ApostateLois on March 25, 2016, 10:13:32 PM
And speaking of that, Jesus, himself, should be labeled a false prophet. He promised to return within the lifetime of his disciples, and here we are, more than 2000 years later, and his modern disciples are still looking for him like little lost puppies. When I took a good look at biblical predictions, I realized that the reason nobody agreed on them was because they were so vague. None of them offer any specific dates, times, names, or facts which we could use to nail down even the roughest time frame for the events they allegedly predict. And the events they don't even mention, such as mass transportation, worldwide communication, and space travel, are more significant than the vaguely ominous pipe-dreams of multiple-headed monsters with crowns. How could an all-knowing deity NOT know about the Internet, one of the most important tools humans have ever invented?
They always seem to get around that though... like "we don't know WHICH disciples because we are his disciples." or the JW claim her returned "invisibly" in 1914.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 26, 2016, 07:05:19 AM
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 26, 2016, 07:05:19 AM
Quote from: ApostateLoisBack when I was a Christian, I used to believe that the biblical prophecies had been, or were being, fulfilled...Some claimed to have had scary visions about the coming end times, and proclaimed themselves the receptors of special divine knowledge on the subject.I saw the movie, The Late Great Planet Earth, when I was a kid, and it scared the shit out of me. It also sparked my earliest interest in the Book of Revelation, which was my first and only interest in the Bible for many years.
A very famous example of this is "The Late, Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey. He predicted the return of Jesus in the early 1980s, if I'm not mistaken. That book is long out of print, but you can still buy used copies here and there. And the guy STILL has a big following! His prophecies failed, yet not one Christian has called for him to be stoned or burned at the stake or covered in jam and then tied to a fire-ant nest, or whatever the bible says to do with false prophets.
Quote from: ApostateLoisAnd speaking of that, Jesus, himself, should be labeled a false prophet. He promised to return within the lifetime of his disciples, and here we are, more than 2000 years later, and his modern disciples are still looking for him like little lost puppies.Jesus gives us the means to discredit him with that prophecy. Here is a very concise, little essay I wrote about it: http://www.solomonzorn.com/ignored.html
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2016, 07:11:33 AM
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2016, 07:11:33 AM
I like to read the first and last chapter of a book. So when I was a kid, Genesis and Revelations were my favorite Bible books.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 26, 2016, 07:47:54 AM
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 26, 2016, 07:47:54 AM
Quote from: Little NipperCoincidence is simply a copout word that means essentially, I have no other explanation.It's not a cop out. It's a conclusion, that two coinciding events have no significant correlation, but are simply a statistical variation.
Quote from: Little NipperI think it would be far better for atheists to explain how they account for specific events in their lives that have no "logical" explanation.They do have a logical explanation. trdsf has answered you with a great essay on the subject, that you completely ignored:
Quote from: trdsf on March 18, 2016, 06:48:33 AMVery, very simple.
Statistics, and the fact that our brains have evolved to be such good pattern matchers, we even try to identify patterns when they don't exist.
It was exceedingly useful for our ancestors that they could take an unexpected rustle and a faint glimpse of orange and go "YEOW! TIGER!" and get to safety without having to process that information in a more explicit manner. And the ones that couldn't do that aren't your ancestors. Over evolutionary time, that means we became more and more finely honed pattern matchers.
So, we went down the path of making false positives. The caveman who erred on the side of "Yeow! Tiger!" and got to safety when there was no need to is your thousand-times-great-grandfather, while the caveman who erred on the side of "Oh, that's just the wind" is fossilized saber-toothed tiger shit.
As our intellectual capacities developed, this instinctive pattern matching did not go away, and because it is instinctive, it is an exceptionally powerful force inside us. We expect patterns to exist, and now when we think we've spotted one and it's not an imminent risk like a tiger in the grass, we have the intellectual capacity to try to figure out what it "really" was... but what does it mean to try to rationalize a non-existent tiger?
And this feeds directly into the statistics side.
We are horrible seat-of-the-pants statisticians. This is why people play the lottery. More importantly, this is why seemingly random and "coincidental" events get mistaken for deliberate and meaningful events.
You remember the remarkable things that happen to you. But you do not remember the almost-infinitely-many more remarkable thinks that don't happen to you. And of course the media will sometimes make great play out of really weird events, like twins who haven't seen each other in 30 years happening to move next door to each other, or chance patterns in toast that may or may not resemble Marlene Dietrich or some such.
At this point, strange coincidences no longer become strange because not only are there billions of potential reporters of strange events, the number of potential strange events is orders of magnitude higher. Someone somewhere bumps into someone else who looks almost exactly like them and takes a selfie and zoom -- another "unexplained", "strange" coincidence.
But it's not unexplained, and strange is not quantitative. The statistics of large numbers of individuals who subconsciously look for patterns whether or not they're there means that these events get noticed, and reported, and the non-strange non-coincidences don't. That's not a pattern, that's a self-selected set of events: strange coincidences get reported to others and non-strange non-coincidences don't.
So it doesn't matter if John reports seeing a pattern in his toast that resembles Marlene Dietrich, or some such. If it didn't happen to him, there are billions of others it could have happened to. And if it wasn't Marlene Dietrich, it might have resembled Rasputin or Bruce Lee ... or the popularly-conceived (and ethnographically incorrect) image of Jeshua bar-Joseph.
As it is, I do look for patterns in my toast, simply because I know I am a supreme pattern matching machine, honed over millions of years of biological evolution, and because I know heat flow is a stochastic process that by pure chance can generate interesting features. So far the only pattern I can identify is that the heat flow is uneven, because I can't get a properly brown piece of toast out of my toaster. In fact, I always carry a camera because you never know what chance things you might see in the clouds, like sharks and numbers and counter-top blenders.
And this brings us to the final part: assigning meaning. Strange events don't have to be meaningful, they can just be strange events. It's perfectly all right to go "Whoa, that was weird!" and get on with the rest of your life. In your world-view, these should be considered meaningful events and you have pre-decided for yourself what that meaning is so you retro-fit the event to your pre-existing notion.
Of course, I expect you tuned out as soon as I said 'evolution' (assuming you even bothered reading in the first place), but there's your answer.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2016, 11:49:33 AM
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2016, 11:49:33 AM
If all pattern matching is just bullshit, then science is just coincidences taken too seriously, there is no cause/effect. It is just a statistical fluke that when I cross myself against the electric wall circuit, that I get shocked. How many times do I need to get shocked, before I take the pattern matching as serious?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 27, 2016, 01:51:24 AM
Post by: trdsf on March 27, 2016, 01:51:24 AM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 23, 2016, 10:14:22 PMI gave you links to lists of contradictions and factual inaccuracies in your bible, and you obviously haven't even bothered looking. I am forced to one of two conclusions: either that you have such a fragile and unexamined blind faith that you daren't test it, or that you are so self-absorbed you think that by repeating an unsupported claim, that somehow makes it true just because you said so.
The prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled. There is nothing wrong with the Bible. The coward is the one who rejects absolutes for personal desires.
Assertion doesn't count as evidence. You need to back it up with something concrete and incontrovertible, or you need to drop it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on March 29, 2016, 08:10:41 PM
Post by: trdsf on March 29, 2016, 08:10:41 PM
Did the new chew toy get nuked by an admin, or has he just given up?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: FinalSomnia on March 29, 2016, 09:58:37 PM
Post by: FinalSomnia on March 29, 2016, 09:58:37 PM
He was banished to Purgatory by aitm, I believe
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 30, 2016, 10:38:54 AM
Post by: widdershins on March 30, 2016, 10:38:54 AM
Quote from: FinalSomnia on March 29, 2016, 09:58:37 PMI'm going to miss that guy. He was so witty and insightful. A real intellect, that Nipper.
He was banished to Purgatory by aitm, I believe
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on March 30, 2016, 10:50:12 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on March 30, 2016, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: widdershins on March 30, 2016, 10:38:54 AMYeah, I agree. He had me right on the edge of me waking up and agreeing with the silver-tongued writer!
I'm going to miss that guy. He was so witty and insightful. A real intellect, that Nipper.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on March 30, 2016, 02:35:38 PM
Post by: widdershins on March 30, 2016, 02:35:38 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 30, 2016, 10:50:12 AMI know. It was like, I wanted to disagree with him and JUST as I'd have myself convinced that he was wrong, BAM! God did it! You just can't argue with that ironclad logic.
Yeah, I agree. He had me right on the edge of me waking up and agreeing with the silver-tongued writer!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on March 30, 2016, 02:59:40 PM
Post by: reasonist on March 30, 2016, 02:59:40 PM
He sure demonstrated a closed mind. No matter how convincing the facts were, he ignored them. That's where the irrationality of it all shows. All answers are in one book, no further inquiry necessary. In case of contradiction, always rely on quoting the bible. Littlenipper was a posterboy for ignorance and self deception. R.I.P.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on March 30, 2016, 06:12:11 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on March 30, 2016, 06:12:11 PM
Quote from: LittleNipper on March 11, 2016, 07:37:52 PM
Everybody believes something.
I believe nothing at all - except that I perceive - hence my moniker.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 30, 2016, 06:14:59 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 30, 2016, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 30, 2016, 06:12:11 PM
I believe nothing at all - except that I perceive - hence my moniker.
So, you are a used car salesman's worst nightmare? ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on March 30, 2016, 06:19:10 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on March 30, 2016, 06:19:10 PM
I'm everyone's worst nightmare! :taz:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on March 30, 2016, 07:27:01 PM
Post by: Baruch on March 30, 2016, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 30, 2016, 06:19:10 PM
I'm everyone's worst nightmare! :taz:
Glad to see someone is on the job ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on April 01, 2016, 10:35:49 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on April 01, 2016, 10:35:49 AM
I must confess, guys. I actually fully agreed with everything Nipper said. I was just too fond of my sinful lifestyle to admit it. How could I continue to drown small puppies and kittens in the blood of innocent children if I became a Christian? It's just not possible. If I became a Christian, I'd have to stop sinning and be perfect like all the other Christians out there.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: AllRight on April 01, 2016, 10:53:33 AM
Post by: AllRight on April 01, 2016, 10:53:33 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 01, 2016, 10:35:49 AMSounds like you miss Nipper :-(
I must confess, guys. I actually fully agreed with everything Nipper said. I was just too fond of my sinful lifestyle to admit it. How could I continue to drown small puppies and kittens in the blood of innocent children if I became a Christian? It's just not possible. If I became a Christian, I'd have to stop sinning and be perfect like all the other Christians out there.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on April 01, 2016, 12:19:56 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on April 01, 2016, 12:19:56 PM
Quote from: AllRight on April 01, 2016, 10:53:33 AMGood chew toys are hard to find.
Sounds like you miss Nipper :-(
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:17:26 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:17:26 PM
Quote from: widdershins on March 01, 2016, 05:00:10 PM
So, am I to take it we've given up on trying to rewrite the history of the gospels so that the OP is in a much better position for whatever secret argument he could not make until we all agreed that Jesus had a personal hand in writing them and have moved on to arguments unrelated to the original post? Because I have yet to see Randy finally either accept that "scientific consensus" trumps "this one guy I like who wrote some books" or give a reason that is not the case, but the argument does seem to have been abandoned.
My apologies. I was engaged elsewhere.
No, I am not abandoning the OP, but I'm not sure I understand what you have written. What "scientific consensus" and what "one guy" are you referring to here?
I'll check back often in order to respond to your post.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:23:07 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:23:07 PM
Quote from: widdershins on March 01, 2016, 06:09:14 PM
So, what? This makes them true? I do love the old "what is not proves what is" argument. Please, do go on.
Thanks. I will.
It goes to the question of whether the authors can be trusted.
Any good police detective will tell you that there are only three motives for committing a crime: money, sex, power.
Which of these would have been the motive for the apostles to have simply made up the accounts contained in the gospels?
The honest answer is: None of them.
Consequently, while you may not believe what the gospel writers say, it is reasonable for you to acknowledge that they did.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:34:56 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:34:56 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2016, 06:35:59 PM
The Gospels weren't penned by either Jesus or by the Disciples, or they would have made themselves look better ... good point. These were written by third parties, literate people, not peasants, writing a burlesque of Jewish messianism (usually violent and not-Hellenistic) .. up to 100 years after the events described. The genuine writings of Paul are contemporary (pre-70 CE) ... and his writings don't speak of a physical Jesus, but a metaphysical one. Paul never got to put his finger in Jesus' side, unlike Thomas.
This is incorrect. In fact, it's simply bass-ackward.
The Criterion of Embarrassment is one of the strong suites of the New Testament. The gospel writers did not avoid including things that actually made themselves, Jesus or the Early Church look bad, and why? Because they were true.
One other point: If the gospels were written much later as you mistakenly believe, then why were they not named after major figures of the faith such as Peter, James or Mary? Oh, sure...those false gospels were eventually written and rejected...but the earliest gospels were named after folks who were not the superstars of the Early Church. Matthew was a tax collector working for the Romans and hated by the Jews. Mark and Luke were Gentiles and relative nobodies. So, why were these books attributed to these authors? Because that's who actually wrote them. Duh.
Finally, to your point about Paul: Wow. Total fail. Paul wrote:
Quote1 Corinthians 15
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Note that Paul is reminding them in writing of what he had previously told them in person. And he is passing on to them what he himself had learned from the apostles during one of his visits with them in Jerusalem: Jesus was raised on the third day.
There was no concept of a "metaphysical" resurrection in Jewish thought; Paul is speaking of a physical resurrection of Jesus.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:42:16 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:42:16 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 06:41:22 PM
That is an interesting take. We do not know who wrote any of the gospels. So, how do we know how they profited or not? Nor do we know when they were written. Who is to say that the original writers had one thing in mind, but the later users and compilers of the NT had another thing in mind. We don't know. But we do know that what was included in that group of essays, called the bible, was compiled from a much larger body of works. Why did they keep some of it and discard others? And there isn't just one 'Bible'--there are many. And there isn't just one copy of the gospels, but many that do not agree one with the other. I find god's methods to be quite shoddy in this prolonged effort to give us 'the word'.
Regarding when they were written, see my OP. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
As for who wrote the gospels, we ABSOLUTELY know who wrote them: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
We have this from Papias and others. But you disagree, so I must ask:
What other candidates have been considered as genuine authors of the synoptics? Can you name anyone who has been viewed as a possible author since the Apostolic era? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:52:57 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:52:57 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 06:41:22 PMBut we do know that what was included in that group of essays, called the bible, was compiled from a much larger body of works. Why did they keep some of it and discard others?
Agreed.
And the 27 books that we do recognize as canonical were recognized as genuine because they met three criteria:
1. Apostolic Authority. The accepted books were written by an apostle or by someone in close association with them.
2. Doctrinal Conformity. The accepted books taught doctrines that were in line with what the living Church held as true. IOW, no heretical novelties were allowed.
3. Continuous Acceptance. The accepted books were held as genuine by the churches which had received them from the beginning.
For these reasons, books such as the Gospel of Thomas or Clement's Letter to the Corinthians did not make the canon.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 06:41:22 PMAnd there isn't just one 'Bible'--there are many. And there isn't just one copy of the gospels, but many that do not agree one with the other.
Many Bibles? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
There are different translations and slightly different Old Testaments perhaps, but you can find the same 27 books in any New Testament around the world.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 06:41:22 PMI find god's methods to be quite shoddy in this prolonged effort to give us 'the word'.
Ironically, here the NT simply outshines any other work of ancient history. We have over 10,000 ancient manuscripts with the oldest dating to the middle of the second century. No other work of antiquity even comes close. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 07:01:56 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 07:01:56 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2016, 09:55:42 PM
Theological scholars have made those estimated dates. Actual physical copies that are near complete, only date from around 200 CE. Theologians have a vested interest in using the earliest estimated dates possible.
And atheists have a vested interest in using the latest estimated dates possible.
MY argument hinges on the FACTS presented in the OP, and I think it is compelling rationale for an earlier dating.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 07:13:59 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: widdershins on March 02, 2016, 09:50:57 AM
You are bordering on a lie right there with the deception you're throwing. Yes, much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts which were written hundreds of years after the fact, but those manuscripts, alone, are not the totality of the evidence to support the historical account, as you are slyly trying to suggest. We do not simply find a manuscript where some guy claims something happened 200 years before and say, "Wow. So, THAT happened. Let's put it into the history books." I know it would be very convenient for you if we did, but that is not how it works, because SCIENCE!
In fact, taking your own example, much of what YOU know about the Trojan War is undoubtedly made up and very much NOT taken as historical fact. Homer's Iliad is not considered a "historical document". It's a poem. The characters in it, though depicted in movies as historical fact, are, by historians, considered likely fictional characters. We don't know that Helen of Troy was a real person. But we do know there was a Trojan War, not because Homer spoke of it in a poem, but because the site has been excavated. It's one of the most famous archaeological sites in the world. Historians look at all these old documents, but take nothing from them as "fact" until they can match up sites and artifacts with depictions in the manuscripts, or at least with multiple other corroborating accounts. In this case all the Iliad tells us is that people at the time "knew" of a great war which had taken place at a place called both Troy and Ilium. The writing style suggests the writer expected his audience to have some knowledge of the war he was writing about beforehand. This tells historians, not that the war happened, but that it was a common belief at the time.
So, what we have is a "claim". Historians then go out to gather the "facts", the part you don't want to do because they might not (or outright don't) support your beliefs. The reason we know the Trojan War happened is because there is evidence to back it up, not simply because some guy claimed it hundreds of years after the fact. Helen of Troy and the Trojan Horse, those are not historical facts because there is no evidence for them. Yes, the Trojan War is "found" in a manuscript hundreds of years after the fact, but that manuscript is not considered even close to a historical account of the war. All it tells historians about the war is how people at the time viewed it all that time later. Nothing more.
And the reasons we know that Christianity is true is that the living memory of the Church has preserved the details, the New Testament is historically reliable, and non-Christian accounts by Jewish and Roman historians corroborate key aspects of the life and death of Jesus and the Church He founded.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 07:15:50 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
You cannot infer, from one little fragment, the entire NT as available in 125 CE. That date is a "range" it is more like 125 - 175 CE ... with the theologians naturally taking the bottom number. You cannot even infer a whole book of the NT from one little fragment. You have to have substantial copies to date the work, not a fragment that might have been part of a pre-NT work, that was subsequently copied into a NT work. The substantial copies date from 175 - 225 CE. The earliest surviving whole Christian bible dates from around 400 CE (OT + NT) and there are revisions directly in the body of that work ... and there is a fair amount of that one missing too.
The existence of a fragment dated from the middle of the second century is not insignificant.
There is nothing comparable to this in all of ancient history. The New Testament is without peer in this respect.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 07:21:24 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 07:21:24 PM
Quote from: reasonist on March 02, 2016, 10:47:24 PM
I agree that the NT is a collection of copies from earlier mythologies, especially the Jewish 'Old Testament'. But many more parallels can be found in Egyptian and Sumerian mythologies dating as far back as 3,000 BC. From virgin births, crucifixion and resurrection to walking on water, the flood and ark and many more, the NT is basically a rehashing of primitive myths. Today it would be called a blatant copyright infringement.
A careful study of these "primitive myths" would reveal to you that there is no real parallel between them and the life of Jesus. The heavy lifting has been done by professional scholars who have the credentials to do the research. You may read their books at your leisure.
QuoteWhat about the Apocryphic gospels? Why were they excluded from the NT? The secret book of Mary Magdalen, the gospel of truth, acts of Thomas, all omitted from the good book, lingering in the secret Vatican library. Humans like you and I decided what is the word of God and what isn't.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/no.gif)
No one "decided" what is the Word of God. Humans RECOGNIZED the character of the divinely inspired books as they themselves were led by the Spirit of God.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on April 30, 2016, 08:04:41 PM
Post by: Baruch on April 30, 2016, 08:04:41 PM
While I do like some messianic Jewish writings ... incorrectly called Christian, I consider them to be fiction. There has never been any physical resurrection ... that is absurd. Literalists and religious materialists would have us believe in zombies. I don't believe in zombies. I also don't believe in the insane substitutionary atonement ... nor do I believe in the efficacy of the Torah sacrificial system. And I don't believe in Santa Claus.
Show me Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh ... and I will believe you. Except I would have no way to tell which 1st century heretical Jew I was talking to, other than his word, which I have no reason to trust, any more than I can believe a 21st century Gentile.
In my metaphysical/charismatic christology ... I can plainly see Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh. I don't have to make an absurd belief statement. But this isn't the Jesus of the Church.
Show me Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh ... and I will believe you. Except I would have no way to tell which 1st century heretical Jew I was talking to, other than his word, which I have no reason to trust, any more than I can believe a 21st century Gentile.
In my metaphysical/charismatic christology ... I can plainly see Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh. I don't have to make an absurd belief statement. But this isn't the Jesus of the Church.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 09:16:49 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 09:16:49 PM
Quote from: Baruch on April 30, 2016, 08:04:41 PM
While I do like some messianic Jewish writings ... incorrectly called Christian, I consider them to be fiction. There has never been any physical resurrection ... that is absurd. Literalists and religious materialists would have us believe in zombies. I don't believe in zombies. I also don't believe in the insane substitutionary atonement ... nor do I believe in the efficacy of the Torah sacrificial system. And I don't believe in Santa Claus.
I don't believe in Zombies or Santa Claus, either, but your frequent comparison of the case for Christianity with the popular notion of Santa Claus is off-target. It's apples and oranges, and you really ought to think a little more deeply.
QuoteShow me Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh ... and I will believe you. Except I would have no way to tell which 1st century heretical Jew I was talking to, other than his word, which I have no reason to trust, any more than I can believe a 21st century Gentile.
In my metaphysical/charismatic christology ... I can plainly see Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh. I don't have to make an absurd belief statement. But this isn't the Jesus of the Church.
So, as you can see by your own words, there really isn't much I could show you that you would be willing to accept.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on April 30, 2016, 09:38:56 PM
Post by: Baruch on April 30, 2016, 09:38:56 PM
Show me something I could accept? Yes, your epistemology/historiography pretty much excludes that for me. But for others, you can keep on trying ;-) My epistemology (what can I know) is pretty restrictive, though not as restrictive as many regulars here. I think everything is supernatural, not just in an "age of faith". I don't think anything is natural. But then I am not using natural/supernatural as most people do, including most regulars here. I don't even use it like most theists do ... but some theists would agree with my position .... or if you prefer, I agree with theirs.
For most materialist and skeptics ... supernatural is the same thing as saying "impossible" ... because they define it that way. Similarly for them ... natural is the same thing as saying "possible" ... again because they define it that way. The initial struggle with knowledge is in defining terms, and most people fail out of the gate. Getting a good working definition is the hardest thing ... often called philosophy. People have struggled with defining "god" for many centuries now ... that must be because it is really hard to define. One of the problems of defining words, is if the person doing the defining has no actual experience with the thing being defined ... and with the really big questions, that often excludes everyone under 40 ... or maybe even 60 ;-) Otherwise we are left with a shallow definition, like you get from a dictionary.
So when I see a human being, I am seeing G-d's humanity ... that is the kind of divine image it is. I experience this with every human being I meet. Similarly when I see a house cat, I am seeing G-d's cattiness ... that is a different kind of divine image. I experience this with every house cat I meet. So for me, G-d isn't in the Bible, or in long ago times, or after death, or after some apocalypse. I meet G-d at home, at work and in the street. Everywhere, all the time ... because that is how I define the image of G-d. And I am satisfied with the "images" ... I don't need to know more, don't want to. So when I read your posts, I am experiencing one small slice of G-d's humanity ... and that is true whether you think you are a Christian or not. I don't need to fall off my horse from sun-stroke, like Paul ;-) What happens in a conversion situation is that you experience the same things you did before, but now they aren't the same things as they were before ... the sensation is the same but the perception is different.
For most materialist and skeptics ... supernatural is the same thing as saying "impossible" ... because they define it that way. Similarly for them ... natural is the same thing as saying "possible" ... again because they define it that way. The initial struggle with knowledge is in defining terms, and most people fail out of the gate. Getting a good working definition is the hardest thing ... often called philosophy. People have struggled with defining "god" for many centuries now ... that must be because it is really hard to define. One of the problems of defining words, is if the person doing the defining has no actual experience with the thing being defined ... and with the really big questions, that often excludes everyone under 40 ... or maybe even 60 ;-) Otherwise we are left with a shallow definition, like you get from a dictionary.
So when I see a human being, I am seeing G-d's humanity ... that is the kind of divine image it is. I experience this with every human being I meet. Similarly when I see a house cat, I am seeing G-d's cattiness ... that is a different kind of divine image. I experience this with every house cat I meet. So for me, G-d isn't in the Bible, or in long ago times, or after death, or after some apocalypse. I meet G-d at home, at work and in the street. Everywhere, all the time ... because that is how I define the image of G-d. And I am satisfied with the "images" ... I don't need to know more, don't want to. So when I read your posts, I am experiencing one small slice of G-d's humanity ... and that is true whether you think you are a Christian or not. I don't need to fall off my horse from sun-stroke, like Paul ;-) What happens in a conversion situation is that you experience the same things you did before, but now they aren't the same things as they were before ... the sensation is the same but the perception is different.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:11:47 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:11:47 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 06:52:57 PM
Agreed.
And the 27 books that we do recognize as canonical were recognized as genuine because they met three criteria:
1. Apostolic Authority. The accepted books were written by an apostle or by someone in close association with them.
2. Doctrinal Conformity. The accepted books taught doctrines that were in line with what the living Church held as true. IOW, no heretical novelties were allowed.
3. Continuous Acceptance. The accepted books were held as genuine by the churches which had received them from the beginning.
For these reasons, books such as the Gospel of Thomas or Clement's Letter to the Corinthians did not make the canon.
Randy, welcome back. You made my point for me. The Bible did not plop to earth, totally complete. Why not? Was that beyond the ability of your god? Apparently. And why did that bible not plop to earth all over the earth? Beyond the ability of your god? Apparently. In my eyes, the fact that there are people in the world who have not seen the bible or even heard of it. Yet many of your christian friends will contend they will go to hell. That is the justice of your god? Apparently.
The book you call the NT does indeed, mostly contain 27 books. As that is so for those three reasons you give us, but for many more. Power politics and control supplies the real answer to why so many of the writings have been left out of the modern NT. But not all bibles contain 27 books--the Peshitta does not, for example. So, for you that 'most' bibles have 27 books is enough for you to think that is what god wants. For me it is simply proof of shoddy work of your god. Understand there are not just different translations, but different bibles. Once again, that is just proof of shoddy work of your god. Which really leads me to believe that your shoddy god is simply the creation of people thousands of years ago. Your god just simply does not exist.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
Randy, I have found the process of the canonization of the bible to be quite interesting. Here is a brief snippet about that:
Establishing the canon: 2nd - 4th century AD
By the middle of the 2nd century it becomes evident that a great many different and often contradictory passages of holy scripture are circulating among the various Christian churches, each claiming to offer the truth. (There is even a Gospel according to Judas Iscariot.) Which of these shall be accepted as the official canon? This becomes a subject of urgent debate among church leaders.
By the end of the century it is widely agreed that four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and theActs of the Apostles are authentic. But it is not until 367 that a list is circulated by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, which finally establishes the content of the New Testament.
Meanwhile the texts are being ceaselessly copied and recopied onpapyrus and later onparchment. A few fragments survive from the 2nd century, but the earliest complete New Testament (the Codex Sinaiticus, in Greek, written probably in Egypt, now in the British Library) dates from the late 4th century.
By this timeJerome is working in Bethlehem on his Latin version of the Bible. The story of the New Testament evolves into the story of itstranslations.
Read more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa11#ixzz47MezBBgS
The canon of 27 NT books is simply the result of power politics--god is not evident in any of it.
Establishing the canon: 2nd - 4th century AD
By the middle of the 2nd century it becomes evident that a great many different and often contradictory passages of holy scripture are circulating among the various Christian churches, each claiming to offer the truth. (There is even a Gospel according to Judas Iscariot.) Which of these shall be accepted as the official canon? This becomes a subject of urgent debate among church leaders.
By the end of the century it is widely agreed that four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and theActs of the Apostles are authentic. But it is not until 367 that a list is circulated by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, which finally establishes the content of the New Testament.
Meanwhile the texts are being ceaselessly copied and recopied onpapyrus and later onparchment. A few fragments survive from the 2nd century, but the earliest complete New Testament (the Codex Sinaiticus, in Greek, written probably in Egypt, now in the British Library) dates from the late 4th century.
By this timeJerome is working in Bethlehem on his Latin version of the Bible. The story of the New Testament evolves into the story of itstranslations.
Read more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa11#ixzz47MezBBgS
The canon of 27 NT books is simply the result of power politics--god is not evident in any of it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:19:15 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:19:15 PM
Randy, more evidence of power politics:
The New Testament of the Christian Bible is one of the most influential works of the last two millennia. As the key work of the largest religion in the western world, it has shaped our world in many subtle ways. But the list of 27 books we know today as the New Testament came together gradually through a series of councils and general usage until the books became the standard for most of Christianity. This list is about 10 of the most interesting books not included in the New Testament. Some were excluded for obvious reasons, some likely never had wide readership until found in an obscure library thousands of years later and some just barely missed the cut to being included. One probably never even existed. We know so little about the creation of the New Testament that I cannot tell you why each book was not included, only what makes them interesting. This list is not aimed to validate or discredit the value of any particular book but to provide some context to the creation of the New Testament.
*Because the New Testament is a result of the Orthodox opinion of the time I have chosen to exclude Gnostic texts from this list.
and another snippet:
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
ï,·
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
ï,·
ï,·
The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.
ï,·
Note that sentence above--not a thunderbolt but the product of centuries of reflection. I actually understand 'reflection' to be another name for power politics. God itself could have shortcut all that need for 'reflection' or picking and choosing and of power politics by dropping his word via the 'thunderbolt' around the world in the very beginning. This is simply proof that your god does not exist.
The New Testament of the Christian Bible is one of the most influential works of the last two millennia. As the key work of the largest religion in the western world, it has shaped our world in many subtle ways. But the list of 27 books we know today as the New Testament came together gradually through a series of councils and general usage until the books became the standard for most of Christianity. This list is about 10 of the most interesting books not included in the New Testament. Some were excluded for obvious reasons, some likely never had wide readership until found in an obscure library thousands of years later and some just barely missed the cut to being included. One probably never even existed. We know so little about the creation of the New Testament that I cannot tell you why each book was not included, only what makes them interesting. This list is not aimed to validate or discredit the value of any particular book but to provide some context to the creation of the New Testament.
*Because the New Testament is a result of the Orthodox opinion of the time I have chosen to exclude Gnostic texts from this list.
and another snippet:
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
ï,·
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
ï,·
ï,·
The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.
ï,·
Note that sentence above--not a thunderbolt but the product of centuries of reflection. I actually understand 'reflection' to be another name for power politics. God itself could have shortcut all that need for 'reflection' or picking and choosing and of power politics by dropping his word via the 'thunderbolt' around the world in the very beginning. This is simply proof that your god does not exist.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:25:07 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:25:07 PM
Randy, more for you. His is a partial list of some of the English translations of bibles we have. Each are different. I find it strange that god's word changes so often--and that it is so difficult to understand. Once again, it is proof for me that your god does not exist; no god could be so shoddy in it's work.
The list:
Each version has its own page where there is a brief description about that particular version, information taken from within the version itself. You can view a quote from Genesis 1: 1, 2; Wisdom (of Solomon) 1: 1; and/or John 1: 1-3 as recorded in each version to illustrate its style. Also noted is the library where the version is located.
Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Peshitta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation
The list:
Each version has its own page where there is a brief description about that particular version, information taken from within the version itself. You can view a quote from Genesis 1: 1, 2; Wisdom (of Solomon) 1: 1; and/or John 1: 1-3 as recorded in each version to illustrate its style. Also noted is the library where the version is located.
Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Peshitta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:29:10 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:29:10 PM
Randy, this is just more food for the grist. This may be a little long--you can skip it since it simply underlines the sillyness you call your religion and it's book.
Plenty of religions all claim that their holy books somehow came from God or are approved by God. They all are delusional and mythical, sure. But the Bible is a particularly poor work if you are looking for more than entertainment or intriguing literature. The Bible must be a terribly poor source for any reliable information about God. Even if you are tempted to take it seriously, all the contradictions and confusions are embarrassing, even by religious standards. Christianity couldn't help but remain disorganized for all these centuries, with every denomination and church trying to force the poor Bible to fit some creed or another. No wonder Christianity can conjure up a unified faith only towards an utterly mysterious God. I've long been skeptical about whether "Christianity" exists, but that's a story for another time.
It's the Bible that's at fault here. The Old Testament is bad enough, but at least that Yahweh character has a fairly clear agenda and the Jewish people figured out that it shouldn't be taken too literally. The New Testament is just a disaster no matter how you try to read it. "The Bible" that Christians refer to, that crudely assembled stew of hardly compatible gospels and letters called the New Testament, just doesn't pass any rational test. It's time to get really, really, skeptical.
Let me ask everyone this question: What "Bible" could Christians be talking about? No original New Testament texts exist now. Only shards and segments of some books are older than the third century. Christians want to believe that these fragments are somehow identical duplicates of originals from three centuries earlier. Sorry, Christians. Not only does that convenient theory utterly violate rationality, the actual fragments and early Bibles contradict that theory. The oldest fragments of the same gospel don't quite agree, and its nearly impossible to figure out which one might be "closer" to some imaginary original. The oldest complete Gospels from the fourth and fifth centuries already show how copyists were adding their own errors and interpretations while trying to "correct" what they thought were mistakes in older copies. By the time that entire complete Bibles become available to us, in copies from the fifth and sixth centuries (read the Codex Sinaiticus, for example), different Bibles contain somewhat different sets of books, and the texts of the books disagree in many crucial respects having theological significance.
Naturally, Christians want to believe in miracles all over again, that somehow genuine eyewitness accounts got perfectly passed down by word of mouth for 50 years before getting written down, and then those writings were perfectly preserved for another 250 years. But the earliest texts themselves reveal a long tale of invention, compilation, borrowing, forgery, and endless revision. All the evidence points the other way: human hands, not divine hands, composed the New Testament for utterly human purposes.
Since these early texts and complete Bibles read a little differently in many significant places (and contain minor variations adding up into the thousands), it is impossible to accurately decide which variations correctly duplicate the lost originals, if any ever existed. The Roman Catholic Church had to put a tremendous effort into deciding on one final version of the Bible after examining all the various available texts in Greek, and then transforming that production for one authoritative translation into Latin. That Latin Vulgate Bible was the collective work of thousands of scholars. Then Protestants came along and promptly rejected that Latin Bible, producing their own Bibles by the hundreds since the 1500s.
There is no original Bible to look at, and not even any early single Bible for reading. When the difficulties of translating the original Greek into Latin or English are added to the situation, it is impossible to avoid the judgment that human transcription and interpretation thoroughly pervade the many different Bibles that Christians read today. Christians have forever disagreed about their Bibles â€" many denominations have split over and over again because of arguments over the exact text and best translation of the Bible. If Christians can't even agree on what the Bible really is, nonbelievers have every right to be skeptical that we are even talking about something real.
Plenty of religions all claim that their holy books somehow came from God or are approved by God. They all are delusional and mythical, sure. But the Bible is a particularly poor work if you are looking for more than entertainment or intriguing literature. The Bible must be a terribly poor source for any reliable information about God. Even if you are tempted to take it seriously, all the contradictions and confusions are embarrassing, even by religious standards. Christianity couldn't help but remain disorganized for all these centuries, with every denomination and church trying to force the poor Bible to fit some creed or another. No wonder Christianity can conjure up a unified faith only towards an utterly mysterious God. I've long been skeptical about whether "Christianity" exists, but that's a story for another time.
It's the Bible that's at fault here. The Old Testament is bad enough, but at least that Yahweh character has a fairly clear agenda and the Jewish people figured out that it shouldn't be taken too literally. The New Testament is just a disaster no matter how you try to read it. "The Bible" that Christians refer to, that crudely assembled stew of hardly compatible gospels and letters called the New Testament, just doesn't pass any rational test. It's time to get really, really, skeptical.
Let me ask everyone this question: What "Bible" could Christians be talking about? No original New Testament texts exist now. Only shards and segments of some books are older than the third century. Christians want to believe that these fragments are somehow identical duplicates of originals from three centuries earlier. Sorry, Christians. Not only does that convenient theory utterly violate rationality, the actual fragments and early Bibles contradict that theory. The oldest fragments of the same gospel don't quite agree, and its nearly impossible to figure out which one might be "closer" to some imaginary original. The oldest complete Gospels from the fourth and fifth centuries already show how copyists were adding their own errors and interpretations while trying to "correct" what they thought were mistakes in older copies. By the time that entire complete Bibles become available to us, in copies from the fifth and sixth centuries (read the Codex Sinaiticus, for example), different Bibles contain somewhat different sets of books, and the texts of the books disagree in many crucial respects having theological significance.
Naturally, Christians want to believe in miracles all over again, that somehow genuine eyewitness accounts got perfectly passed down by word of mouth for 50 years before getting written down, and then those writings were perfectly preserved for another 250 years. But the earliest texts themselves reveal a long tale of invention, compilation, borrowing, forgery, and endless revision. All the evidence points the other way: human hands, not divine hands, composed the New Testament for utterly human purposes.
Since these early texts and complete Bibles read a little differently in many significant places (and contain minor variations adding up into the thousands), it is impossible to accurately decide which variations correctly duplicate the lost originals, if any ever existed. The Roman Catholic Church had to put a tremendous effort into deciding on one final version of the Bible after examining all the various available texts in Greek, and then transforming that production for one authoritative translation into Latin. That Latin Vulgate Bible was the collective work of thousands of scholars. Then Protestants came along and promptly rejected that Latin Bible, producing their own Bibles by the hundreds since the 1500s.
There is no original Bible to look at, and not even any early single Bible for reading. When the difficulties of translating the original Greek into Latin or English are added to the situation, it is impossible to avoid the judgment that human transcription and interpretation thoroughly pervade the many different Bibles that Christians read today. Christians have forever disagreed about their Bibles â€" many denominations have split over and over again because of arguments over the exact text and best translation of the Bible. If Christians can't even agree on what the Bible really is, nonbelievers have every right to be skeptical that we are even talking about something real.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 10:49:40 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 10:49:40 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:11:47 PM
Randy, welcome back. You made my point for me. The Bible did not plop to earth, totally complete. Why not? Was that beyond the ability of your god? Apparently.
Seriously? God who made the entire universe from nothing could not lay a few volumes on us? C'mon...
The Bible was delivered to us a bit at a time...as much as we could handle. Think of it like bending wood...too quickly and the wood snaps. Done slowly and under the right conditions...any shape can be formed. God did not overwhelm us with the fullness of revelation all at once. The people were not ready for it; they had to be molded slowly.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:11:47 PMAnd why did that bible not plop to earth all over the earth? Beyond the ability of your god? Apparently. In my eyes, the fact that there are people in the world who have not seen the bible or even heard of it.
For the same reason as I gave above, Mike. If the Bible had suddenly appeared (and actually how could it since it is a record of history? So, when would it have appeared? After the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome ca. AD 65?? After John's gospel in AD 95?), what context would any of it had for non-Israelites?
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:11:47 PMYet many of your christian friends will contend they will go to hell. That is the justice of your god? Apparently.
No. That is the error of Protestantism. Hey, it's not MY fault that Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII screwed up and that false interpretations have spread! I'm Catholic, remember? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:11:47 PMThe book you call the NT does indeed, mostly contain 27 books. As that is so for those three reasons you give us, but for many more. Power politics and control supplies the real answer to why so many of the writings have been left out of the modern NT. But not all bibles contain 27 books--the Peshitta does not, for example. So, for you that 'most' bibles have 27 books is enough for you to think that is what god wants. For me it is simply proof of shoddy work of your god. Understand there are not just different translations, but different bibles. Once again, that is just proof of shoddy work of your god. Which really leads me to believe that your shoddy god is simply the creation of people thousands of years ago. Your god just simply does not exist.
Well, that sounds like shoddy reasoning to me, Mike. If you do a bit of reading, you can learn the history of the canon. We could review the gnostic gospels one by one, but in the end the result would be the same: the Church rejected them for the three reasons I already gave...not because of "politics". These books contain ideas that are contrary to the canonical gospels and were not apostolic in origin. Plain and simple.
The Peshitta NT has not gained a wide acceptance in the Christian community, has it? And why? Because the canons of scripture that pre-date it contain the same 27 books that are in the standard canon today. Luther truncated the OT, too. So, what? I view Protestantism and the Syriac churches with equal skepticism.
That said, this argument is not as strong as you might hope. After all, the Syriac churches do agree with me on most of the books (and thus the core message of the resurrection), and that is really not helpful to your cause.
But your argument fails when it comes to Islam. Yesiree, you can read the Qu'ran in Arabic just the same as Mohammed. So, if you are an atheist because the Bible seems corrupt, okay. But the Qu'ran is not. So, this argument fails to account for why you are discounting ALL theistic religions. 'Cause the lack of "shoddiness" when it comes to the preservation of the Qu'ran ought to impress the hell out of you. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
(And I do reject the notion that the Bible has been given to us in shoddy fashion by God. Just in case you missed that. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif))
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:01:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:01:28 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
Randy, I have found the process of the canonization of the bible to be quite interesting. Here is a brief snippet about that:
Establishing the canon: 2nd - 4th century AD
By the middle of the 2nd century it becomes evident that a great many different and often contradictory passages of holy scripture are circulating among the various Christian churches, each claiming to offer the truth. (There is even a Gospel according to Judas Iscariot.) Which of these shall be accepted as the official canon? This becomes a subject of urgent debate among church leaders.
By the end of the century it is widely agreed that four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and theActs of the Apostles are authentic. But it is not until 367 that a list is circulated by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, which finally establishes the content of the New Testament.
Meanwhile the texts are being ceaselessly copied and recopied onpapyrus and later onparchment. A few fragments survive from the 2nd century, but the earliest complete New Testament (the Codex Sinaiticus, in Greek, written probably in Egypt, now in the British Library) dates from the late 4th century.
By this timeJerome is working in Bethlehem on his Latin version of the Bible. The story of the New Testament evolves into the story of itstranslations.
Read more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa11#ixzz47MezBBgS
The canon of 27 NT books is simply the result of power politics--god is not evident in any of it.
Forgive me, but how is Athanasius' listing of the canon a result of or evidence for "power politics"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:07:34 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:07:34 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:19:15 PM
Randy, more evidence of power politics:
The New Testament of the Christian Bible is one of the most influential works of the last two millennia. As the key work of the largest religion in the western world, it has shaped our world in many subtle ways. But the list of 27 books we know today as the New Testament came together gradually through a series of councils and general usage until the books became the standard for most of Christianity.
Agreed.
QuoteThis list is about 10 of the most interesting books not included in the New Testament. Some were excluded for obvious reasons, some likely never had wide readership until found in an obscure library thousands of years later and some just barely missed the cut to being included. One probably never even existed.
This makes my argument...not yours.
Quote
We know so little about the creation of the New Testament that I cannot tell you why each book was not included, only what makes them interesting. This list is not aimed to validate or discredit the value of any particular book but to provide some context to the creation of the New Testament.
*Because the New Testament is a result of the Orthodox opinion of the time I have chosen to exclude Gnostic texts from this list.
and another snippet:
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
ï,·
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
ï,·
ï,·
The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.
ï,·
Note that sentence above--not a thunderbolt but the product of centuries of reflection. I actually understand 'reflection' to be another name for power politics. God itself could have shortcut all that need for 'reflection' or picking and choosing and of power politics by dropping his word via the 'thunderbolt' around the world in the very beginning. This is simply proof that your god does not exist.
Ah...so God cannot work slowly over time like He might do in the case of evolution.
No, when it comes to giving us the Bible, it had to be done all at once and everywhere at once. Kinda like a "Big Bible Bang" where it all happened in an instant.
Otherwise, it's just "shoddy". (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/dts.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:12:05 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:12:05 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:25:07 PM
Randy, more for you. His is a partial list of some of the English translations of bibles we have. Each are different. I find it strange that god's word changes so often--and that it is so difficult to understand. Once again, it is proof for me that your god does not exist; no god could be so shoddy in it's work.
The list:
Each version has its own page where there is a brief description about that particular version, information taken from within the version itself. You can view a quote from Genesis 1: 1, 2; Wisdom (of Solomon) 1: 1; and/or John 1: 1-3 as recorded in each version to illustrate its style. Also noted is the library where the version is located.
Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Peshitta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation
Do you honestly believe that the existence of different translations of the Bible is problematic?
Given that the English language has undergone significant changes, do you think that the Wiclif Translation of 1380 is going to read the same way as the New International Version (1978)?
And more to the point, Mike, how many of these translations contain the account of the resurrection of Jesus? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 30, 2016, 10:29:10 PM
Randy, this is just more food for the grist. This may be a little long--you can skip it since it simply underlines the sillyness you call your religion and it's book.
Plenty of religions all claim that their holy books somehow came from God or are approved by God. They all are delusional and mythical, sure. But the Bible is a particularly poor work if you are looking for more than entertainment or intriguing literature. The Bible must be a terribly poor source for any reliable information about God. Even if you are tempted to take it seriously, all the contradictions and confusions are embarrassing, even by religious standards.
The contradictions are overstated. It would take us quite awhile to iron out all the wrinkles that you think exist, but it CAN be done.
QuoteChristianity couldn't help but remain disorganized for all these centuries, with every denomination and church trying to force the poor Bible to fit some creed or another. No wonder Christianity can conjure up a unified faith only towards an utterly mysterious God. I've long been skeptical about whether "Christianity" exists, but that's a story for another time.
But Mike, this is not a reflection on the Bible itself, but upon the people who attempt to interpret it. God did not simply give us a book. He gave us a Church, and the Church later wrote the book. Some folks rejected the Church and sought to live according to the Bible alone, and that is why you see the fragmentation. Without an infallible interpreter, an inerrant book is useless.
QuoteIt's the Bible that's at fault here. The Old Testament is bad enough, but at least that Yahweh character has a fairly clear agenda and the Jewish people figured out that it shouldn't be taken too literally. The New Testament is just a disaster no matter how you try to read it. "The Bible" that Christians refer to, that crudely assembled stew of hardly compatible gospels and letters called the New Testament, just doesn't pass any rational test. It's time to get really, really, skeptical.
By all means, show me the "disaster".
QuoteLet me ask everyone this question: What "Bible" could Christians be talking about? No original New Testament texts exist now. Only shards and segments of some books are older than the third century. Christians want to believe that these fragments are somehow identical duplicates of originals from three centuries earlier. Sorry, Christians. Not only does that convenient theory utterly violate rationality, the actual fragments and early Bibles contradict that theory. The oldest fragments of the same gospel don't quite agree, and its nearly impossible to figure out which one might be "closer" to some imaginary original. The oldest complete Gospels from the fourth and fifth centuries already show how copyists were adding their own errors and interpretations while trying to "correct" what they thought were mistakes in older copies. By the time that entire complete Bibles become available to us, in copies from the fifth and sixth centuries (read the Codex Sinaiticus, for example), different Bibles contain somewhat different sets of books, and the texts of the books disagree in many crucial respects having theological significance.
You are not familiar with textual criticism, are you? Hey, why would you be? But there is NO question that we know with certainty what the autographs of the NT books contained. This is as close to being scientific fact as you could possibly ask for.
QuoteNaturally, Christians want to believe in miracles all over again, that somehow genuine eyewitness accounts got perfectly passed down by word of mouth for 50 years before getting written down, and then those writings were perfectly preserved for another 250 years. But the earliest texts themselves reveal a long tale of invention, compilation, borrowing, forgery, and endless revision. All the evidence points the other way: human hands, not divine hands, composed the New Testament for utterly human purposes.
You are mistaken, Mike, and now, you're throwing out objections more rapidly than can possibly be answered adequately in a single post. The gospels are not mere tales of invention, they are are eyewitness accounts that passed the muster of living witnesses who were able to distinguish between books that told the truth (canonical gospels) and the false gnostic gospels which came later.
One key point which blows a giant whole in your paragraph: 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 contains a passage which is clearly a proto-creed of the Early Church. Even Bart Ehrman dates this creed VERY early...like 1-3 years after the death of Jesus.
1-3 years, Mike. That is jaw-droppingly early. No other ancient figure in all of human history has documented source material written so close to the actual events themselves.
QuoteSince these early texts and complete Bibles read a little differently in many significant places (and contain minor variations adding up into the thousands), it is impossible to accurately decide which variations correctly duplicate the lost originals, if any ever existed.
And yet, what you fail to understand is that while these variations to exist, not one of them jeopardizes a single Christian doctrine. Not. One.
Most are spelling variations, btw.
QuoteThe Roman Catholic Church had to put a tremendous effort into deciding on one final version of the Bible after examining all the various available texts in Greek, and then transforming that production for one authoritative translation into Latin. That Latin Vulgate Bible was the collective work of thousands of scholars. Then Protestants came along and promptly rejected that Latin Bible, producing their own Bibles by the hundreds since the 1500s.
Luther had theological reasons for dropping seven books from the OT, but this doesn't help you, because the resurrection of Jesus is proclaimed in ALL of these Bibles even if the accounts of the Maccabees is not. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
QuoteThere is no original Bible to look at, and not even any early single Bible for reading. When the difficulties of translating the original Greek into Latin or English are added to the situation, it is impossible to avoid the judgment that human transcription and interpretation thoroughly pervade the many different Bibles that Christians read today. Christians have forever disagreed about their Bibles â€" many denominations have split over and over again because of arguments over the exact text and best translation of the Bible. If Christians can't even agree on what the Bible really is, nonbelievers have every right to be skeptical that we are even talking about something real.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/no.gif)
The gospels were written very early. (Before AD 70)
The gospels were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or by those who had access to them (Mark, Luke).
The gospels were written by men who intended to write accurate history.
The gospels were written by former skeptics who had become convinced that Jesus was God. (This is not bias...this is conviction.)
The gospels were judged to be accurate by living witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.
The gospels have been preserved to an astonishingly high degree of accuracy which can be demonstrated by textual criticism. (We KNOW what the authors wrote.)
I understand why it is important for you to maintain these points of view; you can't allow the integrity of the NT if you want to maintain your atheism.
But you are just swinging wildly and wishfully out of complete ignorance of the facts.
Moreover, pick up a KJV, NIV or RSVCE or any translation of your choosing, Mike.
I'll still be able to show you the resurrection of Jesus in its pages.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:12:55 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:12:55 AM
The 'gospels' were written about 5,000 years ago by Babylonians, Sumerians, then Romans and Greeks. Later on the Jews copied much of it and later yet, the Christians plagiarized the whole shabang, and finally Mohammad did as well. Anything from the flood, ark, virgin birth, resurrection, Adam and Eve, the snake, the tree and sooo much more is all there to read. Mostly copyright infringement by...who knows by whom. We have no originals, only copies of copies of copies, translated and changed a thousand times. We have no idea who wrote the gospels, probably mostly unlettered scribes who worked for food and just copied letter for letter. There are 30,000 contradictions in the NT and over 300,000 in the Torah.
Maybe Baruch can correct me here, but the Apostles were all Jews like Jesus (if he existed) and spoke Hebrew and some Aramaic. But none of them spoke Greek, the language the Bible was written. Should have been written in cuneiform, it would be more credible.
Maybe Baruch can correct me here, but the Apostles were all Jews like Jesus (if he existed) and spoke Hebrew and some Aramaic. But none of them spoke Greek, the language the Bible was written. Should have been written in cuneiform, it would be more credible.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:20:27 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:20:27 AM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:12:55 AM
The 'gospels' were written about 5,000 years ago by Babylonians, Sumerians, then Romans and Greeks. Later on the Jews copied much of it and later yet, the Christians plagiarized the whole shabang, and finally Mohammad did as well. Anything from the flood, ark, virgin birth, resurrection, Adam and Eve, the snake, the tree and sooo much more is all there to read. Mostly copyright infringement by...who knows by whom.
Is that what professional scholars believe to be true?
Nope. This is Internet crap...repeated endlessly by people who don't have the education to discern what is real and what is fiction.
QuoteWe have no originals, only copies of copies of copies, translated and changed a thousand times. We have no idea who wrote the gospels, probably mostly unlettered scribes who worked for food and just copied letter for letter. There are 30,000 contradictions in the NT and over 300,000 in the Torah.
And how many of these variants actually affect Christian doctrine?
None.
QuoteMaybe Baruch can correct me here, but the Apostles were all Jews like Jesus (if he existed) and spoke Hebrew and some Aramaic. But none of them spoke Greek, the language the Bible was written. Should have been written in cuneiform, it would be more credible.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, but later his gospel was written in Greek. Luke, Mark and Paul were all Roman citizens...they knew Greek.
As for whether Jesus existed, why do you doubt that he did? Because that's easier than having to deal with the reality of his existence, isn't it?
And you'd rather not think about that too hard.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:36:49 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:36:49 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:20:27 AM
Is that what professional scholars believe to be true?
Nope. This is Internet crap...repeated endlessly by people who don't have the education to discern what is real and what is fiction.
And how many of these variants actually affect Christian doctrine?
None.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, but later his gospel was written in Greek. Luke, Mark and Paul were all Roman citizens...they knew Greek.
As for whether Jesus existed, why do you doubt that he did? Because that's easier than having to deal with the reality of his existence, isn't it?
And you'd rather not think about that too hard.
Oh geez, internet crap huh? Ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh (I have the book WITH PICTURES of the clay tablets in cuneiform)??? How about Horus or the Pandora Fable? The Royal Museum in Cambridge has them displayed for perusal. So please get real.
As to Jesus' existence, well his time was one of the most extensively written eras ever. Writers such as Aulus Perseus, Columella, Dio Chrisostome, Justus of Tiberius, Livy, Lucanus, Lucius Florus, Petronius, Phaedrus, Philo Judaeus, Phlegon, Pany the Elder, Plutarch, Pomponius Mola, Rufus Curteus, Quintillian, Seneca, Silius Italius, Statius Caelicius, Theon of Smyrna, Valerius Flaccus, Valerius Maximus, kept meticulous records of the time. Not one single word about a Jesus. The guy who had people coming from as far away as Syria to see him or get healed and performed miracles did not get any mention at all? If he existed, and that's a definite IF, he certainly wasn't divine. One of many preachers who gave encouragement to the oppressed Jews. The time was ripe with magic and miracles, all laws of nature were suspended.
And what about the crucifixion? God couldn't forgive directly, he had to send his son, who is also himself, into certain death? What did that accomplish? What is the connection to our sins? As Doug Stanhope said: "I'll hit my foot with a shovel for your mortgage". That's about the gist of it all.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 01:06:24 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 01:06:24 AM
And how many of these variants actually affect Christian doctrine?
None.
You missed the point entirely to my utter surprise! A omnipotent deity wouldn't make such clumsy humanoid contradictions. It has nothing to do with doctrine.
But let me ask you a question or two: Is the Earth a disk or a sphere? Why don't you kill people who work on a Sunday? Why don't you kill homosexuals and adulterers? You wouldn't be cherry picking, right? Nuhh
None.
You missed the point entirely to my utter surprise! A omnipotent deity wouldn't make such clumsy humanoid contradictions. It has nothing to do with doctrine.
But let me ask you a question or two: Is the Earth a disk or a sphere? Why don't you kill people who work on a Sunday? Why don't you kill homosexuals and adulterers? You wouldn't be cherry picking, right? Nuhh
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 06:45:29 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 06:45:29 AM
NOTE: The following article was written by me based upon my own reading and research. However, I do not claim to be the scholar who has done original research; I am just a student who has read some of what the real scholars have written, and I have made every effort to provide attribution to the original authors when known. I am grateful for any assistance in documenting material for which I may not have provided adequate documentation. Another point, I have posted this compilation previously in other forums.
A final word: The goal of these posts is NOT to spam the board; if that were my intent, I would have created multiple threads. Instead, my goal is to provide a single point of reference or repository for this information in direct response to questions about the reliability of the New Testament which were asked of me in another thread. I hope that these posts will answer those questions adequately. - Randy
ON THE ACCURACY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS
Many people believe that the Bible which we have today has been corrupted over time and no longer accurately reflects what the original authors wrote or intended. It is also argued that the oldest known copies of the New Testament are far too young to be of value and that they are just copies of copies of copies into which variations and errors have been mixed. The party game known as “Telephone†is cited as the classic example of how this corruption occurs.
But is this really true? Or does the modern text accurately reflect what the authors originally wrote? We’ll begin by looking at the number of texts available for study and the method scholars use to evaluate their accuracy.
I. A. - An Embarrassment of Riches
Due to the passage of time and the fragility of the materials upon which ancient books were written, scholars today are limited to studying copies of ancient works because the originals simply no longer exist. For example, Homer’s Illiad was written around 800 BC, and there are 643 copies of this illustrious work still in existence. The earliest of these copies is dated from around 400 BC. In other words, the time gap between Homer’s writing to the oldest existing copy is a gap of 400 years.
The Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote his 16-volume work, Annals of Imperial Rome, around AD 116, but only one copy of the first six volumes is still in existence; volumes seven through ten have been lost altogether, and volumes eleven through sixteen are found in a single manuscript dated from the eleventh century. In other words, the time gap between Tacitus and the oldest manuscript of those volumes is almost 1,000 years.
Similarly, there are nine Greek copies of the works of the Jewish historian, Josephus, and these copies are dated from the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. There is also a fourth-century Latin translation and a Russian translation from the eleventh century.
This pattern could be repeated for all of the ancient authors and texts: a relatively small number of copies of the work in question exist and the oldest of these is dated centuries after the work was written. Yet, despite these challenges, serious historians have little doubt as to the accuracy of the ancient texts themselves.
So, how does the New Testament compare with these other ancient writings? Quite well. In fact, today there are 5,686 Greek New Testament manuscripts â€" almost ten times the number of manuscript copies of the Illiad. Additionally, there are more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and well over 8,000 manuscripts in other languages still in existence which brings the grand total to nearly 25,000 manuscripts dating from the second to the fifteenth centuries. Just as significant is the age of the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts many of which can be dated to the middle of the second century. Researchers have also announced the existence of a fragment of the gospel of Mark which is believed to date from the first century â€" though details of this fragment may not be available until 2017. The size and quality of these manuscripts is also significant; while some of these are mere fragments of papyrus containing only a few verses, others contain whole chapters of the gospels, the Book of Acts and various letters of Paul.
Dr. Harold Greenlee wrote:
With thousands of manuscripts available for study â€" an embarrassment of riches â€" Dr. Greenlee concludes that the text of the New Testament itself is reliable. To understand why, it is important to consider the next step in the process: textual criticism.
A final word: The goal of these posts is NOT to spam the board; if that were my intent, I would have created multiple threads. Instead, my goal is to provide a single point of reference or repository for this information in direct response to questions about the reliability of the New Testament which were asked of me in another thread. I hope that these posts will answer those questions adequately. - Randy
ON THE ACCURACY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS
Many people believe that the Bible which we have today has been corrupted over time and no longer accurately reflects what the original authors wrote or intended. It is also argued that the oldest known copies of the New Testament are far too young to be of value and that they are just copies of copies of copies into which variations and errors have been mixed. The party game known as “Telephone†is cited as the classic example of how this corruption occurs.
But is this really true? Or does the modern text accurately reflect what the authors originally wrote? We’ll begin by looking at the number of texts available for study and the method scholars use to evaluate their accuracy.
I. A. - An Embarrassment of Riches
Due to the passage of time and the fragility of the materials upon which ancient books were written, scholars today are limited to studying copies of ancient works because the originals simply no longer exist. For example, Homer’s Illiad was written around 800 BC, and there are 643 copies of this illustrious work still in existence. The earliest of these copies is dated from around 400 BC. In other words, the time gap between Homer’s writing to the oldest existing copy is a gap of 400 years.
The Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote his 16-volume work, Annals of Imperial Rome, around AD 116, but only one copy of the first six volumes is still in existence; volumes seven through ten have been lost altogether, and volumes eleven through sixteen are found in a single manuscript dated from the eleventh century. In other words, the time gap between Tacitus and the oldest manuscript of those volumes is almost 1,000 years.
Similarly, there are nine Greek copies of the works of the Jewish historian, Josephus, and these copies are dated from the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. There is also a fourth-century Latin translation and a Russian translation from the eleventh century.
This pattern could be repeated for all of the ancient authors and texts: a relatively small number of copies of the work in question exist and the oldest of these is dated centuries after the work was written. Yet, despite these challenges, serious historians have little doubt as to the accuracy of the ancient texts themselves.
So, how does the New Testament compare with these other ancient writings? Quite well. In fact, today there are 5,686 Greek New Testament manuscripts â€" almost ten times the number of manuscript copies of the Illiad. Additionally, there are more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and well over 8,000 manuscripts in other languages still in existence which brings the grand total to nearly 25,000 manuscripts dating from the second to the fifteenth centuries. Just as significant is the age of the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts many of which can be dated to the middle of the second century. Researchers have also announced the existence of a fragment of the gospel of Mark which is believed to date from the first century â€" though details of this fragment may not be available until 2017. The size and quality of these manuscripts is also significant; while some of these are mere fragments of papyrus containing only a few verses, others contain whole chapters of the gospels, the Book of Acts and various letters of Paul.
Dr. Harold Greenlee wrote:
QuoteThe oldest known MSS of most of the Greek classical authors are dated a thousand years or more after the author’s death. The time interval for the Latin authors is somewhat less, varying down to a minimum of three centuries in the case of Virgil. In the case of the NT, however, two of the most important MSS were written within 300 years after the NT was completed and some virtually complete NT books as well as extensive fragmentary MSS of many parts of the NT date back to one century from the original writings….Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the NT is likewise assured. (Harold Greenlee, Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 16)
With thousands of manuscripts available for study â€" an embarrassment of riches â€" Dr. Greenlee concludes that the text of the New Testament itself is reliable. To understand why, it is important to consider the next step in the process: textual criticism.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 06:54:02 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 06:54:02 AM
I. B. â€" Textual Criticism Explained
Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I'll call "M". Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I'll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I'll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. In the following diagram, each column represents a generation. For example, M is the original, C1 a copy of M, C1a is a copy of C1, and C1a1 is a copy of C1a. Like this:
M > C1 > C1a > C1a1
Over the course of history, some copies are lost or destroyed. The copies which have not been lost are portrayed in red.
M----C1----C1a----C1a1
-------------C1b----C1b1
---------------------C1b2
-------------C1c----C1c1
---------------------C1c2
------C2----C2a----C2a1
-------------C2b----C2b1
------C3----C3a----C3a1
---------------------C3a2
-------------C3b----C3b1
-------------C3c----C3c1
---------------------C3c2
---------------------C3c3
Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I'm simplifying, of course).
We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or "typos", if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?
So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don't have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text?
By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said. This process, called "Textual Criticism", provides a high degree of confidence that the Bible we have today contains the message that the original authors intended to convey.
Next, we'll take a look a just how high the estimates of accuracy really are.
Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I'll call "M". Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I'll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I'll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. In the following diagram, each column represents a generation. For example, M is the original, C1 a copy of M, C1a is a copy of C1, and C1a1 is a copy of C1a. Like this:
M > C1 > C1a > C1a1
Over the course of history, some copies are lost or destroyed. The copies which have not been lost are portrayed in red.
M----C1----C1a----C1a1
-------------C1b----C1b1
---------------------C1b2
-------------C1c----C1c1
---------------------C1c2
------C2----C2a----C2a1
-------------C2b----C2b1
------C3----C3a----C3a1
---------------------C3a2
-------------C3b----C3b1
-------------C3c----C3c1
---------------------C3c2
---------------------C3c3
Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I'm simplifying, of course).
We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or "typos", if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?
So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don't have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text?
By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said. This process, called "Textual Criticism", provides a high degree of confidence that the Bible we have today contains the message that the original authors intended to convey.
Next, we'll take a look a just how high the estimates of accuracy really are.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 07:02:54 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 07:02:54 AM
I. C. â€" An Accurate Text â€" Estimates of Accuracy
Norman Geisler notes in his book A General Introduction to the Bible that the late Bruce Metzer (who taught Bart Ehrman) said that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. Geisler goes on to say,
Taken from:
A Look at Bart Ehrman: Agreements and Disagreements
By Eric Chabot
M.A. Southern Evangelical Seminary, Religious Studies.
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/what-bart-ehrman-gets-right-and-wrong/ (https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/what-bart-ehrman-gets-right-and-wrong/)
Next up, I will address the flaws in the infamous "Telephone Game" analogy. Don't touch that dial!
Norman Geisler notes in his book A General Introduction to the Bible that the late Bruce Metzer (who taught Bart Ehrman) said that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. Geisler goes on to say,
QuoteNT textual authorities Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above “trivialities†and can be called “substantial variations.†In short, the NT is 98.33 percent pure. Second, Greek expert Ezra Abbott said about 19/20 (95 percent) of the readings are “various†rather than “rival†readings, and about 19/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent accurate. Third, noted NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a “thousandth part of the entire text.†So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free from real concern.
Philip Schaff estimated that of the thousands of variations in all the manuscripts known in his day, only 50 were of real significance and of these not one affected “an article of faith.†Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that:Quote“In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another†(Misquoting Jesus, 55).
Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that:QuoteThe interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established†(Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 288).
Consider the following message: Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION. DOLLARS. Notice that even with the error in the text, 100% of the message comes through. Consider also this message with two lines and two errors.
• Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
• YO# HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
Here we are even more sure of the message with two errors in it. In fact, the more errors like this, the more sure one is of the message since every new line brings a confirmation of every letter except one. As noted earlier, there are about 5700 New Testament manuscripts in existence which provide hundreds, in some cases even thousands, of confirmations of every line in the NT.
As a matter of fact, there can be a high percent of divergence in letters and yet a 100% identity of message. Consider the following lines:
1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
2. THOU HAST WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS
3. Y’ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000
Notice that of the 27 letters and numbers in line two only 7 in line three are the same. That is little more than 25% identity of letters and numbers, yet the message is 100% the same. They differ in form, but they are identical in content. The same is true of all the basic teachings of the NT.â€
Taken from:
A Look at Bart Ehrman: Agreements and Disagreements
By Eric Chabot
M.A. Southern Evangelical Seminary, Religious Studies.
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/what-bart-ehrman-gets-right-and-wrong/ (https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/what-bart-ehrman-gets-right-and-wrong/)
Next up, I will address the flaws in the infamous "Telephone Game" analogy. Don't touch that dial!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 07:03:39 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 07:03:39 AM
I. D. â€" Debunking the Telephone Game Analogy
What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)
Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game†as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.
Rules of the Telephone Game:
1. To play Telephone, you'll need a group of players. More is better.
2. Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words -- for instance, try using a phrase such as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia." The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.
3. Only one player should know what the phrase is.
4. The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.
5. She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.
6. Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.
7. What began as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia" might end up as "Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand." If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and pinpointing where the various changes occurred.
Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:
1. The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.
2. The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.
3. The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.
4. The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.
5. The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account†of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well.
6. The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.
7. The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.
In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.
What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)
Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game†as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.
Rules of the Telephone Game:
1. To play Telephone, you'll need a group of players. More is better.
2. Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words -- for instance, try using a phrase such as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia." The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.
3. Only one player should know what the phrase is.
4. The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.
5. She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.
6. Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.
7. What began as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia" might end up as "Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand." If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and pinpointing where the various changes occurred.
Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:
1. The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.
2. The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.
3. The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.
4. The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.
5. The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account†of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well.
6. The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.
7. The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.
In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Solomon Zorn on May 01, 2016, 07:38:14 AM
Post by: Solomon Zorn on May 01, 2016, 07:38:14 AM
Even if the text was consistent to itself, it was written long after the events, and the oral retelling before the written version is mostly where the myth took shape.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 01, 2016, 08:41:29 AM
Post by: aitm on May 01, 2016, 08:41:29 AM
IT the babble had for a moment a bit of truth and eloquence, it is far overshadowed by the opulence of whack-a-doodle nonsense, plain stupidity, unbelievable cruelty propagated by the evil diety hisself, mindless drivel that promotes the most ridiculous belief in gibberish and hogwash. Complete trash with an occasional clever quote. Bully for the writers. The brothers Grimm did a better job, made more sense, and is far more believable. Honestly, cut off your wifes hand is she tries to defend her husband by grabbing an attackers balls? WHo the fuck would blame the woman? Oh yeah, your whack-a-doo babbling nut jobs.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:01:07 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:01:07 AM
Randy, a word or two about your atheist hero: (Made by Richard Carrier)
Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic
Bart Ehrman was again asked what evidence there is that Jesus existed this February 18, 2016, at Fresno City College. See the video here (he begins his answer at timestamp 23:18). First he says this:
I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.
This is not a very truthful statement.
There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.â€
We are not “internet voices.†I have a peer reviewed academic monograph from a mainstream biblical studies press on this question.
Ehrman even appears to be saying that we are not “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines.†Because he leaves out any mention of the fact that this isn’t just “internet voices†but also published scholarship by his expert peers and recognized by his expert peers.
He fails to make clear that there are “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines†who have expressed their doubts. Again so far, seven of us.
And contrary to his last sentence, we are “scholars who study this stuff.†We are his colleagues (fully his peers in respect to credentialsâ€"some of us even better trained and more qualified in the subject of history than he is; so this looks a lot like he is lying about our credentials again).
And this question is debated by his colleagues. Not only by the seven of us so far who doubt historicity, but a lot of his colleagues have debated me. Including Zeba Crook, Trent Horn, Kenneth Waters, and (now) Craig Evans. One of those debates was even sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature. So the claim that it is “not debated†among his colleagues is false.
The evidence is not, of course, overwhelming. It’s not even whelming. But you can see that for yourself. IMO, the fact that this is what he thinks, discredits his opinion. Because there is no way in the universe any historian in any other field would call the evidence for the historicity of Jesus “overwhelming.†Maybe Ehrman just doesn’t know what overwhelming evidence looks like. But since he can’t even be honest about how many fully qualified colleagues of his doubt the historicity of Jesus, he can’t even honestly tell an audience that a mainstream peer reviewed academic monograph exists questioning historicity, and he can’t even honestly tell an audience that it is being debated by many of his colleagues, we shouldn’t expect him to honestly use the word “overwhelming†either.
What I realized was that I missed this presentation--damn! I live only 50 mi. from Fresno and would have loved to have been there.
Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic
Bart Ehrman was again asked what evidence there is that Jesus existed this February 18, 2016, at Fresno City College. See the video here (he begins his answer at timestamp 23:18). First he says this:
I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.
This is not a very truthful statement.
There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.â€
We are not “internet voices.†I have a peer reviewed academic monograph from a mainstream biblical studies press on this question.
Ehrman even appears to be saying that we are not “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines.†Because he leaves out any mention of the fact that this isn’t just “internet voices†but also published scholarship by his expert peers and recognized by his expert peers.
He fails to make clear that there are “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines†who have expressed their doubts. Again so far, seven of us.
And contrary to his last sentence, we are “scholars who study this stuff.†We are his colleagues (fully his peers in respect to credentialsâ€"some of us even better trained and more qualified in the subject of history than he is; so this looks a lot like he is lying about our credentials again).
And this question is debated by his colleagues. Not only by the seven of us so far who doubt historicity, but a lot of his colleagues have debated me. Including Zeba Crook, Trent Horn, Kenneth Waters, and (now) Craig Evans. One of those debates was even sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature. So the claim that it is “not debated†among his colleagues is false.
The evidence is not, of course, overwhelming. It’s not even whelming. But you can see that for yourself. IMO, the fact that this is what he thinks, discredits his opinion. Because there is no way in the universe any historian in any other field would call the evidence for the historicity of Jesus “overwhelming.†Maybe Ehrman just doesn’t know what overwhelming evidence looks like. But since he can’t even be honest about how many fully qualified colleagues of his doubt the historicity of Jesus, he can’t even honestly tell an audience that a mainstream peer reviewed academic monograph exists questioning historicity, and he can’t even honestly tell an audience that it is being debated by many of his colleagues, we shouldn’t expect him to honestly use the word “overwhelming†either.
What I realized was that I missed this presentation--damn! I live only 50 mi. from Fresno and would have loved to have been there.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:04:41 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:04:41 AM
More from your hero, Randy:
Anyway, he goes on…
The people who are called mythicists argue that Jesus was invented, that he’s a myth, that was made up, that there never was an actual man Jesus.
Not quite. We argue that the Gospel Jesus was made up. A conclusion even Bart Ehrman largely agrees with. He seems to be confused as to what the mythicist thesis actually is (as will become evident below). The peer reviewed mythicist thesis is that the first Christians genuinely believed there was an archangel named Jesus who underwent a cosmic ordeal to fix the universe using standard Jewish atonement magic (OHJ Chapters 3 and 4). They “met†this Jesus in visions and “discovered†what he said and what happened to him by finding hidden messages in the Old Testament (this is not conjecture; we know it for a fact: OHJ, Chapter 12.3-4).
So they didn’t make him up, in the sense Ehrman means (they might have, but it’s not necessary to assume they did: see OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 15). What a later generation of Christians did (not the first Christians, nor anyone who ever met any of the first Christians so far as we can tell) is make up the version of Jesus that had him tromping around earth interacting with historical figures. The distinction is crucial. Yet Ehrman conflates the two. And with this conflation he proceeds…
Here’s one reason for thinking that’s wrong. The early Christiansâ€"whether or not Jesus existedâ€"the early Christians said that Jesus was the messiah, and they said he was crucified. That would be a nonsensical statement for people in antiquity, that the messiah got crucified. The messiah was not supposed to suffer and die.
This is false. The Talmudic Jews preached that the messiah would suffer and die. So it clearly was not nonsensical. Even the Old Testament said the messiah would die. More on that in a moment. But the Talmud is clear on the matter (OHJ, pp. 73-75). There is in fact no evidence of any Jew ever finding this notion nonsensical. Many found it not to their preference. But it still made sense (as Hebrews 9 makes clear; see also OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 18, and Chapter 5, Elements 31 and 43). Especially since he wasn’t defeated in this account, but gained the power from it that he would use upon his return. Thus, a dying messiah is also a militarily victorious messiah. He just has to get resurrected.
Now Christians today typically say … that you have a prediction of a suffering messiah in the Old Testament. If you actually read the Old Testament, there is no passage in the Old Testament that talks about the messiah, that says anything about the messiah suffering. There are passages in the Old Testament that talk about somebody suffering, but they are never talking about the messiah. There are other passages that talk about the messiah, and they don’t talk about the messiah suffering. These were two incommensurate categories.
This is false. Daniel 9 says the messiah will die. Explicitly. And Isaiah 53 says so as wellâ€"using the word “Chosen One,†which Ehrman has otherwise agreed is a term used in the OT for the messiah (How Jesus Became God, p. 66). And Talmudic Rabbis agreed this was about the messiah. Even Psalms 89:32-52 says the messiah will be abandoned by God and suffer at his enemies’ hands (before being redeemed). And that is explicit that this is what will happen to the messiah. So Ehrman remains very truth challenged. Compare the evidence in OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 5.
So for Ehrman to keep repeating this claim, as if none of the above evidence existed, is simply dishonest.
Because the messiah was supposed to be the great king of Israel who overthrew the enemy, and set up God’s kingdom in Jerusalem. He was to be the great political, military leader of the Jews, who destroyed the enemy. That’s what the messiah was expected to be.
Not by everyone (Dan. 9; Is. 53; Ps. 89; the Talmud). Everyone expected that ultimately that would happen (as even the Christians still preached it would). But many did imagine there would be some suffering and possibly a brief death on the way. Moreover, Ehrman agrees we can’t claim to know what all Jews expected, so we can’t argue from what no Jews would have expected. Ehrman himself has said this explicitly: “saying what Jews thought is itself highly problematic, since lots of different Jews thought lots of different things. It would be like asking what Christians think today†(HJBG, p. 50) and “how would we know [what] ‘every’ early Christian [thought], unless all of them left us writings and told us everything they knew and did?†(DJE, p. 193), which is even more true of the Jews, who were even more divided into varying sects than the early Christians were, and about whom we know even less. So once again he is not telling his audience the truth.
Anyway, he goes on…
The people who are called mythicists argue that Jesus was invented, that he’s a myth, that was made up, that there never was an actual man Jesus.
Not quite. We argue that the Gospel Jesus was made up. A conclusion even Bart Ehrman largely agrees with. He seems to be confused as to what the mythicist thesis actually is (as will become evident below). The peer reviewed mythicist thesis is that the first Christians genuinely believed there was an archangel named Jesus who underwent a cosmic ordeal to fix the universe using standard Jewish atonement magic (OHJ Chapters 3 and 4). They “met†this Jesus in visions and “discovered†what he said and what happened to him by finding hidden messages in the Old Testament (this is not conjecture; we know it for a fact: OHJ, Chapter 12.3-4).
So they didn’t make him up, in the sense Ehrman means (they might have, but it’s not necessary to assume they did: see OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 15). What a later generation of Christians did (not the first Christians, nor anyone who ever met any of the first Christians so far as we can tell) is make up the version of Jesus that had him tromping around earth interacting with historical figures. The distinction is crucial. Yet Ehrman conflates the two. And with this conflation he proceeds…
Here’s one reason for thinking that’s wrong. The early Christiansâ€"whether or not Jesus existedâ€"the early Christians said that Jesus was the messiah, and they said he was crucified. That would be a nonsensical statement for people in antiquity, that the messiah got crucified. The messiah was not supposed to suffer and die.
This is false. The Talmudic Jews preached that the messiah would suffer and die. So it clearly was not nonsensical. Even the Old Testament said the messiah would die. More on that in a moment. But the Talmud is clear on the matter (OHJ, pp. 73-75). There is in fact no evidence of any Jew ever finding this notion nonsensical. Many found it not to their preference. But it still made sense (as Hebrews 9 makes clear; see also OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 18, and Chapter 5, Elements 31 and 43). Especially since he wasn’t defeated in this account, but gained the power from it that he would use upon his return. Thus, a dying messiah is also a militarily victorious messiah. He just has to get resurrected.
Now Christians today typically say … that you have a prediction of a suffering messiah in the Old Testament. If you actually read the Old Testament, there is no passage in the Old Testament that talks about the messiah, that says anything about the messiah suffering. There are passages in the Old Testament that talk about somebody suffering, but they are never talking about the messiah. There are other passages that talk about the messiah, and they don’t talk about the messiah suffering. These were two incommensurate categories.
This is false. Daniel 9 says the messiah will die. Explicitly. And Isaiah 53 says so as wellâ€"using the word “Chosen One,†which Ehrman has otherwise agreed is a term used in the OT for the messiah (How Jesus Became God, p. 66). And Talmudic Rabbis agreed this was about the messiah. Even Psalms 89:32-52 says the messiah will be abandoned by God and suffer at his enemies’ hands (before being redeemed). And that is explicit that this is what will happen to the messiah. So Ehrman remains very truth challenged. Compare the evidence in OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 5.
So for Ehrman to keep repeating this claim, as if none of the above evidence existed, is simply dishonest.
Because the messiah was supposed to be the great king of Israel who overthrew the enemy, and set up God’s kingdom in Jerusalem. He was to be the great political, military leader of the Jews, who destroyed the enemy. That’s what the messiah was expected to be.
Not by everyone (Dan. 9; Is. 53; Ps. 89; the Talmud). Everyone expected that ultimately that would happen (as even the Christians still preached it would). But many did imagine there would be some suffering and possibly a brief death on the way. Moreover, Ehrman agrees we can’t claim to know what all Jews expected, so we can’t argue from what no Jews would have expected. Ehrman himself has said this explicitly: “saying what Jews thought is itself highly problematic, since lots of different Jews thought lots of different things. It would be like asking what Christians think today†(HJBG, p. 50) and “how would we know [what] ‘every’ early Christian [thought], unless all of them left us writings and told us everything they knew and did?†(DJE, p. 193), which is even more true of the Jews, who were even more divided into varying sects than the early Christians were, and about whom we know even less. So once again he is not telling his audience the truth.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
Randy, one more on your hero:
Ehrman also is betraying his incompetence as a historian by falsely thinking religions never make up scandalous, ludicrous, difficult-to-believe ideas. In fact, religions routinely do that. Why would Attis cult invent a castrated savior? Why would Romans invent and revere a mythical founder who murdered his own brother? Why would the Nicene council back the wildly illogical Trinitarian creed? How are the seer stone and golden plates of Joseph Smith anything but ludicrous? And why would Mormons advocate polygamy even though it brought severe and constant persecution upon them? Ehrman is a lousy historian if he doesn’t even know that the ludicrous is what religions specialize in. See OHJ, pp. 613-16 (and PH, pp. 124-69).
And yet it wasn’t even all that ludicrous. Human sacrifice as heroic and potent was revered, not laughed at (OHJ, Chapter 5, Element 43; Chapter 4, Element 18). Dying-then-triumphant heroes were ubiquitous among the very savior cults of the time that Christianity most resembled (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 13 and 14, and Chapter 5, Element 31). And the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. And the Talmudic Jews agreed the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. So evidently, it wasn’t ludicrous to even Rabbinical Jews, much less to a counter-cultural anti-Rabbinical fringe sect such as Christianity. What was ludicrous was that Christians could claim to know that a celestial archangel had performed this sacrifice (Hebrews 9), when there hadn’t been the public signs expected (OHJ, pp. 613-15). Paul does not say the crucifixion was turning the Jews off. He explicitly said it was the lack of signs confirming it that was turning the Jews off (1 Corinthians 1:22-24). Quoting verses out of context is what Christian apologists do; not what a secular scholar like Bart Ehrman should be doing. That’s pseudo-scholarship.
And on top of that, apart from being hopelessly fact-challenged, Ehrman’s entire point is illogical. As I’ve pointed out before, his question, “Why would you invent†anything other than a victorious king “if you wanted to convince people?†answers itself. Obviously you can’t invent a military victor when no such person exists! So the only messiah anyone could invent was one whose victory was invisible (to all but the revelators announcing it). Thus, Ehrman’s claim that “if†someone invented a messiah, they would have invented a “king of Jerusalem†is false. And it is not merely false; it is false because it is logically impossible. So his argument makes zero sense.
A better question is “Why did they invent the idea that the messiah got crucified?†Because they needed one, is the mythicist answer. It accomplished what they needed: the elimination of dependence on the Jewish temple cult and its Jewish leadership. It also created a plausible Jewish variant of a massively popular fashion among salvation cults at the time. Yet Ehrman does not show any sign of knowing what the mythicist answer to that question is. Because he provides no rebuttal to it. Yet he cannot argue for “a crucified messiah was more likely to be real than a revelation†without rebutting why it made sense as a revelation (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 16-18, and Chapter 5, Elements 23-31).
So Ehrman has no logically coherent argument here. And no facts to rest it on. This is not evidence for a historical Jesus. At all. Much less “overwhelmingly.†It’s just as likely that a radical sect like Christianity would invent a celestial sacrificial deity as that they would try selling an actual man as having been one. The odds of either are the same. The odds of either succeeding are the same. This makes the evidential weight of the fact zero.
Ehrman does what many christian historians do is to make hypothesis and treat that as a theory. They don't test their hypothesis; Richard Carrier also creates hypothesis--but he will and does test it. He tries to make the evidence fit as many possible hypothesis as he can think of then he tests them all to find out which one holds water--if any. That is the hypothesis he then settles on. But he is willing to revise said hypothesis whenever new evidence is provided. Ehrman and his ilk are not.
Ehrman also is betraying his incompetence as a historian by falsely thinking religions never make up scandalous, ludicrous, difficult-to-believe ideas. In fact, religions routinely do that. Why would Attis cult invent a castrated savior? Why would Romans invent and revere a mythical founder who murdered his own brother? Why would the Nicene council back the wildly illogical Trinitarian creed? How are the seer stone and golden plates of Joseph Smith anything but ludicrous? And why would Mormons advocate polygamy even though it brought severe and constant persecution upon them? Ehrman is a lousy historian if he doesn’t even know that the ludicrous is what religions specialize in. See OHJ, pp. 613-16 (and PH, pp. 124-69).
And yet it wasn’t even all that ludicrous. Human sacrifice as heroic and potent was revered, not laughed at (OHJ, Chapter 5, Element 43; Chapter 4, Element 18). Dying-then-triumphant heroes were ubiquitous among the very savior cults of the time that Christianity most resembled (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 13 and 14, and Chapter 5, Element 31). And the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. And the Talmudic Jews agreed the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. So evidently, it wasn’t ludicrous to even Rabbinical Jews, much less to a counter-cultural anti-Rabbinical fringe sect such as Christianity. What was ludicrous was that Christians could claim to know that a celestial archangel had performed this sacrifice (Hebrews 9), when there hadn’t been the public signs expected (OHJ, pp. 613-15). Paul does not say the crucifixion was turning the Jews off. He explicitly said it was the lack of signs confirming it that was turning the Jews off (1 Corinthians 1:22-24). Quoting verses out of context is what Christian apologists do; not what a secular scholar like Bart Ehrman should be doing. That’s pseudo-scholarship.
And on top of that, apart from being hopelessly fact-challenged, Ehrman’s entire point is illogical. As I’ve pointed out before, his question, “Why would you invent†anything other than a victorious king “if you wanted to convince people?†answers itself. Obviously you can’t invent a military victor when no such person exists! So the only messiah anyone could invent was one whose victory was invisible (to all but the revelators announcing it). Thus, Ehrman’s claim that “if†someone invented a messiah, they would have invented a “king of Jerusalem†is false. And it is not merely false; it is false because it is logically impossible. So his argument makes zero sense.
A better question is “Why did they invent the idea that the messiah got crucified?†Because they needed one, is the mythicist answer. It accomplished what they needed: the elimination of dependence on the Jewish temple cult and its Jewish leadership. It also created a plausible Jewish variant of a massively popular fashion among salvation cults at the time. Yet Ehrman does not show any sign of knowing what the mythicist answer to that question is. Because he provides no rebuttal to it. Yet he cannot argue for “a crucified messiah was more likely to be real than a revelation†without rebutting why it made sense as a revelation (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 16-18, and Chapter 5, Elements 23-31).
So Ehrman has no logically coherent argument here. And no facts to rest it on. This is not evidence for a historical Jesus. At all. Much less “overwhelmingly.†It’s just as likely that a radical sect like Christianity would invent a celestial sacrificial deity as that they would try selling an actual man as having been one. The odds of either are the same. The odds of either succeeding are the same. This makes the evidential weight of the fact zero.
Ehrman does what many christian historians do is to make hypothesis and treat that as a theory. They don't test their hypothesis; Richard Carrier also creates hypothesis--but he will and does test it. He tries to make the evidence fit as many possible hypothesis as he can think of then he tests them all to find out which one holds water--if any. That is the hypothesis he then settles on. But he is willing to revise said hypothesis whenever new evidence is provided. Ehrman and his ilk are not.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 01, 2016, 09:13:28 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 01, 2016, 09:13:28 AM
Comparing the Bible to Homer? Really? The Bible is as accurate as Homer? It's accurate only to the extent that it says what the uneducated fanatical writers who wrote it were trying to say. You either believe Jesus walked on water or you don't.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:27:34 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:27:34 AM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 01, 2016, 07:38:14 AM
Even if the text was consistent to itself, it was written long after the events, and the oral retelling before the written version is mostly where the myth took shape.
No, Solomon. The Gospels can easily be dated prior to AD 70 with dates as early as the 40's and 50's being very possible. And 1 Corinthians 15 contains a proto-creed of the Early Church which proves that the Church was preaching the resurrection of Jesus within 1-3 years of the event.
There is no accretion of legend and mythology at work.
I covered that in this thread:
When were the gospels written?
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:31:03 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:31:03 AM
Quote from: aitm on May 01, 2016, 08:41:29 AM
IT the babble had for a moment a bit of truth and eloquence, it is far overshadowed by the opulence of whack-a-doodle nonsense, plain stupidity, unbelievable cruelty propagated by the evil diety hisself, mindless drivel that promotes the most ridiculous belief in gibberish and hogwash. Complete trash with an occasional clever quote. Bully for the writers. The brothers Grimm did a better job, made more sense, and is far more believable. Honestly, cut off your wifes hand is she tries to defend her husband by grabbing an attackers balls? WHo the fuck would blame the woman? Oh yeah, your whack-a-doo babbling nut jobs.
I see that you are an admin. Apparently, the ability to form a coherent argument germane to the topic of the thread is not a requirement for the job. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:36:13 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:36:13 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 01, 2016, 09:13:28 AM
Comparing the Bible to Homer? Really? The Bible is as accurate as Homer? It's accurate only to the extent that it says what the uneducated fanatical writers who wrote it were trying to say. You either believe Jesus walked on water or you don't.
Perhaps you should review my post.
The point I made was that we have more manuscripts of the Gospels that were produced within shorter time gaps than we have for any of Homer's works.
Since we have believe the texts of the Illiad to be accurate despite the relatively few number of manuscripts and the enormous gaps between the autograph and the extant copies, how much more confidence should we have in the gospels?
Get it?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 01, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 01, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
OP, there is no evidence that a single word of JC's was recorded when he spoke it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 01, 2016, 09:45:35 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 01, 2016, 09:45:35 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:36:13 AM
Perhaps you should review my post.
The point I made was that we have more manuscripts of the Gospels that were produced within shorter time gaps than we have for any of Homer's works.
Since we have believe the texts of the Illiad to be accurate despite the relatively few number of manuscripts and the enormous gaps between the autograph and the extant copies, how much more confidence should we have in the gospels?
Get it?
Yes, I got it. You apparently believe the Illiad. Further, we can have no more confidence in the accuracy of the old testament as well as the gospels, both of which are claimed to be true) than the Illiad. In fact, when I read the Illiad in high school, I thought its fairy tale qualities resembled the Bible in remarkable ways. It was one of the early things that got me to start questioning the accuracy of the Bible.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:52:56 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:52:56 AM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:36:49 AM
Oh geez, internet crap huh?
Yep. Pretty much. Same ol', same ol'. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/yawn.gif)
But since you persist...
Jesus and the “Dying-and-Rising†Gods
The claim is that Jesus is a "copy cat god" and that the disciples of Jesus simply took beliefs from older religions and molded them together to create a storyline for their new religion. Since this line of argumentation is pursued by atheists on a regular basis, it will be instructive to review the type of academic scholarship that has been done on these so-called gods.
Edwin Yamauchi, is a top Mithra scholar with a doctorate in Mediterranean studies. He has studied 22 languages and written 17 books including Persia and the Bible. (The Mithras religion is said to have started in Persia before coming to the Roman Empire.) Yamauchi was also one of the scholars who attended the Second Mithraic Congress in Tehran, Iran in the 1970′s.
Dr. Yamauchi addressed each of the alleged similarities between Jesus and Mithra:
1. Mithraism did not teach that he was born of a virgin; rather, the mythical Mithra was born out of a rock.
2. Furthermore, he was born an adult, not a baby as was Jesus.
3. And, Jesus was, of course, not born in a cave as the second century letter of Barnabas alleges.
4. The birthday of Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the Bible and is not known. In fact, the earliest birth date for Jesus celebrated by Christians was January 6th. The earliest time in which Dec. 25 th was used by Christians is AD 336 when Emperor Constantine proposed this day â€" possibly appropriated from the sun god worship. December 25th is close to the winter solstice and was chosen by Emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to the sun god.
5. Mithra was not a traveling teacher of disciples.
6. The belief of immortality may be inferred in Mithraism, but that is common to almost all religions, so is not significant.
7. Mithra did not sacrifice himself for anyone; he killed a bull.
8. After extensive study, Yamauchi knows of no references to Mithra’s death. And, consequently, there are no records of his resurrection.
9. Any possible sacramental meal in Mithraism is unrelated to the Lord’s Supper because it was initiated much later, in the second century. Furthermore, the Christian meal is based on the Passover, begun during the time of Moses.
From a Wikipedia article on the "Dying-and-rising gods" category of ancient Near East religions:
Quote"One of the leading scholars in the deconstruction of the "dying-and-rising god" category was Jonathan Z. Smith, whose 1969 dissertation discusses Frazer's Golden Bough, and who in Mircea Eliade's 1987 Encyclopedia of Religion wrote the "Dying and rising gods" entry, where he dismisses the category as "largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceeding late or highly ambiguous texts", suggesting a more detailed categorization into "dying gods" and "disappearing gods", arguing that before Christianity, the two categories were distinct and gods who "died" did not return, and those who returned never truly "died"."
Smith also wrote:
Quote“Some of these divine figures simply disappear, some disappear only to return again in the near or distant future, some disappear and reappear with monotonous frequency. All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.†(volume 4, page 521-522)
If there is no credible support for a dying and rising deity in the ancient religions, then Christianity cannot possibly be indebted to them. Jesus of Nazareth is God and was God before He died. He rose again as He promised, but He did not become God in the process.
Thus, unlike the false gods of the "dying-and-rising gods" category, He is unique in history despite the claims of similarity made by non-Christians.
+++
If you need more:
Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection
http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/
Hope this helps.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:55:40 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:55:40 AM
Randy, that one has to use probability to believe in the bible is proof that your god is at best shoddy and at worst a fiction. I'll side with fiction. God cannot supply a coherent Word, or rules to live by? Your god created all--everything. Except it cannot seem to be able to accurately communicate with his crowning creations. That is simply too odd to believe. To have his word come into human knowledge so late in it's history is quite puzzling; as is the fact that it was handed down to only a few in one section of the globe. You creator cannot foresee the problem with languages? He could not create a set of basic rules that all can read and understand? He cannot have that set of rules sent everywhere? There is no logic or sense to any of this. Your god is simply a human created fiction.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 10:02:48 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 10:02:48 AM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:36:49 AM
Oh geez, internet crap huh? Ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh (I have the book WITH PICTURES of the clay tablets in cuneiform)??? How about Horus or the Pandora Fable? The Royal Museum in Cambridge has them displayed for perusal. So please get real.
As to Jesus' existence, well his time was one of the most extensively written eras ever. Writers such as Aulus Perseus, Columella, Dio Chrisostome, Justus of Tiberius, Livy, Lucanus, Lucius Florus, Petronius, Phaedrus, Philo Judaeus, Phlegon, Pany the Elder, Plutarch, Pomponius Mola, Rufus Curteus, Quintillian, Seneca, Silius Italius, Statius Caelicius, Theon of Smyrna, Valerius Flaccus, Valerius Maximus, kept meticulous records of the time. Not one single word about a Jesus.
I see you have conveniently overlooked Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, Lucian of Samasota, Suetonius, Sextus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Julianus Africanus, Mara bar Serpaion, the Talmud as well as the 800-lb elephants in the room: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as all of the gnostic gospels such as those attributed to Thomas, Peter and Mary among others.
Even Bart Ehrman cites eleven sources of reliable historical corroboration of the existence of Jesus.
So, yeah. It's time for YOU to get real...or better yet...educated.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 10:33:58 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 10:33:58 AM
I appreciate your attempt at humor, although it is only that, an attempt. First of all, you avoided my questions. For good reason, it would embarrass you more than you are already.
Funny you mentioned Mithra as the ONLY refute. I did not mention the name. Nice try. Here are a few examples, so obvious that even you could notice:
If you want to know the origins of the flood, Noah and the ark, the animals etc. you just have to look into the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" from 2,500 B.C. Also the same story is in the 'Deluge of Ziusudra' with Atram-Hasis as Noah and in the fable of 'Diodorus and the Flood of Deucalion'.
If you believe in a prophet who received God's laws on stone tablets on a mountain, compare that to Manou of India, Minos of Crete (from Zeus on Mt. Dicta) and Mises of Egypt (Bacchus of the Greeks)
‎Manou - Minos - Mises.....Moses. It does not get any more obvious.
Moses' story was copied from the fable of 'Sargon of Akkade', 2,250 B.C. who was placed in a basket and set adrift in a river to avoid infanticide. He was rescued and raised by royalty, just like Moses.
The ten commandments are mostly taken from the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead'.
Heaven and Hell, Satan, final judgement, afterlife and more are taken from the Zoroastrians.
The story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden tree/fruit is taken from the Greek Pandora fable. In both stories the first woman (made of clay in the greek story) brought misery and misfortune to mankind for being curious and disobeying a rule. Both disobeyed god and brought on the end of a paradisical world free of sin.
Attis of Frigia: Born of a virgin on December 25th, crucified, dead for 3 days and resurrected.
Dionysus: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, performed miracles such as water into wine, was called 'King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, God's only Son' and was resurrected.
Genesis is a mish mash of previous mythology. The story of Eve eating from the tree of knowledge (Oh no! Knowledge! Can't have that!) and the serpent are in many older fables as well. In Greek mythology the serpent "Ladon" is coiled around a tree in the garden of Hesperides, protecting the golden apples. This story actually goes back to the Sumerian seals. Man/woman made of dirt or clay is very common in ancient story telling. In the Babylonian fable "Enuma Elish" the goddess Ninhursag created humans from clay. Prometheus shaped man out of mud. In Africa, the Yoruba culture holds that the god Obatala created the human race out of clay. Egyptian mythology states that the god Khnum made people of clay, and Chinese, Mayan, Norse, and Maori cultures have/had the same stories.
You see, this information is all out there for everybody to research, even you with a little effort can avoid being schooled.
Now try to be a good boy and tell us if the Earth is a disk or a sphere. Maybe we can get the conversation back into the adult range.
Funny you mentioned Mithra as the ONLY refute. I did not mention the name. Nice try. Here are a few examples, so obvious that even you could notice:
If you want to know the origins of the flood, Noah and the ark, the animals etc. you just have to look into the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" from 2,500 B.C. Also the same story is in the 'Deluge of Ziusudra' with Atram-Hasis as Noah and in the fable of 'Diodorus and the Flood of Deucalion'.
If you believe in a prophet who received God's laws on stone tablets on a mountain, compare that to Manou of India, Minos of Crete (from Zeus on Mt. Dicta) and Mises of Egypt (Bacchus of the Greeks)
‎Manou - Minos - Mises.....Moses. It does not get any more obvious.
Moses' story was copied from the fable of 'Sargon of Akkade', 2,250 B.C. who was placed in a basket and set adrift in a river to avoid infanticide. He was rescued and raised by royalty, just like Moses.
The ten commandments are mostly taken from the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead'.
Heaven and Hell, Satan, final judgement, afterlife and more are taken from the Zoroastrians.
The story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden tree/fruit is taken from the Greek Pandora fable. In both stories the first woman (made of clay in the greek story) brought misery and misfortune to mankind for being curious and disobeying a rule. Both disobeyed god and brought on the end of a paradisical world free of sin.
Attis of Frigia: Born of a virgin on December 25th, crucified, dead for 3 days and resurrected.
Dionysus: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, performed miracles such as water into wine, was called 'King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, God's only Son' and was resurrected.
Genesis is a mish mash of previous mythology. The story of Eve eating from the tree of knowledge (Oh no! Knowledge! Can't have that!) and the serpent are in many older fables as well. In Greek mythology the serpent "Ladon" is coiled around a tree in the garden of Hesperides, protecting the golden apples. This story actually goes back to the Sumerian seals. Man/woman made of dirt or clay is very common in ancient story telling. In the Babylonian fable "Enuma Elish" the goddess Ninhursag created humans from clay. Prometheus shaped man out of mud. In Africa, the Yoruba culture holds that the god Obatala created the human race out of clay. Egyptian mythology states that the god Khnum made people of clay, and Chinese, Mayan, Norse, and Maori cultures have/had the same stories.
You see, this information is all out there for everybody to research, even you with a little effort can avoid being schooled.
Now try to be a good boy and tell us if the Earth is a disk or a sphere. Maybe we can get the conversation back into the adult range.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 11:22:08 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 11:22:08 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 10:02:48 AM
I see you have conveniently overlooked Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, Lucian of Samasota, Suetonius, Sextus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Julianus Africanus, Mara bar Serpaion, the Talmud as well as the 800-lb elephants in the room: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as all of the gnostic gospels such as those attributed to Thomas, Peter and Mary among others.
Even Bart Ehrman cites eleven sources of reliable historical corroboration of the existence of Jesus.
So, yeah. It's time for YOU to get real...or better yet...educated.
Precious really. OK, so tell us when was the first mention of a Jesus. I know you have a book that is proof of it's own authenticity, but again who wrote all this? Until the 15th century everything was written by hand, copied thousands of times, we have no originals only written down hearsay from decades after Jesus died, if he ever lived. IF you try what you are doing here in a court of law and you would be laughed off so fast your head would spin. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as proof? Huh? You are claiming something that is impossible to do. Unless you have a direct line of communication with your deity, nobody knows who wrote the bible or the other main books.
God had a knack of appearing in only one little area in the middle East. All three 'prophets' were illiterate, so there goes the first argument. Jesus, a divine entity, does not speak Chinese otherwise he would have appeared in china where many were literate. All 3 so called prophets had one thing in common for sure: their claim. A claim that cannot be verified or tested, brought forward by simpletons who had no idea what a Kangaroo or a bacteria was. There is not one single word in those books that could not have been written by ordinary mortals like you and I.
A word such as motor, electricity, virus, DNA for example that would drop our jaws in awe and admit that this was something special. But no! Not a single word. How pathetic!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:02:01 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:02:01 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 11:22:08 AM
Precious really. OK, so tell us when was the first mention of a Jesus.
The earliest of Paul's epistles was written about AD 45. Let's call it an even 15 years after the resurrection.
However, in 1 Cor 15, Paul quotes the proto-creed that he learned from the apostles in Jerusalem in about AD 33-35.
The non-Christian sources would follow in the second half of the first century beginning with Thallus, Josephus and Tacitus, etc.
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 11:22:08 AMI know you have a book that is proof of it's own authenticity, but again who wrote all this?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude. But we don't have to rely on them as inspired texts...we can simply view them as reliable historical accounts. Most reputable scholars do.
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 11:22:08 AMUntil the 15th century everything was written by hand, copied thousands of times, we have no originals only written down hearsay from decades after Jesus died, if he ever lived. IF you try what you are doing here in a court of law and you would be laughed off so fast your head would spin. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as proof? Huh? You are claiming something that is impossible to do. Unless you have a direct line of communication with your deity, nobody knows who wrote the bible or the other main books.
Hardly. Papias recorded who wrote the gospels, and notably, there is no competing list of candidates. NO ONE has ever suggested any names other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 11:22:08 AMGod had a knack of appearing in only one little area in the middle East. All three 'prophets' were illiterate, so there goes the first argument. Jesus, a divine entity, does not speak Chinese otherwise he would have appeared in china where many were literate. All 3 so called prophets had one thing in common for sure: their claim. A claim that cannot be verified or tested, brought forward by simpletons who had no idea what a Kangaroo or a bacteria was. There is not one single word in those books that could not have been written by ordinary mortals like you and I.
Um...yeah. That's kinda the whole point, reasonist. The Bible WAS written by ordinary mortals like you and me. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Quote106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 11:22:08 AMA word such as motor, electricity, virus, DNA for example that would drop our jaws in awe and admit that this was something special. But no! Not a single word. How pathetic!
I AM.
Okay, that's technically two words. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 01, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 01, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Randy, I hate resorting to copypasta, but until people like you come up with an argument that hasn't a million holes in it I shall be obliged to continue:
Any document written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so profound that no rational human being could deny the value of its contents. This text would not be subject to different interpretations, as any interpretation could only detract from the document's profundity. It would also be 100% consistent with all scientific observation, requiring no faith to believe its contents. There would therefore be no religion based on this document since its validity would be so painfully obvious that no cult following would be necessary to promote it.
We do not observe this phenomenon anywhere on planet Earth. If any document on Earth was indeed authored or inspired by a supreme being, then based on what we observe we can only conclude that this being intentionally lies to us on a regular basis. Since this creates a situation where we either have flawed evidence or no evidence, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach for the moment is that no supreme being is in communication with humanity.
TL;DR GIT UR FAGGIT SHIT OUTTA HEER N00B!
Any document written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so profound that no rational human being could deny the value of its contents. This text would not be subject to different interpretations, as any interpretation could only detract from the document's profundity. It would also be 100% consistent with all scientific observation, requiring no faith to believe its contents. There would therefore be no religion based on this document since its validity would be so painfully obvious that no cult following would be necessary to promote it.
We do not observe this phenomenon anywhere on planet Earth. If any document on Earth was indeed authored or inspired by a supreme being, then based on what we observe we can only conclude that this being intentionally lies to us on a regular basis. Since this creates a situation where we either have flawed evidence or no evidence, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach for the moment is that no supreme being is in communication with humanity.
TL;DR GIT UR FAGGIT SHIT OUTTA HEER N00B!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:06:49 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:06:49 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:01:07 AM
Randy, a word or two about your atheist hero: (Made by Richard Carrier)
Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic
Bart Ehrman was again asked what evidence there is that Jesus existed this February 18, 2016, at Fresno City College. See the video here (he begins his answer at timestamp 23:18). First he says this:
I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.
This is not a very truthful statement.
There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.â€
We are not “internet voices.†I have a peer reviewed academic monograph from a mainstream biblical studies press on this question.
Ehrman even appears to be saying that we are not “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines.†Because he leaves out any mention of the fact that this isn’t just “internet voices†but also published scholarship by his expert peers and recognized by his expert peers.
He fails to make clear that there are “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines†who have expressed their doubts. Again so far, seven of us.
And contrary to his last sentence, we are “scholars who study this stuff.†We are his colleagues (fully his peers in respect to credentialsâ€"some of us even better trained and more qualified in the subject of history than he is; so this looks a lot like he is lying about our credentials again).
And this question is debated by his colleagues. Not only by the seven of us so far who doubt historicity, but a lot of his colleagues have debated me. Including Zeba Crook, Trent Horn, Kenneth Waters, and (now) Craig Evans. One of those debates was even sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature. So the claim that it is “not debated†among his colleagues is false.
The evidence is not, of course, overwhelming. It’s not even whelming. But you can see that for yourself. IMO, the fact that this is what he thinks, discredits his opinion. Because there is no way in the universe any historian in any other field would call the evidence for the historicity of Jesus “overwhelming.†Maybe Ehrman just doesn’t know what overwhelming evidence looks like. But since he can’t even be honest about how many fully qualified colleagues of his doubt the historicity of Jesus, he can’t even honestly tell an audience that a mainstream peer reviewed academic monograph exists questioning historicity, and he can’t even honestly tell an audience that it is being debated by many of his colleagues, we shouldn’t expect him to honestly use the word “overwhelming†either.
What I realized was that I missed this presentation--damn! I live only 50 mi. from Fresno and would have loved to have been there.
Sounds like Carrier was stung by the charge that he was flying solo so he rounded up a posse. Okay. Bully for him. Needless to say, the number of atheists who acknowledge that Jesus existed still vastly outnumbers the Magnificent Seven. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:10:49 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:10:49 PM
You are running out of sensible replies. So you believe blindly what other mortals wrote thousands of years ago. People who worried about their neighbors ass and foreskins and pork chops. Really? I rest my case.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 01, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Post by: aitm on May 01, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:31:03 AM
I see that you are an admin. Apparently, the ability to form a coherent argument germane to the topic of the thread is not a requirement for the job. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
You're here seeking our approval of your opinion, where our opinion is important to you, we could care less what you think of us and we have no need or desire of your opinion. And from what we have seen of your babbling ramble, as always we are correct in our first opinion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:17:59 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:17:59 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 09:31:03 AM
I see that you are an admin. Apparently, the ability to form a coherent argument germane to the topic of the thread is not a requirement for the job. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Condescension must be part of the christian doctrine.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:23:38 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:23:38 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:10:49 PM
You are running out of sensible replies. So you believe blindly what other mortals wrote thousands of years ago. People who worried about their neighbors ass and foreskins and pork chops. Really? I rest my case.
Oh, the irony.
Actually, lackofreasonist, if you read my OP's in this thread and the one I started this morning, you will see that there are actual reasons for believing that the NT is reliable.
There is nothing "blind" about it.
And yes, the books were written by real, mortal men who were inspired by God.
Is this really so difficult to comprehend?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:27:03 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:27:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
Randy, one more on your hero:
Ehrman also is betraying his incompetence as a historian by falsely thinking religions never make up scandalous, ludicrous, difficult-to-believe ideas. In fact, religions routinely do that. Why would Attis cult invent a castrated savior? Why would Romans invent and revere a mythical founder who murdered his own brother? Why would the Nicene council back the wildly illogical Trinitarian creed? How are the seer stone and golden plates of Joseph Smith anything but ludicrous? And why would Mormons advocate polygamy even though it brought severe and constant persecution upon them? Ehrman is a lousy historian if he doesn’t even know that the ludicrous is what religions specialize in. See OHJ, pp. 613-16 (and PH, pp. 124-69).
And yet it wasn’t even all that ludicrous. Human sacrifice as heroic and potent was revered, not laughed at (OHJ, Chapter 5, Element 43; Chapter 4, Element 18). Dying-then-triumphant heroes were ubiquitous among the very savior cults of the time that Christianity most resembled (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 13 and 14, and Chapter 5, Element 31). And the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. And the Talmudic Jews agreed the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. So evidently, it wasn’t ludicrous to even Rabbinical Jews, much less to a counter-cultural anti-Rabbinical fringe sect such as Christianity. What was ludicrous was that Christians could claim to know that a celestial archangel had performed this sacrifice (Hebrews 9), when there hadn’t been the public signs expected (OHJ, pp. 613-15). Paul does not say the crucifixion was turning the Jews off. He explicitly said it was the lack of signs confirming it that was turning the Jews off (1 Corinthians 1:22-24). Quoting verses out of context is what Christian apologists do; not what a secular scholar like Bart Ehrman should be doing. That’s pseudo-scholarship.
And on top of that, apart from being hopelessly fact-challenged, Ehrman’s entire point is illogical. As I’ve pointed out before, his question, “Why would you invent†anything other than a victorious king “if you wanted to convince people?†answers itself. Obviously you can’t invent a military victor when no such person exists! So the only messiah anyone could invent was one whose victory was invisible (to all but the revelators announcing it). Thus, Ehrman’s claim that “if†someone invented a messiah, they would have invented a “king of Jerusalem†is false. And it is not merely false; it is false because it is logically impossible. So his argument makes zero sense.
A better question is “Why did they invent the idea that the messiah got crucified?†Because they needed one, is the mythicist answer. It accomplished what they needed: the elimination of dependence on the Jewish temple cult and its Jewish leadership. It also created a plausible Jewish variant of a massively popular fashion among salvation cults at the time. Yet Ehrman does not show any sign of knowing what the mythicist answer to that question is. Because he provides no rebuttal to it. Yet he cannot argue for “a crucified messiah was more likely to be real than a revelation†without rebutting why it made sense as a revelation (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 16-18, and Chapter 5, Elements 23-31).
So Ehrman has no logically coherent argument here. And no facts to rest it on. This is not evidence for a historical Jesus. At all. Much less “overwhelmingly.†It’s just as likely that a radical sect like Christianity would invent a celestial sacrificial deity as that they would try selling an actual man as having been one. The odds of either are the same. The odds of either succeeding are the same. This makes the evidential weight of the fact zero.
Ehrman does what many christian historians do is to make hypothesis and treat that as a theory. They don't test their hypothesis; Richard Carrier also creates hypothesis--but he will and does test it. He tries to make the evidence fit as many possible hypothesis as he can think of then he tests them all to find out which one holds water--if any. That is the hypothesis he then settles on. But he is willing to revise said hypothesis whenever new evidence is provided. Ehrman and his ilk are not.
Thanks for all that. I appreciate that you put some real time and effort into our exchange. Seriously.
And now for an opposing view:
Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier
by Bart Ehrman
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:34:10 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:04:41 AM
More from your hero, Randy:
Anyway, he goes on…
The people who are called mythicists argue that Jesus was invented, that he’s a myth, that was made up, that there never was an actual man Jesus.
Not quite. We argue that the Gospel Jesus was made up. A conclusion even Bart Ehrman largely agrees with. He seems to be confused as to what the mythicist thesis actually is (as will become evident below). The peer reviewed mythicist thesis is that the first Christians genuinely believed there was an archangel named Jesus who underwent a cosmic ordeal to fix the universe using standard Jewish atonement magic (OHJ Chapters 3 and 4). They “met†this Jesus in visions and “discovered†what he said and what happened to him by finding hidden messages in the Old Testament (this is not conjecture; we know it for a fact: OHJ, Chapter 12.3-4).
So they didn’t make him up, in the sense Ehrman means (they might have, but it’s not necessary to assume they did: see OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 15). What a later generation of Christians did (not the first Christians, nor anyone who ever met any of the first Christians so far as we can tell) is make up the version of Jesus that had him tromping around earth interacting with historical figures. The distinction is crucial. Yet Ehrman conflates the two. And with this conflation he proceeds…
Here’s one reason for thinking that’s wrong. The early Christiansâ€"whether or not Jesus existedâ€"the early Christians said that Jesus was the messiah, and they said he was crucified. That would be a nonsensical statement for people in antiquity, that the messiah got crucified. The messiah was not supposed to suffer and die.
This is false. The Talmudic Jews preached that the messiah would suffer and die. So it clearly was not nonsensical. Even the Old Testament said the messiah would die. More on that in a moment. But the Talmud is clear on the matter (OHJ, pp. 73-75). There is in fact no evidence of any Jew ever finding this notion nonsensical. Many found it not to their preference. But it still made sense (as Hebrews 9 makes clear; see also OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 18, and Chapter 5, Elements 31 and 43). Especially since he wasn’t defeated in this account, but gained the power from it that he would use upon his return. Thus, a dying messiah is also a militarily victorious messiah. He just has to get resurrected.
Now Christians today typically say … that you have a prediction of a suffering messiah in the Old Testament. If you actually read the Old Testament, there is no passage in the Old Testament that talks about the messiah, that says anything about the messiah suffering. There are passages in the Old Testament that talk about somebody suffering, but they are never talking about the messiah. There are other passages that talk about the messiah, and they don’t talk about the messiah suffering. These were two incommensurate categories.
This is false. Daniel 9 says the messiah will die. Explicitly. And Isaiah 53 says so as wellâ€"using the word “Chosen One,†which Ehrman has otherwise agreed is a term used in the OT for the messiah (How Jesus Became God, p. 66). And Talmudic Rabbis agreed this was about the messiah. Even Psalms 89:32-52 says the messiah will be abandoned by God and suffer at his enemies’ hands (before being redeemed). And that is explicit that this is what will happen to the messiah. So Ehrman remains very truth challenged. Compare the evidence in OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 5.
So for Ehrman to keep repeating this claim, as if none of the above evidence existed, is simply dishonest.
Because the messiah was supposed to be the great king of Israel who overthrew the enemy, and set up God’s kingdom in Jerusalem. He was to be the great political, military leader of the Jews, who destroyed the enemy. That’s what the messiah was expected to be.
Not by everyone (Dan. 9; Is. 53; Ps. 89; the Talmud). Everyone expected that ultimately that would happen (as even the Christians still preached it would). But many did imagine there would be some suffering and possibly a brief death on the way. Moreover, Ehrman agrees we can’t claim to know what all Jews expected, so we can’t argue from what no Jews would have expected. Ehrman himself has said this explicitly: “saying what Jews thought is itself highly problematic, since lots of different Jews thought lots of different things. It would be like asking what Christians think today†(HJBG, p. 50) and “how would we know [what] ‘every’ early Christian [thought], unless all of them left us writings and told us everything they knew and did?†(DJE, p. 193), which is even more true of the Jews, who were even more divided into varying sects than the early Christians were, and about whom we know even less. So once again he is not telling his audience the truth.
Um...Dr. Carrier? I have a question...the Jews believed that anyone who was hanged on a tree was cursed by God (cf. Deut. 21:23).
The Jews may have believed (rightly) that the messiah would suffer, but how would they believe that Jesus was the messiah if He was hanged on a tree?
So, it seems you are equivocating in the passage I highlighted above. The messiah would suffer and die? Sure. But hang on a tree? Never!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:39:11 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:39:11 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:23:38 PM
Oh, the irony.
Actually, lackofreasonist, if you read my OP's in this thread and the one I started this morning, you will see that there are actual reasons for believing that the NT is reliable.
There is nothing "blind" about it.
And yes, the books were written by real, mortal men who were inspired by God.
Is this really so difficult to comprehend?
I comprehend. The proof that the bible is the authentic word of a god is....the bible. Must make sense in your world...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:40:38 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
Randy, one more on your hero:
Ehrman also is betraying his incompetence as a historian by falsely thinking religions never make up scandalous, ludicrous, difficult-to-believe ideas. In fact, religions routinely do that. Why would Attis cult invent a castrated savior? Why would Romans invent and revere a mythical founder who murdered his own brother? Why would the Nicene council back the wildly illogical Trinitarian creed? How are the seer stone and golden plates of Joseph Smith anything but ludicrous? And why would Mormons advocate polygamy even though it brought severe and constant persecution upon them? Ehrman is a lousy historian if he doesn’t even know that the ludicrous is what religions specialize in. See OHJ, pp. 613-16 (and PH, pp. 124-69).
And yet it wasn’t even all that ludicrous. Human sacrifice as heroic and potent was revered, not laughed at (OHJ, Chapter 5, Element 43; Chapter 4, Element 18). Dying-then-triumphant heroes were ubiquitous among the very savior cults of the time that Christianity most resembled (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 13 and 14, and Chapter 5, Element 31). And the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. And the Talmudic Jews agreed the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. So evidently, it wasn’t ludicrous to even Rabbinical Jews, much less to a counter-cultural anti-Rabbinical fringe sect such as Christianity. What was ludicrous was that Christians could claim to know that a celestial archangel had performed this sacrifice (Hebrews 9), when there hadn’t been the public signs expected (OHJ, pp. 613-15). Paul does not say the crucifixion was turning the Jews off. He explicitly said it was the lack of signs confirming it that was turning the Jews off (1 Corinthians 1:22-24). Quoting verses out of context is what Christian apologists do; not what a secular scholar like Bart Ehrman should be doing. That’s pseudo-scholarship.
And on top of that, apart from being hopelessly fact-challenged, Ehrman’s entire point is illogical. As I’ve pointed out before, his question, “Why would you invent†anything other than a victorious king “if you wanted to convince people?†answers itself. Obviously you can’t invent a military victor when no such person exists! So the only messiah anyone could invent was one whose victory was invisible (to all but the revelators announcing it). Thus, Ehrman’s claim that “if†someone invented a messiah, they would have invented a “king of Jerusalem†is false. And it is not merely false; it is false because it is logically impossible. So his argument makes zero sense.
A better question is “Why did they invent the idea that the messiah got crucified?†Because they needed one, is the mythicist answer. It accomplished what they needed: the elimination of dependence on the Jewish temple cult and its Jewish leadership. It also created a plausible Jewish variant of a massively popular fashion among salvation cults at the time. Yet Ehrman does not show any sign of knowing what the mythicist answer to that question is. Because he provides no rebuttal to it. Yet he cannot argue for “a crucified messiah was more likely to be real than a revelation†without rebutting why it made sense as a revelation (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 16-18, and Chapter 5, Elements 23-31).
So Ehrman has no logically coherent argument here. And no facts to rest it on. This is not evidence for a historical Jesus. At all. Much less “overwhelmingly.†It’s just as likely that a radical sect like Christianity would invent a celestial sacrificial deity as that they would try selling an actual man as having been one. The odds of either are the same. The odds of either succeeding are the same. This makes the evidential weight of the fact zero.
Ehrman does what many christian historians do is to make hypothesis and treat that as a theory. They don't test their hypothesis; Richard Carrier also creates hypothesis--but he will and does test it. He tries to make the evidence fit as many possible hypothesis as he can think of then he tests them all to find out which one holds water--if any. That is the hypothesis he then settles on. But he is willing to revise said hypothesis whenever new evidence is provided. Ehrman and his ilk are not.
"Incompetence as a historian"? "Ehrman and his ilk"?
Yeah, those are the objective, detached phrases of academia. Not.
Carrier has lost it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:45:55 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 12:39:11 PM
I comprehend. The proof that the bible is the authentic word of a god is....the bible. Must make sense in your world...
Obviously, you do NOT comprehend.
The Bible can be viewed as mere history.
That history tells us that Jesus died and rose from the dead.
If Jesus rose from the dead, then what He said must be true.
What He said was that He would establish one Church on earth which would speak on His behalf.
A Church which speaks for God cannot teach error.
That Church has infallibly taught that the Bible is not mere history but the inspired word of God.
So, we're not using circular logic, lackofreasonist. We're using REASON to begin with mere history and arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is inspired.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:45:55 PMRandy, that is what you think 'reason' is? You say the bible can be viewed as history. II suppose you could if you ignored history) And that the bible history tells us is that Jesus died and arose. (but not without contradiction in it's stories) If Jesus arose from the dead then what he said must be true--IF is an unproven assumption on your part; and what he said has not been historically proven, and is pure conjecture. Millions of christians disagree with the assertion that Jesus was to establish one church--and those that do, argue about which church that was. A church that speaks for god cannot teach error????? You have yet to establish there is a god. And your church has not changed it's position on anything? Really???? And just because your flawed organization you call a church has taught the bible, does not mean it is not infallible. Plus how can a 'word' be inspired by a fiction? Well, I guess it can be--one can insist that Bugs Bunny speaks for The Lord or some such.
Obviously, you do NOT comprehend.
The Bible can be viewed as mere history.
That history tells us that Jesus died and rose from the dead.
If Jesus rose from the dead, then what He said must be true.
What He said was that He would establish one Church on earth which would speak on His behalf.
A Church which speaks for God cannot teach error.
That Church has infallibly taught that the Bible is not mere history but the inspired word of God.
So, we're not using circular logic, lackofreasonist. We're using REASON to begin with mere history and arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is inspired.
Randy, you 'reasons' are only assertions you maintain are true. Assertions are not proof. I have yet to see any proof for your assertions concerning the bible or jesus.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 01:20:43 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 01:20:43 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 12:45:55 PMNo, history tells us nothing of that sort. The bible does. And that carries as much weight as Gulliver's Travel in terms of historical evidence.
Obviously, you do NOT comprehend.
The Bible can be viewed as mere history.
That history tells us that Jesus died and rose from the dead.
If Jesus rose from the dead, then what He said must be true.
What He said was that He would establish one Church on earth which would speak on His behalf.
A Church which speaks for God cannot teach error.
That Church has infallibly taught that the Bible is not mere history but the inspired word of God.
So, we're not using circular logic, lackofreasonist. We're using REASON to begin with mere history and arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is inspired.
"The church has infallibly taught that the bible is the inspired word of god." Do you sometimes reflect on what you write or do you just make it up as you go? The church teaches that the bible is infallible??? What the heck does that mean? Nothing! An institution validates a book that is it's own dogma? How unusual! LOL
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 01:25:33 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PM
Randy, that is what you think 'reason' is? You say the bible can be viewed as history. II suppose you could if you ignored history)
Obviously, I'm not out on a limb here, Mike. Even Ehrman acknowledges the usefulness of the NT as reliable history. (I'll exclude portions of the OT, obviously.)
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PM
And that the bible history tells us is that Jesus died and arose. (but not without contradiction in it's stories)
But this is not a problem for Christianity any more than it is for detectives investigating a crime. If the gospels had NO differences, you would claim that they were really just one account and not four. You'd be screaming about "collusion" and "conspiracy". As it is, that option is not open to you. Therefore, you go with what you've got...and that is the very normal sort of variations in the accounts that any seasoned police officer would expect from four independent eyewitnesses. This strengthens MY position, not yours, Mike.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PMIf Jesus arose from the dead then what he said must be true--IF is an unproven assumption on your part; and what he said has not been historically proven, and is pure conjecture.
Fair enough, Mike. But what is the standard in a court of law? Proof beyond ALL doubt? Or beyond reasonable doubt? It is the latter, and juries are cautioned against speculation of what MIGHT have happened. We have four independent eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. The resurrection explains:
1. Why the believers went from being fearful men in hiding to bold proclaimers of the gospel.
2. Why Paul, the enemy of the Church, went from arresting believers to being a believer himself.
3. Why James, the "brother" of Jesus, went from being a skeptic to the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.
4. Why the tomb was found empty.
Four eyewitnesses give us an explanation that I find beyond reasonable doubt: Jesus rose from the dead.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PMMillions of christians disagree with the assertion that Jesus was to establish one church--and those that do, argue about which church that was.
Jesus promised to build one Church, and He is the head of that Church which is the body of Christ. That's red-letter gospel, Mike. No Christians believe that Jesus established more than one Church. They do disagree about the nature of that Church, however.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PMA church that speaks for god cannot teach error????? You have yet to establish there is a god.
Okay. We'll get there. But hypothetically, if God establishes a Church, can He allow it to teach falsely about Him? Nope. He must prevent the teaching of error.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PMAnd your church has not changed it's position on anything? Really????
I never said that. I have or will say that the Catholic Church has never formally taught error in matters of faith and morals. Further, I would say that the Church has never changed a doctrinal position such that the later position is contradictory to a former position. It has never been documented, and Protestants long to find such a case.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PMAnd just because your flawed organization you call a church has taught the bible, does not mean it is not infallible.
Oh, the Catholic Church is flawed, alright. It's a human institution, after all. But the Church has infallibly taught that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 01:03:32 PMPlus how can a 'word' be inspired by a fiction? Well, I guess it can be--one can insist that Bugs Bunny speaks for The Lord or some such.
Randy, you 'reasons' are only assertions you maintain are true. Assertions are not proof. I have yet to see any proof for your assertions concerning the bible or jesus.
Start with the OP of this thread. Let me know whether my case for early dating of the gospels is beyond a reasonable doubt.
One step at a time, Mike. One step at a time. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 01:20:43 PM
No, history tells us nothing of that sort. The bible does. And that carries as much weight as Gulliver's Travel in terms of historical evidence.
"The church has infallibly taught that the bible is the inspired word of god." Do you sometimes reflect on what you write or do you just make it up as you go? The church teaches that the bible is infallible??? What the heck does that mean? Nothing! An institution validates a book that is it's own dogma? How unusual! LOL
Nope. We can look at the NT as reliable sources of historical information because:
The NT was written early.
The NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses.
The NT was written by men who intended to write accurate accounts.
The NT was written by men whose attention to detail and accuracy has been corroborated by archaeology as well as non-canonical writings.
The NT was written for a community that had members were also eyewitnesses and could evaluate the accuracy of the gospels.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 01:37:19 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 01:37:19 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 01:29:47 PMOh boy! How do you know the bible was written by eyewitnesses? Because the book says so. All of the above points mean squat without proof.
Nope.
The NT was written early.
The NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses.
The NT was written by men who intended to write accurate accounts.
The NT was written by men whose attention to detail and accuracy has been corroborated by archaeology as well as non-canonical writings.
The NT was written for a community that had members were also eyewitnesses and could evaluate the accuracy of the gospels.
Archeology? Really? Even the most ardent Israeli archeologists admit now that the Exodus and the 40 year Egyptian adventure was pure invention. They can't even point out where mount Sinai is. Obviously another invention. Uh well, maybe one day you will be honest with yourself.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 02:02:39 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 01:37:19 PM
Oh boy! How do you know the bible was written by eyewitnesses? Because the book says so. All of the above points mean squat without proof.
No, because non-canonical sources say so. Here is that proof.
Is Mark’s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter?
By J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-marks-gospel-an-early-memoir-of-the-apostle-peter/
The authorship of the Gospels is a matter of considerable debate amongst skeptics and critics of the New Testament canon. Mark’s Gospel is an early record of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection, but Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts. How did Mark get his information about Jesus? There are several historical clues:
Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings
Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130AD) repeated the testimony of the old presbyters (disciples of the Apostles) who claimed Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15, Book 3 Chapter 30 and Book 6 Chapter 14). Papias wrote a five volume work entitled, “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lordâ€. In this treatise (which no longer exists), he quoted someone he identified as ‘the elder’, (most likely John the elder), a man who held considerable authority in Asia:
Quote“And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.â€
Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter’s teaching
In his book, “Against Heresies†(Book 3 Chapter 1), Irenaeus (130-200AD) also reported Mark penned his Gospel as a scribe for Peter, adding the following detail:
Quote“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written formâ€
Justin identified Mark’s Gospel with Peter
Early Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, wrote “Dialogue with Trypho†(approximately 150AD) and included this interesting passage:
Quote“It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….â€
Justin, therefore, identified a particular Gospel as the ‘memoir’ of Peter and said this memoir described the sons of Zebedee as the ‘sons of thunder’. Only Mark’s Gospel describes John and James in this way, so it is reasonable to assume that the Gospel of Mark is the memoir of Peter.
Clement said Mark recorded Peter’s Roman preaching
Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) wrote a book entitled “Hypotyposeis†(Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15). In this ancient book, Clement refers to a tradition handed down from the “elders from the beginningâ€:
Quote“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally; and they did not cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so became responsible for the Scripture for reading in the churches.â€
Eusebius also wrote an additional detail (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) related to Mark’s work with Peter:
Quote“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.â€
This additional piece of information related to Peter’s reaction to Mark’s work is important, because it demonstrates that Clement is not simply repeating the information first established by Papias, but seems to have an additional source that provided him with something more, and something slightly different than Papias.
Tertullian affirmed Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark
Early Christian theologian and apologist, Tertullian (160-225AD), wrote a book that refuted the theology and authority of Marcion. The book was appropriately called, “Against Marcion†and in Book 4 Chapter 5, he described the Gospel of Mark:
Quote“While that [gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.â€
The Muratorian Fragment confirmed Mark’s relationship to Peter
The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. Commonly dated to approximately 170AD, the first line reads:
Quote“But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel]â€
This appears to be a reference to Mark’s presence at Peter’s talks and sermons in Rome, and the fact that he then recorded these messages then became the Gospel of Mark.
Origen attributed Mark’s Gospel to Peter
Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 25) quoted a Gospel Commentary written by Origen (an early church father and theologian who lived 185-254AD) that explains the origin of the Gospels. This commentary also attributes the Gospel of Mark to Peter:
Quote“In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.’ 1 Peter 5:13 And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.â€
An Anti-Marcionite Prologue affirmed Peter’s connection to Mark
There are three Gospel ‘prologues’ that appear in many Latin Bibles from antiquity. Known as the “Anti-Marcionite Prologuesâ€, they date to the 4th century or earlier. The prologue for the Gospel of Mark is particularly interesting:
Quote“Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered,’ because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.â€
Now, it can be argued that Papias’ description of Mark’s collaboration with Peter in Rome is the earliest description available to us. In fact, skeptics have tried to argue that later Church sources are simply parroting Papias when they connect Mark to Peter. But there is no evidence to suggest that Papias is the sole source of information related to Peter and Mark, particularly when considering the slight variations in the subsequent attributions (such as Clement’s version). The subtle differences suggest that the claims came from different original sources. In addition, Justin Martyr’s tangential reference to the ‘sons of thunder’ strengthens the support for Peter’s involvement coming from a source other than Papias (who never makes this connection). In essence, a claim of dependency on Papias lacks specific evidence, and even if this were the case, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Papias’ original claim in the first place. The consistent record of history identifies Mark’s Gospel as a memoir of Peter’s life with Jesus.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 02:31:20 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 02:31:20 PM
That might work with the flock in church but not here. There was no mention of a Jesus (there were hundreds of them at the time, it was a common name) until about 45 CE. That's about 15 years after his alleged death. That's like reading about Prince's death in 2031 as breaking news.
But it really doesn't matter if a Jesus existed or not. He was a Jew preaching Mosaic law to the Jews. No divinity, that's why his crucifixion was explained as sacrifice to forgive our sins. Which is of course complete nonsense if you think about that even a little bit. A omnipotent deity sends his son (who is also himself and a ghost) into certain death to forgive our sins. That is the only way to explain the torture death of a mortal human. The question arises: what was accomplished? What changed? Why did this god not forgive us in the first place? The absurdity of it all makes it plausible says Tertullian. That's probably the most sensible explanation I have read. Doesn't make it true in any case.
But it really doesn't matter if a Jesus existed or not. He was a Jew preaching Mosaic law to the Jews. No divinity, that's why his crucifixion was explained as sacrifice to forgive our sins. Which is of course complete nonsense if you think about that even a little bit. A omnipotent deity sends his son (who is also himself and a ghost) into certain death to forgive our sins. That is the only way to explain the torture death of a mortal human. The question arises: what was accomplished? What changed? Why did this god not forgive us in the first place? The absurdity of it all makes it plausible says Tertullian. That's probably the most sensible explanation I have read. Doesn't make it true in any case.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 01, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
OP, there is no evidence that a single word of JC's was recorded when he spoke it.
Yes and no.
First, there is every reason to consider the possibility that Jesus chose Matthew precisely because of his ability to read and write. It was not uncommon for teachers of antiquity to have disciples who recorded their teachings. The Q document, which contained sayings of Jesus, predated the gospels and was obviously compiled by someone.
Second, Jesus' teachings and sermons appear to be formed in the short, parable style that was commonly used by orators of antiquity because it facilitated recall.
Third, the disciples followed Jesus around for three years, so it's reasonable to think that they might have heard him preach the same message more than once in different towns and villages. Repetition is good for memorization. Repetition is good for memorization. Say it with me: Repetition is good for memorization.
Fourth, Jesus sent out the disciples on their own to preach in the towns around Galilee. So...what did they preach if not the same things that they had heard Jesus say? Did they do this entirely from memory? Or did they have a few outlines or notes from sermons they had heard him preach first?
Fifth, the era in question was an oral culture meaning that their memories were MUCH better than ours because they had to be. I barely know the phone numbers and a few birthdays of my family members because I don't have to store that with precise retrieval in my brain. I have an iPhone. In those days, people listened and remembered because they had to. There were no record, re-wind or pause buttons in their world.
FWIW, even today, people who practice can memorize the entire Qu'ran or massive portions of the OT. It's just not a skill that many of us have reason to develop.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:00:26 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:00:26 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 01, 2016, 09:45:35 AM
Yes, I got it. You apparently believe the Illiad. Further, we can have no more confidence in the accuracy of the old testament as well as the gospels, both of which are claimed to be true) than the Illiad. In fact, when I read the Illiad in high school, I thought its fairy tale qualities resembled the Bible in remarkable ways. It was one of the early things that got me to start questioning the accuracy of the Bible.
I believe that scholars who specialize in Homer believe they have an accurate text.
However, having an accurate text does not mean that the text is true. I can have a perfect text of Alice in Wonderland, but that does not make the Cheshire Cat real. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 03:07:08 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:00:26 PM
However, having an accurate text does not mean that the text is true. I can have a perfect text of Alice in Wonderland, but that does not make the Cheshire Cat real. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
LOL! That coming from you is precious!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:13:42 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 09:55:40 AM
Randy, that one has to use probability to believe in the bible is proof that your god is at best shoddy and at worst a fiction. I'll side with fiction.
Okay. That would be a mistake, but okay.
QuoteGod cannot supply a coherent Word, or rules to live by? Your god created all--everything. Except it cannot seem to be able to accurately communicate with his crowning creations. That is simply too odd to believe.
Naturally, I disagree. But you also fail to consider that Catholics are not people of the Book; we are people of the Word. Jesus did not leave us a Book. Jesus promised to build a Church, and if the Bible disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the Catholic Church would continue on just fine.
QuoteTo have his word come into human knowledge so late in it's history is quite puzzling; as is the fact that it was handed down to only a few in one section of the globe. You creator cannot foresee the problem with languages? He could not create a set of basic rules that all can read and understand? He cannot have that set of rules sent everywhere? There is no logic or sense to any of this. Your god is simply a human created fiction.
Perhaps the problem is simply that you cannot understand His methodology of His logic. Or that you don't like it.
God formed a particular people (the Jews) over a long period of time. Then He entered into the world as a Jew. Not all of the Jews of His day got it, but enough of them did to get the Church started. Then He tasked the Church with spreading the message elsewhere.
Pretty straightforward, and I'm not sure how you would have Jesus offer himself as a sacrifice to God for the salvation of men simultaneously in every single culture around the globe - from the Arctic Circle to the steaming jungles of Central America, from the steppes of Russia to the Great Plains of the American west.
How would God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, live and die and rise again among the Romans, the Ming Dynasty and the Celts all at the same time?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:16:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:16:28 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 03:07:08 PM
LOL! That coming from you is precious!!!!!!!
Yessss, it isss my precioussss. Golum!
But try to disprove my four-part OP, if you can.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 03:38:37 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 03:38:37 PM
Again and again and again...I don't have prove or disprove anything. That is your department. You are the one who makes outlandish claims and needs to prove what you claim. So far nada, zilch, zippo.
Fact #1 is the resurrection of Jesus? Oh my!
That "fact' needs a number of assumptions before you even begin to talk about evidence. You have to assume that:
Jesus existed
He had disciples
That the disciples kept somehow records of Jesus' utterings
He performed miracles
He was crucified
He ascended to heaven
That the bible is true
none of this is proven. It's an ancient claim, nothing more. Based on ignorance of scientific facts and the gullibility of the masses.
If you want to prove anything you have to do better than that.
Fact #1 is the resurrection of Jesus? Oh my!
That "fact' needs a number of assumptions before you even begin to talk about evidence. You have to assume that:
Jesus existed
He had disciples
That the disciples kept somehow records of Jesus' utterings
He performed miracles
He was crucified
He ascended to heaven
That the bible is true
none of this is proven. It's an ancient claim, nothing more. Based on ignorance of scientific facts and the gullibility of the masses.
If you want to prove anything you have to do better than that.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 04:12:52 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 04:12:52 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 03:38:37 PM
Again and again and again...I don't have prove or disprove anything. That is your department. You are the one who makes outlandish claims and needs to prove what you claim. So far nada, zilch, zippo.
Fact #1 is the resurrection of Jesus? Oh my!
That "fact' needs a number of assumptions before you even begin to talk about evidence. You have to assume that:
Jesus existed
He had disciples
That the disciples kept somehow records of Jesus' utterings
He performed miracles
He was crucified
He ascended to heaven
That the bible is true
none of this is proven. It's an ancient claim, nothing more. Based on ignorance of scientific facts and the gullibility of the masses.
If you want to prove anything you have to do better than that.
Actually, reasonist, the fact that Jesus existed is a given by MOST skeptics...the more knowledgeable ones, anyway. There are numerous non-Christian authors who referred to him.
I suspect you already know this, correct?
I just started a new thread to avoid derailing this one any further.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:18:11 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:00:26 PM
I believe that scholars who specialize in Homer believe they have an accurate text.
However, having an accurate text does not mean that the text is true. I can have a perfect text of Alice in Wonderland, but that does not make the Cheshire Cat real. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Ah, so Homer copied the memoirs of Odysseus perhaps, and the Olympian gods are real, and Zeus is going to give you a hot seat, and his brother Hades is going to enjoy your misery afterwards? Oh, only ancient Jewish writings are immune from what you just said? Good thing I am Jewish then.
Some years ago, some people found the first draft of Dracula (by Bram Stoker) in an attic. The text is a bit different than the one published in the first printed edition. In what way is one more "accurate" than the other? I don't think this word "accurate" means what you think it means.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 04:26:58 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:18:11 PM
Ah, so Homer copied the memoirs of Odysseus perhaps, and the Olympian gods are real, and Zeus is going to give you a hot seat, and his brother Hades is going to enjoy your misery afterwards? Oh, only ancient Jewish writings are immune from what you just said? Good thing I am Jewish then.
The truth of what is contained in the texts is a separate question, baruch. This is the first step of a multi-step process.
Step #1: Yes, we have an accurate text that contains the information the author intended to convey.
QuoteSome years ago, some people found the first draft of Dracula (by Bram Stoker) in an attic. The text is a bit different than the one published in the first printed edition. In what way is one more "accurate" than the other? I don't think this word "accurate" means what you think it means.
If the author wrote a draft and then made changes to the text before it was published, that is one thing. However, the charge against the NT is that changes were introduced to the text AFTER the text was originally published. That is another thing, altogether.
Textual Criticism dispels the mistaken belief - common to atheists and skeptics - that we don't have any way of knowing for sure what the authors actually wrote and the NT is full of late additions and interpolations.
This is flat wrong.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:34:12 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:34:12 PM
But as you already know ... even if I had a 1st century Jesus guy, literate enough to write his own stuff, and we had the original text ... it wouldn't matter to me. So that disposes of the textual criticism. I agree that is a red herring ... but is red herring kosher for Passover? That I don't know.
So yes, the content is addressed on other threads. I enjoyed Little Golden Books when I was a boy. One of my first reads was another publisher, who had a summary of the Twelve Labors of Heracles. It has to have been real, since I saw Steve Reeves (brother of George Reeves who was Superman) play the part of Heracles on TV. Even better than scripture to see the "passion play" of a Greek hero than some god-like guy from Krypton.
So do you agree that the Odyssey is a great story? Why don't you believe in the Olympian gods then? Hamlet is a great play ... and it really comes alive for me. It has made me question Danish ham and Christmas cookies ... they might be poisoned by Hamlet's uncle.
So yes, the content is addressed on other threads. I enjoyed Little Golden Books when I was a boy. One of my first reads was another publisher, who had a summary of the Twelve Labors of Heracles. It has to have been real, since I saw Steve Reeves (brother of George Reeves who was Superman) play the part of Heracles on TV. Even better than scripture to see the "passion play" of a Greek hero than some god-like guy from Krypton.
So do you agree that the Odyssey is a great story? Why don't you believe in the Olympian gods then? Hamlet is a great play ... and it really comes alive for me. It has made me question Danish ham and Christmas cookies ... they might be poisoned by Hamlet's uncle.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:36:53 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:36:53 PM
Tertullian let the cat out of the bag, and promptly turned heretic in the bargain ;-)
The first great Christian bible scholar, Origen, was so messed up he self castrated ;-(
The first great Christian bible scholar, Origen, was so messed up he self castrated ;-(
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 04:38:33 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 04:38:33 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 04:12:52 PM
Actually, reasonist, the fact that Jesus existed is a given by MOST skeptics...the more knowledgeable ones, anyway. There are numerous non-Christian authors who referred to him.
I suspect you already know this, correct?
I told you already, if the guy existed or not is completely irrelevant. I doubt it but I am open to any evidence presented. The point is that he was portrayed as the Messiah a few hundred years after he allegedly existed and that is bs. No divinity, no miracles, no resurrection etc.
What makes all this unbelievable is the suspension of all laws of physics and claims of the supernatural. Virgin birth, the most nonsensical part of your cult, is prevalent in over 30 other ancient myths thousands of years prior. That should be enough for anybody with a logical thought process to classify the good book as fiction. But wait! There is more! Dionysus turned water into wine too, so what? All that rubbish was written many, many moons before your Jesus was born of a virgin!
So by all means relinquish or suspend your faculty of reason and wallow in wish thinking, by all means believe in anything you want but don't come here and bullshit us. Others have tried and failed, you are not the first. I am up for any decent discussion but if I see that one side ignores factual evidence and tries to deceive others, I tend to remove myself from that confrontation. You are still entertaining so I wait.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:44:04 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:44:04 PM
I like Randy too, otherwise I wouldn't bother. All of these points were discussed by the pre-Nicene Fathers ... and if you read that stuff, you will read a few whoppers! Ah yes, Satan carefully convinced the pagan priests to come up with counterfeit myths, sufficiently similar to, yet different from ... the myths approved by the pre-Nicene Fathers ... just to mess with all the potential Christian converts who would be appearing sometime in the future. Yeah, right ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 04:49:57 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 04:49:57 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:00:26 PM
However, having an accurate text does not mean that the text is true. I can have a perfect text of Alice in Wonderland, but that does not make the Cheshire Cat real. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Wow, Randy! You do get it! Just because you have a perfect text of the bible (which has never, ever been the case and would be impossible to have or find) does not make Jesus real. And thanks for the link between the Cheshire Cat and jesus. I had not seen that before.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 01, 2016, 04:53:28 PM
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 01, 2016, 04:53:28 PM
:popcorn:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 05:04:13 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 05:04:13 PM
Randy, you say: "Start with the OP of this thread. Let me know whether my case for early dating of the gospels is beyond a reasonable doubt.
One step at a time, Mike. One step at a time."
My reply:
A chronological New Testament sequences the documents very differently. Its order is based on contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship. Though there is uncertainty about dating some of the documents, there is a scholarly consensus about the basic framework.
It begins with seven letters attributed to Paul, all from the 50s. The first Gospel is Mark (not Matthew), written around 70. Revelation is not last, but almost in the middle, written in the 90s. Twelve documents follow Revelation, with II Peter the last, written as late as near the middle of the second century.
A chronological New Testament is not only about sequence, but also about chronological context â€" the context-in-time, the historical context in which each document was written. Words have their meaning within their temporal contexts, in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole.
Seeing and reading the New Testament in chronological sequence matters for historical reasons. It illuminates Christian origins. Much becomes apparent:
ï,·Beginning with seven of Paul’s letters illustrates that there were vibrant Christian communities spread throughout the Roman Empire before there were written Gospels. His letters provide a “window†into the life of very early Christian communities.
ï,·Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel â€" the good news â€" of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.
ï,·Reading the Gospels in chronological order beginning with Mark demonstrates that early Christian understandings of Jesus and his significance developed. As Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, they not only added to Mark but often modified Mark.
ï,·Seeing John separated from the other Gospels and relatively late in the New Testament makes it clear how different his Gospel is. In consistently metaphorical and symbolic language, it is primarily “witness†or “testimony†to what Jesus had become in the life and thought of John’s community.
ï,·Realizing that many of the documents are from the late first and early second centuries allows us to glimpse developments in early Christianity in its third and fourth generations. In general, they reflect a trajectory that moves from the radicalism of Jesus and Paul to increasing accommodation with the cultural conventions of the time.
Awareness of the above matters not just for historical reasons but also for Christian reasons. American Christianity today is deeply divided. At the heart of the division, especially among Protestants, is two very different ways of seeing the Bible and the New Testament. About half of American Protestants belong to churches that teach that the Bible is the inerrant “Word of God†and “inspired by God.â€
So, no, your push for an 'early' bible does not cut it.
(BTW, this was copied from the Huffington Post--I did not write the above--but I have suggested just such a reorganization of the bible for decades now.)
One step at a time, Mike. One step at a time."
My reply:
A chronological New Testament sequences the documents very differently. Its order is based on contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship. Though there is uncertainty about dating some of the documents, there is a scholarly consensus about the basic framework.
It begins with seven letters attributed to Paul, all from the 50s. The first Gospel is Mark (not Matthew), written around 70. Revelation is not last, but almost in the middle, written in the 90s. Twelve documents follow Revelation, with II Peter the last, written as late as near the middle of the second century.
A chronological New Testament is not only about sequence, but also about chronological context â€" the context-in-time, the historical context in which each document was written. Words have their meaning within their temporal contexts, in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole.
Seeing and reading the New Testament in chronological sequence matters for historical reasons. It illuminates Christian origins. Much becomes apparent:
ï,·Beginning with seven of Paul’s letters illustrates that there were vibrant Christian communities spread throughout the Roman Empire before there were written Gospels. His letters provide a “window†into the life of very early Christian communities.
ï,·Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel â€" the good news â€" of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.
ï,·Reading the Gospels in chronological order beginning with Mark demonstrates that early Christian understandings of Jesus and his significance developed. As Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, they not only added to Mark but often modified Mark.
ï,·Seeing John separated from the other Gospels and relatively late in the New Testament makes it clear how different his Gospel is. In consistently metaphorical and symbolic language, it is primarily “witness†or “testimony†to what Jesus had become in the life and thought of John’s community.
ï,·Realizing that many of the documents are from the late first and early second centuries allows us to glimpse developments in early Christianity in its third and fourth generations. In general, they reflect a trajectory that moves from the radicalism of Jesus and Paul to increasing accommodation with the cultural conventions of the time.
Awareness of the above matters not just for historical reasons but also for Christian reasons. American Christianity today is deeply divided. At the heart of the division, especially among Protestants, is two very different ways of seeing the Bible and the New Testament. About half of American Protestants belong to churches that teach that the Bible is the inerrant “Word of God†and “inspired by God.â€
So, no, your push for an 'early' bible does not cut it.
(BTW, this was copied from the Huffington Post--I did not write the above--but I have suggested just such a reorganization of the bible for decades now.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 05:06:59 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 05:06:59 PM
The Bible is definitely earlier than Gutenberg ;-) Unsupported hypotheses in general won't push the date much earlier than 200 CE ... where we have substantial manuscripts in Greek. Even so, it is only of interest to textual critics, which Randy rejects.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 05:09:52 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 05:09:52 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 01, 2016, 04:53:28 PM
:popcorn:
I hope that popcorn isn't cursed by the Meso-American corn god ... he is real too. You have to sacrifice at least three virgin male warriors on the sacrifice stone, to make popcorn safe to eat <sarc>.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 05:09:52 PMWould that even be possible? Virgin male warriors??????
I hope that popcorn isn't cursed by the Meso-American corn god ... he is real too. You have to sacrifice at least three virgin male warriors on the sacrifice stone, to make popcorn safe to eat <sarc>.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 05:19:40 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 05:19:40 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
Would that even be possible? Virgin male warriors??????
Absolutely! Nothing pisses young men off more, than not letting them whoopee with the ladies ;-) Being virgins, that would make them more dangerous than Spartans (who were bisexual). The ancient Taoists and Hindus believed that not letting your male fluid out, was the primary way for a male to develop super powers.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 04:12:52 PM
Actually, reasonist, the fact that Jesus existed is a given by MOST skeptics...
Is it? Jesus is being removed from historical entries. One by one. Oxford did this. It's not 'Before Christ' any more, for example. It's Before Common Era.
In the next century, it will be just a mythical character like Hercules is now. They are going to make cartoons about it for children and that will be it.
Quotethe more knowledgeable ones, anyway.
According to you? Unfortunately, you don't qualify for deciding who is more knowledgable or not. You have demonstrated you do not understand what is knowledge. This subject can be discussed from the point of why myths were 'necessary', why did people create them, but that's too advanced for you as far as I see.
Also, you are not having a discussion we haven't seen -literally- a hundred times or presenting something even remotely interesting.
QuoteThere are numerous non-Christian authors who referred to him. I suspect you already know this, correct?
Do you have any idea how many fantasy characters and myths we need to refer to study human history? That doesn't change the tiny bit of the fact they are myths. The Jesus myth, Christianity is also a huge part of human culture.
For example, you cannot study western art without reading the bible. It has nothing to do with religion, it is the part of the classical western education.
Also don't make several threads of the same subjects please. You are not inspiring, 'proving' or 'teaching' anything to anyone. In fact, you have no idea how boring you are.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Shiranu on May 01, 2016, 06:34:34 PM
Post by: Shiranu on May 01, 2016, 06:34:34 PM
QuoteHow would God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, live and die and rise again among the Romans, the Ming Dynasty and the Celts all at the same time?
You really think an all powerful god would have an issue making this happen?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 01, 2016, 06:59:36 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 01, 2016, 06:59:36 PM
Quote from: Shiranu on May 01, 2016, 06:34:34 PMWell it's not like God can split himself into a trinity or anything. What do you want, a miracle?
You really think an all powerful god would have an issue making this happen?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 01, 2016, 08:58:48 PM
Post by: aitm on May 01, 2016, 08:58:48 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 03:13:42 PM
How would God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, live and die and rise again among the Romans, the Ming Dynasty and the Celts all at the same time?
sure….sure…..and yet the creator of the entire universe, knowledgeable about the laws of all physics was stymied by a woman's period…LOLOLOL…yer a smart one all right. And yet you think that a god as great as yours could not even convince the jews when he actually showed himself to them and did all these miracles for them that he could not convince them……granted it was always the third time he was successful…LOLOLOL…what a god.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on May 01, 2016, 10:45:28 PM
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on May 01, 2016, 10:45:28 PM
Oh, and the whole book of Revelations? Must be all undisputed FACT except the parts that don't make a lick of sense which by the way is nearly all of it..
But hey, even back then people swallowed substances that caused hallucinations..
But hey, even back then people swallowed substances that caused hallucinations..
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 02, 2016, 06:08:55 AM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 02, 2016, 06:08:55 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 02:57:53 PMNo.
Yes and no.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 02, 2016, 12:41:46 PM
Post by: aitm on May 02, 2016, 12:41:46 PM
Truly I say to you, this generation shall not pass before all these things come true...somewhere in matthew....
Yeah.....the NT is accurate..LOLOL... what a pos of a god you splay yourself to at least you could worship Odin, he promised no ice giants and we don't see none of those fuckers eh? WHO-HOO go ODIN!!
Yeah.....the NT is accurate..LOLOL... what a pos of a god you splay yourself to at least you could worship Odin, he promised no ice giants and we don't see none of those fuckers eh? WHO-HOO go ODIN!!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:04:59 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:34:12 PM
But as you already know ... even if I had a 1st century Jesus guy, literate enough to write his own stuff, and we had the original text ... it wouldn't matter to me. So that disposes of the textual criticism. I agree that is a red herring ... but is red herring kosher for Passover? That I don't know.
Now, we're finally getting somewhere. If Jesus really existed, if he wrote a book, if we had that original autograph...it wouldn't matter to you.
And why is that, Baruch?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:14:45 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:14:45 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 04:38:33 PM
I told you already, if the guy existed or not is completely irrelevant. I doubt it but I am open to any evidence presented.
You're open to any evidence presented? Well, that's nice to hear. I'd hate to think I was presenting all this material to someone who was simply going to ignore it.
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 04:38:33 PMThe point is that he was portrayed as the Messiah a few hundred years after he allegedly existed and that is bs. No divinity, no miracles, no resurrection etc.
A few hundred years? reasonist, what about the evidence that I already presented demonstrating that the texts of the NT were written within a few years of his death and resurrection?
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 04:38:33 PM
What makes all this unbelievable is the suspension of all laws of physics and claims of the supernatural. Virgin birth, the most nonsensical part of your cult, is prevalent in over 30 other ancient myths thousands of years prior. That should be enough for anybody with a logical thought process to classify the good book as fiction. But wait! There is more! Dionysus turned water into wine too, so what? All that rubbish was written many, many moons before your Jesus was born of a virgin!
Why should I give a rip about Dionysus if you and I can both agree that it is "rubbish"? The existence of false claims does not diminish my ability to evaluate whether the claims of Jesus' disciples are true, does it?
See, you're making the mistake of looking at ALL religious claims equally...and writing ALL of them off because MOST of them are obviously bogus. But this shows a lack of real discernment. The existence of counterfeits does not mean that all are fake. This is not good logic.
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 04:38:33 PMSo by all means relinquish or suspend your faculty of reason and wallow in wish thinking, by all means believe in anything you want but don't come here and bullshit us. Others have tried and failed, you are not the first. I am up for any decent discussion but if I see that one side ignores factual evidence and tries to deceive others, I tend to remove myself from that confrontation. You are still entertaining so I wait.
The real issue here, reasonist, is that you haven't actually presented any thing that resembles "factual evidence", so there really hasn't been anything for me to ignore. You simply make these long, rambling posts completely devoid of hyperlinks to scholarly articles, no quotes with attribution to books that I can research for myself, nothing of this sort. You simply assert what you believe and then accuse ME of ignoring your evidence. WHAT EVIDENCE?!?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:18:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 04:44:04 PM
I like Randy too, otherwise I wouldn't bother. All of these points were discussed by the pre-Nicene Fathers ... and if you read that stuff, you will read a few whoppers! Ah yes, Satan carefully convinced the pagan priests to come up with counterfeit myths, sufficiently similar to, yet different from ... the myths approved by the pre-Nicene Fathers ... just to mess with all the potential Christian converts who would be appearing sometime in the future. Yeah, right ;-)
Interesting.
Now, let's consider this. IF, and I'm just saying IF for the moment, God and Satan both exist, wouldn't it be reasonable for Satan to establish counterfeit religions to lead people astray? To mock and copy the true religion? Would that be a reasonable strategy for Satan to adopt in his opposition to God?
I mean, the Allies set up all sorts of fictitious operations designed to deceive the Germans into believing that D-Day was going to happen at Calais, right?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:21:16 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:21:16 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 04:49:57 PM
Wow, Randy! You do get it! Just because you have a perfect text of the bible (which has never, ever been the case and would be impossible to have or find) does not make Jesus real. And thanks for the link between the Cheshire Cat and jesus. I had not seen that before.
You're welcome. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Since I do "get it", does this mean that you will interact with me a little more sincerely now that I have demonstrated to you that I am not as clueless as the other bible-thumpers you have met previously?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:22:52 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:22:52 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 01, 2016, 04:53:28 PM
:popcorn:
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 02, 2016, 01:27:19 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 02, 2016, 01:27:19 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:21:16 PMYou are making the mistake of confusing sincerity with agreement with you. I have not told you one lie about what I think about anything. I am sincere about my thinking, reasoning--and even my beliefs. But that really means little. Hitler was sincere as well. So what? I base my thinking, not on the sincerity of my thinking, but the accuracy of that thinking. It would serve you well to do the same.
You're welcome. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Since I do "get it", does this mean that you will interact with me a little more sincerely now that I have demonstrated to you that I am not as clueless as the other bible-thumpers you have met previously?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:33:25 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:33:25 PM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PM
Is it? Jesus is being removed from historical entries. One by one. Oxford did this. It's not 'Before Christ' any more, for example. It's Before Common Era.
Yes.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PMIn the next century, it will be just a mythical character like Hercules is now. They are going to make cartoons about it for children and that will be it.
Fools have been making assumptions like this for 2,000 years. Empires have come and gone. The Church is still here. Don't hold your breath.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PM
According to you? Unfortunately, you don't qualify for deciding who is more knowledgable or not. You have demonstrated you do not understand what is knowledge. This subject can be discussed from the point of why myths were 'necessary', why did people create them, but that's too advanced for you as far as I see.
Yeah, completely beyond my ken.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PM
Also, you are not having a discussion we haven't seen -literally- a hundred times or presenting something even remotely interesting.
Nor am I hearing responses that I have not heard before in forums very, very similar to this one. However, if there is nothing "even remotely interesting" about this thread...why are you posting in it? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PM
Do you have any idea how many fantasy characters and myths we need to refer to study human history? That doesn't change the tiny bit of the fact they are myths. The Jesus myth, Christianity is also a huge part of human culture.
Oh, Christianity is a huge part of human culture, alright. But even your fellow atheists mock the stupidity of the Jesus Mythicists.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PM
For example, you cannot study western art without reading the bible. It has nothing to do with religion, it is the part of the classical western education.
Indeed. That somehow bugs the hell out of you, doesn't it?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 01, 2016, 05:49:45 PM
Also don't make several threads of the same subjects please. You are not inspiring, 'proving' or 'teaching' anything to anyone. In fact, you have no idea how boring you are.
Well, I can certainly understand that you're not really paying attention since the material is so "boring", but if you had been following along, you would have noticed that each thread is addressing a single, specific point in the argument in favor of the historical reliability of the NT.
See, people who think they already know it all have to have everything explained to them more slowly.
Does that make sense, drunkenshoe? Do I need to slow down even more for you?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:36:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:36:53 PM
Quote from: Shiranu on May 01, 2016, 06:34:34 PM
You really think an all powerful god would have an issue making this happen?
Not without violating our free will, I think.
As you note, precisely because of God's omnipotence, He must act very carefully to avoid coercion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 01:41:16 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 01:41:16 PM
Okay, define "accurate". It seems like you are trying to prove the text is "accurate", meaning, "It is relatively unchanged for its original intent" to show that it is "accurate", meaning, "Every word is true". That's the impression I'm getting, though, admittedly, I have not read and will not read 4 walls of text you ripped from a source I would never go to on my own.
Let's say for a moment that you have just proved that the text of the Bible is an accurate depiction of the original intent (you have not and you cannot, you are, instead, trying to invoke the principals of probability to prove an absolute, which will never happen, even if the probability you used were not skewed horribly). But let's say you just showed us that the text, as it is today, is substantially similar to the text as it was written. So what? How does that prove that magic is real? How does that prove that it is anything but a collection of fantastical magical stories with no basis in reality?
You can rewrite history all you want by quoting all the fringe nuts who disagree with the preponderance of evidence which has convinced a vast majority of scholars until you're blue in the face. It still doesn't prove Jesus went to Hogwarts.
Let's say for a moment that you have just proved that the text of the Bible is an accurate depiction of the original intent (you have not and you cannot, you are, instead, trying to invoke the principals of probability to prove an absolute, which will never happen, even if the probability you used were not skewed horribly). But let's say you just showed us that the text, as it is today, is substantially similar to the text as it was written. So what? How does that prove that magic is real? How does that prove that it is anything but a collection of fantastical magical stories with no basis in reality?
You can rewrite history all you want by quoting all the fringe nuts who disagree with the preponderance of evidence which has convinced a vast majority of scholars until you're blue in the face. It still doesn't prove Jesus went to Hogwarts.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 01:45:03 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 01:45:03 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:36:53 PMBut that's not true. Free will as a gift from God is a human construct not found in the Bible. In fact, God readily violates free will when dealing with Pharaoh because he really wanted to punish Pharaoh for not doing as he asked, so he "hardened his heart" to make sure that he would get to punish Pharaoh. Essentially, he made sure Pharaoh disobeyed his command so that he could punish him for his disobedience. Since God had to go out of his way to "harden Pharaoh's heart" one can only assume that, had God not done that, Pharaoh would have let the Jews go. God, being all knowing, certainly wouldn't have bothered to harden Pharaoh's heart if it were not necessary to do so to get the result he wanted.
Not without violating our free will, I think.
As you note, precisely because of God's omnipotence, He must act very carefully to avoid coercion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:45:09 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:45:09 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 01, 2016, 08:58:48 PM
sure….sure…..and yet the creator of the entire universe, knowledgeable about the laws of all physics was stymied by a woman's period…LOLOLOL…yer a smart one all right. And yet you think that a god as great as yours could not even convince the jews when he actually showed himself to them and did all these miracles for them that he could not convince them……granted it was always the third time he was successful…LOLOLOL…what a god.
And if God had simply forced people to bow down before him against their will, would you have respected him the more for it?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:45:56 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:45:56 PM
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 01, 2016, 10:45:28 PM
Oh, and the whole book of Revelations? Must be all undisputed FACT except the parts that don't make a lick of sense which by the way is nearly all of it..
But hey, even back then people swallowed substances that caused hallucinations..
So, it doesn't make sense to YOU? Or to anyone?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:47:03 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 02, 2016, 12:41:46 PM
Truly I say to you, this generation shall not pass before all these things come true...somewhere in matthew....
Yeah.....the NT is accurate..LOLOL... what a pos of a god you splay yourself to at least you could worship Odin, he promised no ice giants and we don't see none of those fuckers eh? WHO-HOO go ODIN!!
Man, if you are representative of the atheist intellectual elite...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:49:51 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:49:51 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 02, 2016, 01:27:19 PM
You are making the mistake of confusing sincerity with agreement with you.
Oh, hell no. I'm not naive, Mike. We can disagree with one another while sincerely trying to understand our differences. Or we can interact like chuckleheads...aitm-style.
I think you'd prefer the former, yes?
QuoteI have not told you one lie about what I think about anything. I am sincere about my thinking, reasoning--and even my beliefs. But that really means little. Hitler was sincere as well. So what? I base my thinking, not on the sincerity of my thinking, but the accuracy of that thinking. It would serve you well to do the same.
You'll get nothing but my honest, best efforts, Mike. I promise.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 02, 2016, 01:52:34 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 02, 2016, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:33:25 PM
Does that make sense, drunkenshoe? Do I need to slow down even more for you?
That's exactly the arrogance that lacks credibility. So until now I tried to reply with at least some decorum and decency, but that doesn't work with people who live in a bubble of (self) deceit. What clearly shows ignorance is that you," Ben" Carson' think you can fool anybody here and convince us that your fairy tales are real. The only one you are fooling is yourself. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can get on with your pathetic life. Where you are now in your life, most of us here were in the past. We grew, matured and left superstition behind us. Obviously you are not there yet, or never will be. But to think that you can come here and spread your bullshit as facts is more than ironic. It must be a bigger challenge than to post on a religious forum where all agree with your nonsense.
You have absolutely nothing to contribute to a rational discussion. Your so called facts are bronze age mythologies and fairy tales. To try to change that into testable, provable and disprovable facts is as ridiculous as your diatribes here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 02:04:02 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 02:04:02 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 01:25:33 PMIt always amuses me how believers in any sort of nuttery always want to use the example of our court systems to show how their particular flavor of nuttery is accurate by the standards of our court.
Fair enough, Mike. But what is the standard in a court of law? Proof beyond ALL doubt? Or beyond reasonable doubt? It is the latter, and juries are cautioned against speculation of what MIGHT have happened. We have four independent eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.
History is not a court of law. Science does not use the same standards as our court systems. And if it did, science would quickly become a whole lot less useful. Do you know how many innocent people are behind bars? Do you know how many guilty people get off on technicalities? Are you aware that the way our court systems are set up the "facts" of any given case take a DISTANT SECOND to who is better at arguing? Why do you think it's so expensive to get a good lawyer? Will a good lawyer bring better facts to the court room? No. A good lawyer is simply better at arguing, better at twisting reality, better at distorting the facts to get the outcome he wants. There is a reason science isn't modeled after our court system, much as you might wish it were.
As we have firmly established prior to this, you have NO eyewitness accounts until you can convince a great majority (95% is the standard) of scholars and historians that you do. And not only have they not been convinced that you are right, they HAVE been convinced that you are wrong. YOU HAVE NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS!
And that's the second most popular thing that believers in various nuttery want to use, eyewitness accounts. Because if someone claims they saw something then it's true without fail, right? Just ask David Koresh! Hey, a couple of years ago I read an eyewitness account from a doctor in India who said, FOR THE SECOND TIME IN HIS CAREER, that he confirmed some magic guy there had not eaten or drank anything for about 40 years! That's not only an eyewitness account, that's an eyewitness account from a PROFESSIONAL! That guy knows what he's talking about, so magic MUST be real! And Trickle-Down Economics works, too! There are LOTS of Republican eyewitness accounts to attest to that! Step one, give rich people more money. Step two, ????? Step three, PROFIT!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 01:41:16 PM
Okay, define "accurate". It seems like you are trying to prove the text is "accurate", meaning, "It is relatively unchanged for its original intent" to show that it is "accurate", meaning, "Every word is true". That's the impression I'm getting, though, admittedly, I have not read and will not read 4 walls of text you ripped from a source I would never go to on my own.
First, that was mostly my own writing, but I do understand there was a lot of it. The challenge, widdershins, is that you can ask a one-line question that might take a volume to answer ADEQUATELY. I'm trying to provide information that folks need to evaluate the claims of Christianity objectively, and that can be wordy. Sorry...just skip over those parts. We can always refer back to them now that they are posted if we need to do so.
Quote from: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 01:41:16 PMLet's say for a moment that you have just proved that the text of the Bible is an accurate depiction of the original intent (you have not and you cannot, you are, instead, trying to invoke the principals of probability to prove an absolute, which will never happen, even if the probability you used were not skewed horribly).
But don't dismiss this so lightly! EVERYTHING we know from antiquity is a matter of probability, and the accuracy of the NT texts has no peer in all of ancient literature.
Now, why is the accuracy of the NT text such a big deal? Well, if we're going to ask people to consider the message of the gospel, it's only fair that we be able to explain how we even know with confidence what the gospel is!
And as a sidebar, one of the rabbit trails that folks in forums like this love to run down these days is the silly notion that Jesus never existed. But another is the idea that the Bible has been corrupted over time the way that the original message in the children's "Telephone Game" gets corrupted. So, that issue needs to be addressed right up front.
Quote from: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 01:41:16 PMBut let's say you just showed us that the text, as it is today, is substantially similar to the text as it was written. So what? How does that prove that magic is real? How does that prove that it is anything but a collection of fantastical magical stories with no basis in reality?
Good questions. As I pointed out previously, having an accurate copy (or even the autograph) of Alice in Wonderland would not be sufficient to convince you of the existence of the Cheshire Cat, would it?
But the Case for Christianity is like a cold-case murder. Cold-cases exist when all of the witnesses to a murder have died (if a witness were still alive, it wouldn't be cold!). Usually, there is little forensic evidence from the original invesigation that took place many years earlier.
Sound familiar? The case for Christianity has no living eyewitnesses. There is no forensic evidence. But there are eyewitness accounts and other records that we can examine to build a case upon indirect or circumstantial evidence.
The case does not have to be proved beyond ALL doubt, widdershins. It has to be proved beyond all REASONABLE doubt. I think this is possible. Lots of people do.
What I'm not entirely convinced of is whether everyone in the jury box has heard the evidence presented well...in a compelling and logical manner.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Quote from: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 01:41:16 PMYou can rewrite history all you want by quoting all the fringe nuts who disagree with the preponderance of evidence which has convinced a vast majority of scholars until you're blue in the face. It still doesn't prove Jesus went to Hogwarts.
No, He didn't. But He did go to the cross.
And what happened after that is what we really need to examine.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:15:13 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:15:13 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 02, 2016, 01:52:34 PM
That's exactly the arrogance that lacks credibility. So until now I tried to reply with at least some decorum and decency, but that doesn't work with people who live in a bubble of (self) deceit. What clearly shows ignorance is that you," Ben" Carson' think you can fool anybody here and convince us that your fairy tales are real. The only one you are fooling is yourself. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can get on with your pathetic life. Where you are now in your life, most of us here were in the past. We grew, matured and left superstition behind us. Obviously you are not there yet, or never will be. But to think that you can come here and spread your bullshit as facts is more than ironic. It must be a bigger challenge than to post on a religious forum where all agree with your nonsense.
You have absolutely nothing to contribute to a rational discussion. Your so called facts are bronze age mythologies and fairy tales. To try to change that into testable, provable and disprovable facts is as ridiculous as your diatribes here.
Oh. So when other people throw all sorts of crap at me, that's okay. But when I respond in kind, then I lack credibility. I see how it is. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif)
And seriously, reasonist..."bronze age mythologies and fairy tales" are just assertions without evidence. Try to back up your claims with something substantive.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 02, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 02, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Actually posters here were polite to you when you started to come here and spread your infantile garbage. You were welcomed until YOU introduced rudeness and arrogance.
And seriously, reasonist..."bronze age mythologies and fairy tales" are just assertions without evidence. Try to back up your claims with something substantive.
LOL! Still trying to reverse the burden of proof. But yes, claiming miracles is mythology and superstition. I don't have to back that up because it's self evident.
And seriously, reasonist..."bronze age mythologies and fairy tales" are just assertions without evidence. Try to back up your claims with something substantive.
LOL! Still trying to reverse the burden of proof. But yes, claiming miracles is mythology and superstition. I don't have to back that up because it's self evident.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 02, 2016, 02:42:22 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 02, 2016, 02:42:22 PM
The prophet Mohammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse...1.5 billion people actually believe that. Does that make it true? Of course not, it's the same mythological fable as the resurrection from the dead or healing the sick (not amputees!).
Do christians believe in any of the other 1,000 or so gods from Amun to Vulcan? I guess not and that makes them Atheists. We narrowed down the sky daddies to only a handful, a few more to go. Atheists are the fastest growing group in the US. Europe has accomplished that to a great degree. It's called evolution. We change for the better with more information coming out every day from science, so we don't need false consolation anymore.
It all depends on social conditioning. If Sir Carson would have been born in Baghdad or Riyadh, he certainly wouldn't worship Jesus (otherwise he would be decapitated for blasphemy). That alone makes religion irrelevant. If the truth depends on geographical location, it is completely worthless. Only a universal truth can be accepted and believed.
Do christians believe in any of the other 1,000 or so gods from Amun to Vulcan? I guess not and that makes them Atheists. We narrowed down the sky daddies to only a handful, a few more to go. Atheists are the fastest growing group in the US. Europe has accomplished that to a great degree. It's called evolution. We change for the better with more information coming out every day from science, so we don't need false consolation anymore.
It all depends on social conditioning. If Sir Carson would have been born in Baghdad or Riyadh, he certainly wouldn't worship Jesus (otherwise he would be decapitated for blasphemy). That alone makes religion irrelevant. If the truth depends on geographical location, it is completely worthless. Only a universal truth can be accepted and believed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 02, 2016, 03:11:44 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 02, 2016, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PM
And as a sidebar, one of the rabbit trails that folks in forums like this love to run down these days is the silly notion that Jesus never existed.
The topic does come up quite often, but the issue remains unresolved for lack of evidence. Some atheists believe a Jesus never existed, and they even give reasons for their belief. That's fine, but lets remember what people believe doesn't really matter. This is also true in your case. A preponderance of flimsy evidence, is still flimsy.
But no matter what atheists believe or don't believe, most of us here will agree that the debate is irrelevant. Jesus' existence is of no import. It's more about the need to prove the truth of magic and superstition as claimed in the Bible, and that also remains unresolved because no one has been able to do it.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PM
But another is the idea that the Bible has been corrupted over time the way that the original message in the children's "Telephone Game" gets corrupted. So, that issue needs to be addressed right up front.
Again, how much the Bible has changed since the first ancient texts were first written is irrelevant. This has been adequately pointed out by others here. You should stop wasting our time. The original texts, were written by the original superstitious and unscientific flim flam men, and their flim flam doesn't become more valuable because a bunch of scribes meticulously copied their bullshit with great precision.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PM
The case does not have to be proved beyond ALL doubt, widdershins. It has to be proved beyond all REASONABLE doubt. I think this is possible. Lots of people do.
What I'm not entirely convinced of is whether everyone in the jury box has heard the evidence presented well...in a compelling and logical manner.
That's what I'm trying to do.
This could be very insulting if anyone here were taking you seriously. The question of God's existence can be seen as of ultimate importance, even by atheists. Because if it's true, it has the ultimate implications for all of us. You think we just blew off a question that important, without looking at it as close as you do? We have looked at the question. We just evaluate the evidence much more critically than you do.
You are not the first theist to have come here with what he thinks is "the evidence presented well...in a compelling and logical manner," in a format far more clear and concise than your forebears, and that we are incapable fools who blind ourselves to the truth.
Get over yourself.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 06:36:00 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 06:36:00 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PMIf you have such valuable "information" then take it to historians, not to the public, and show them how very right you are. Why don't you do that? Why don't the people you get your information from do that? Because the conversation won't go the way you want it to when you're talking to people who know more about the subject than you do. But, that's kind of how it's going here, too.
First, that was mostly my own writing, but I do understand there was a lot of it. The challenge, widdershins, is that you can ask a one-line question that might take a volume to answer ADEQUATELY. I'm trying to provide information that folks need to evaluate the claims of Christianity objectively, and that can be wordy. Sorry...just skip over those parts. We can always refer back to them now that they are posted if we need to do so.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PMI dismiss it lightly because experts did. I don't want, have the time or have the money to waste to learn what they know just to satisfy my curiosity and, if I did, this would be the LAST subject I would waste my limited resources on. I would rather learn advanced mathematics or particle physics or advanced computer programming concepts than to study ancient magics. Why? Because the "probability" that magic is real is very, VERY low. And I hate to break it to you, but the only real difference between Biblical texts and other ancient texts is people still believe in them. Why that is really isn't much of a mystery. Once Christianity gained traction ancient Christians set about on a campaign of slaughter and forced conversions, relating the worship of any other deity to the worship of their specific anti-diety, Satan, giving them an excuse to torture, maim and kill any who disagreed with them. And when they weren't converting by force, they were converting by assimilation. Find a SINGLE Christian holiday with no ties to ancient pagan holidays. Good luck with that. Christianity invented holidays to correspond with pagan holidays so that pagans could convert without giving up their celebrations.
But don't dismiss this so lightly! EVERYTHING we know from antiquity is a matter of probability, and the accuracy of the NT texts has no peer in all of ancient literature.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PMYeah, the problem is that you keep inventing an "accuracy" which just doesn't exist, according to historians and scholars, AKA, "People who know what they're talking about". Why should I believe you over them? I can tell you why I should NOT believe you over them. You're not trained, you haven't studied ANY of the actual documents in question, you get your information from whatever source agrees with you, you came to your conclusions BEFORE you started looking into it and, thus, you only look at information which supports your conclusion and ignore any information which does not. So why should I bother reading your "information"? Garbage in, garbage out.
Now, why is the accuracy of the NT text such a big deal? Well, if we're going to ask people to consider the message of the gospel, it's only fair that we be able to explain how we even know with confidence what the gospel is!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PMThere is not a lot of "historical" evidence to suggest that Jesus ever did exist (and before you say it, any book that talks about the magical powers of Jesus does not qualify as a "historical" document). He MAY HAVE existed. But there is certainly no evidence to prove this is true, and there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to show he was Harry Potter.
And as a sidebar, one of the rabbit trails that folks in forums like this love to run down these days is the silly notion that Jesus never existed. But another is the idea that the Bible has been corrupted over time the way that the original message in the children's "Telephone Game" gets corrupted. So, that issue needs to be addressed right up front.
And yes, the Bible HAS BEEN corrupted over time. There is plenty of evidence that historical events were added after the fact, and that is not coming from atheists. That is coming from historians and scholars, some of whom are actually believers. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that your "other sources" of evidence that Jesus existed, aside from the Bible, have also been tampered with after the fact. In fact, some are PROVED to have been tampered with by the church itself. Lie to me ONCE and I can say with absolute certainty that you are no follower of a perfect being.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:11:17 PMIf scholars and historians disagree with you, then you are wrong, end of story. So, you are wrong, end of story. But let's ignore that and get straight to the point. Let's say you have successfully proved your false claim that the New Testament contains "eyewitness reports". It very much does not. This is wrong. It is not true. You are mistaken. But let's say you're not. Let's say you have successfully proved that these are the writings of eyewitnesses to the event. Let's even take it one step further and say we are in a court of law, trying to prove these are the accurate events.
Good questions. As I pointed out previously, having an accurate copy (or even the autograph) of Alice in Wonderland would not be sufficient to convince you of the existence of the Cheshire Cat, would it?
But the Case for Christianity is like a cold-case murder. Cold-cases exist when all of the witnesses to a murder have died (if a witness were still alive, it wouldn't be cold!). Usually, there is little forensic evidence from the original invesigation that took place many years earlier.
Sound familiar? The case for Christianity has no living eyewitnesses. There is no forensic evidence. But there are eyewitness accounts and other records that we can examine to build a case upon indirect or circumstantial evidence.
The case does not have to be proved beyond ALL doubt, widdershins. It has to be proved beyond all REASONABLE doubt. I think this is possible. Lots of people do.
What I'm not entirely convinced of is whether everyone in the jury box has heard the evidence presented well...in a compelling and logical manner.
That's what I'm trying to do.
No, He didn't. But He did go to the cross.
And what happened after that is what we really need to examine.
So, what do we have? We have copies of copies of copies of the original. In court that's called "hearsay" and is inadmissible. But let's say that rule didn't apply to move on to our next problem. All our witnesses are dead. No witness, no case. But let's say that even THAT isn't a problem and move on to witness credibility. Anyone familiar with police work or the courtroom will tell you that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. And these witnesses are claiming magical powers happened. Water into wine, healing the sick, the dead rising from the grave, dogs and cats living together...even a crappy lawyer would get that testimony thrown out as unreliable. Your dream "court case" would be thrown out 3 times before it even went to trial.
But let's ignore EVEN THAT. Let's say that you've just convinced me that the NT contains eyewitness accounts, you've convinced me that Jesus really walked the earth, you've convinced me that your timeline is correct. Let's say that EVERYTHING you are claiming, I now believe. Now you just have one more simple little task. A tiny thing, really. You just have to convince me that they were telling the truth. That shouldn't be too hard. Except, there is one, specific way that I'm going to need you to convince me of that. You need to convince me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that magic is real. If you can't do that then everything else you might convince me of adds up to nothing more than that this fairy tale is the same one told 2,000 years ago. So, cast a magic spell for me. Teach me how to do it. Pray to Jesus, have him come down and cast a magic spell for me. Something unmistakable. Pick a children's hospital. Heal every child in the terminal ward. You get Jesus to do that and I'll do whatever it says. It would make the news, so I don't even need to see it. Every kid in the ward dying of cancer suddenly gets up, feeling fine with a full head of hair and goes home happy and healthy that very day. That would do it. So you could do that, or you could just give me an excuse. "God has nothing to prove to you" seems to be a popular one. But, if that's true, why are you here? Aren't you hear speaking for God? And aren't you trying to prove something to me? So that one won't work. How about, "You have to have faith?" Says who? Thomas, a man who walked with Jesus, knew him personally AND SAW that he had come back from the dead STILL didn't believe. But Jesus didn't tell Thomas that he just had to have faith it was true, he gave Thomas the evidence he needed. Why should I have MORE faith than someone who actually KNEW Jesus? Unless you're telling me that Thomas is now condemned to Hell for all eternity for not having enough faith then I demand AT LEAST the evidence he got. Or you could use the excuse, "You wouldn't listen anyway". No, I wouldn't, but only because you have no proof to offer, so there is nothing to "listen" to. How about, "Cast not your pearls before the swine"? That means, "I got nothing".
I'm sure you could come up with plenty of other one-liners to explain away why it's perfectly reasonable for you to ask me to believe in magic, but utterly unreasonable for me to ask you to prove magic is real. What you CANNOT come up with is proof magic is real. And any argument you give really doesn't matter one damned bit in light of that. If you want me to believe that magic is real, show me some magic. If you can't do that then you can argue about how all the actual historians in the world got the history wrong and you, biased as you may be, JUST HAPPENED to find the "truth" which JUST HAPPENED to be exactly what you wanted to hear but, for some reason, is in no way "biased" all you want. If you can't give me a very good reason to believe in magic, well, I'm not 8, so I'm not going to just buy it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 03, 2016, 07:19:47 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 03, 2016, 07:19:47 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:18:44 PM
Interesting.
Now, let's consider this. IF, and I'm just saying IF for the moment, God and Satan both exist, wouldn't it be reasonable for Satan to establish counterfeit religions to lead people astray? To mock and copy the true religion? Would that be a reasonable strategy for Satan to adopt in his opposition to God?
I mean, the Allies set up all sorts of fictitious operations designed to deceive the Germans into believing that D-Day was going to happen at Calais, right?
This is one of several points where the Christians prove innumerate ... y'all are Roman pagans, not monotheists. Jews and Muslims have you beat (sort of).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 03, 2016, 07:22:41 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 03, 2016, 07:22:41 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:04:59 PM
Now, we're finally getting somewhere. If Jesus really existed, if he wrote a book, if we had that original autograph...it wouldn't matter to you.
And why is that, Baruch?
Dropping other shoe ... if he claimed to work miracles, or claimed to the be the Messiah, he would be lying. That doesn't help his, or your position. Ultimately you have to put faith in an institutional authority, and old book, or your "faith" without evidence in a personal savior. Thus the many forms of Christianity. Not that I am opposed to that ... though some here are. But I know Santa Claus when I see him ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 03, 2016, 10:20:52 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 03, 2016, 10:20:52 AM
It's really quite simple if one looks at it objectively. There are only two possibilities: either the whole premise of Judaism and christianity is true and the scriptures are authentic or the religion is a racket and scam and a human fantasy.
If it is a racket, people like Carson are wasting their entire life buying into lies and believing in nothingness.
If it is true, than that makes it even worse. Then the flock worships and submits to a cruel monster and most proficient mass murderer of all time! It would be more logical to build a shrine for Ted Bundy and worship Charles Manson!
Since Randy Carson insists that all of the ancient scriptures are true eyewitness accounts and everything claimed is true, he and billions of others are kneeling in front of a deity that values human life less than donkeys. A miserable, vindictive, jealous and humorless serial killer! I can't bring myself doing that, and obviously the posters here cannot either; we set the bar somewhat higher, handing out love and admiration to the one(s) who deserve it.
But it shows us what religion has accomplished over time. In any other aspect of life or public discourse this would be classified insanity. Religion however has accomplished almost complete immunity from criticism. The pious believe that submission to a monster (or to emptyness) is not only justified but noble and morally superior!
If it is a racket, people like Carson are wasting their entire life buying into lies and believing in nothingness.
If it is true, than that makes it even worse. Then the flock worships and submits to a cruel monster and most proficient mass murderer of all time! It would be more logical to build a shrine for Ted Bundy and worship Charles Manson!
Since Randy Carson insists that all of the ancient scriptures are true eyewitness accounts and everything claimed is true, he and billions of others are kneeling in front of a deity that values human life less than donkeys. A miserable, vindictive, jealous and humorless serial killer! I can't bring myself doing that, and obviously the posters here cannot either; we set the bar somewhat higher, handing out love and admiration to the one(s) who deserve it.
But it shows us what religion has accomplished over time. In any other aspect of life or public discourse this would be classified insanity. Religion however has accomplished almost complete immunity from criticism. The pious believe that submission to a monster (or to emptyness) is not only justified but noble and morally superior!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 03, 2016, 12:42:16 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 03, 2016, 12:42:16 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 03, 2016, 10:20:52 AM
It's really quite simple if one looks at it objectively. There are only two possibilities: either the whole premise of Judaism and christianity is true and the scriptures are authentic or the religion is a racket and scam and a human fantasy.
If it is a racket, people like Carson are wasting their entire life buying into lies and believing in nothingness.
If it is true, than that makes it even worse. Then the flock worships and submits to a cruel monster and most proficient mass murderer of all time! It would be more logical to build a shrine for Ted Bundy and worship Charles Manson!
Since Randy Carson insists that all of the ancient scriptures are true eyewitness accounts and everything claimed is true, he and billions of others are kneeling in front of a deity that values human life less than donkeys. A miserable, vindictive, jealous and humorless serial killer! I can't bring myself doing that, and obviously the posters here cannot either; we set the bar somewhat higher, handing out love and admiration to the one(s) who deserve it.
But it shows us what religion has accomplished over time. In any other aspect of life or public discourse this would be classified insanity. Religion however has accomplished almost complete immunity from criticism. The pious believe that submission to a monster (or to emptyness) is not only justified but noble and morally superior!
But worshipping emptiness isn't a problem for certain kinds of Buddhists ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 03, 2016, 01:15:53 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 03, 2016, 01:15:53 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 03, 2016, 12:42:16 PMLol apparently it's not a problem for billions...
But worshipping emptiness isn't a problem for certain kinds of Buddhists ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Shiranu on May 03, 2016, 01:20:49 PM
Post by: Shiranu on May 03, 2016, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:36:53 PM
Not without violating our free will, I think.
As you note, precisely because of God's omnipotence, He must act very carefully to avoid coercion.
He violates free will all the time in the Bible so I cant see that being a huge deal for him.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 03, 2016, 02:10:33 PM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 03, 2016, 02:10:33 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:33:25 PM
Fools have been making assumptions like this for 2,000 years. Empires have come and gone. The Church is still here. Don't hold your breath.
You can't comprehend how little amount of time 2000 years is right? :lol: Religions that lived tens of thousands of years died out and theirs was a little amount of time. Abrahamic religions are not even close to getting out of their dipers.
I find it amusing that almost none of the believers actually have an idea or even a basic sense of 'time' that comes with human history out of their holly books. He is talking about 2000 years. Wow what a loong time! :lol:
QuoteYeah, completely beyond my ken.
Well, you keep demonstrating it. Your basic point of view is 'anyone who doesn't agree with me is a fool'.
QuoteNor am I hearing responses that I have not heard before in forums very, very similar to this one. However, if there is nothing "even remotely interesting" about this thread...why are you posting in it?
I'm allergic to bullshit. Esp. coming from condescending, ignorant people like you.
QuoteOh, Christianity is a huge part of human culture, alright. But even your fellow atheists mock the stupidity of the Jesus Mythicists.
That line alone is a solid statement of 'Hello, I have no idea what culture is, let alone accumulation of humans'.
Anyone who lacks the slightest bit rationality and basic reasoning; historical perspective coming into an atheist forum, throwing claims with a stuck up stance is begging to be mocked.
So forget Jesus, this is about you. You are offended. Nobody gives a fuck how much you are offended, because it doesn't change anything.
QuoteIndeed. That somehow bugs the hell out of you, doesn't it?
LOL I am an art historian. I have studied history and myths of religions. Christian culture, iconogprahy, its myths, its history and the ancient background of the fairy tale(s)...and specifically that one more than others because I have studied Western Art History. (And don't confuse that with 'liberal arts degree', OK?)
In short, don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
QuoteWell, I can certainly understand that you're not really paying attention since the material is so "boring", but if you had been following along, you would have noticed that each thread is addressing a single, specific point in the argument in favor of the historical reliability of the NT. See, people who think they already know it all have to have everything explained to them more slowly.Does that make sense, drunkenshoe? Do I need to slow down even more for you?
No, it doesn't. No, you don't. You are delusional. And perhaps you -and people like you- should stay delusional. Because if you could really understand your position in the accumulation of knowledge achieved to this day, it would be really depressing for you in real life.
You do not understand the first thing about the following: 'myth', 'knowledge', 'history', 'culture'. You do not understand the concepts at all.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 03, 2016, 02:43:17 PM
Post by: stromboli on May 03, 2016, 02:43:17 PM
The text of the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are also accurate. And they are also fiction.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 02:49:02 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 02:49:02 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 03, 2016, 02:43:17 PMWhat????Frodo isn't real?????
The text of the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are also accurate. And they are also fiction.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:03:58 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 02, 2016, 03:11:44 PM
The topic does come up quite often, but the issue remains unresolved for lack of evidence. Some atheists believe a Jesus never existed, and they even give reasons for their belief. That's fine, but lets remember what people believe doesn't really matter. This is also true in your case. A preponderance of flimsy evidence, is still flimsy.
Your assumption is that the evidence is flimsy. It is not, and the threads that I have started are multiple strands that can be woven together to make a very strong case.
QuoteBut no matter what atheists believe or don't believe, most of us here will agree that the debate is irrelevant. Jesus' existence is of no import. It's more about the need to prove the truth of magic and superstition as claimed in the Bible, and that also remains unresolved because no one has been able to do it.
I see your point, but I think you have overlooked one point: It can be demonstrated that the gospels were
written EARLY enough to have been written by eyewitnesses
accurate in the smallest details
consistent over time
internally consistent
corroborated by non-Christian sources
etc.
And as our confidence in the authors truthfulness increases, at some point, we have to honestly ask whether they were uncharacteristically deceptive when it comes to the miraculous events they reported. This is not especially remarkable, btw; jurors have to make these kinds of evaluations of witnesses in courtrooms every day.
QuoteAgain, how much the Bible has changed since the first ancient texts were first written is irrelevant. This has been adequately pointed out by others here. You should stop wasting our time. The original texts, were written by the original superstitious and unscientific flim flam men, and their flim flam doesn't become more valuable because a bunch of scribes meticulously copied their bullshit with great precision.
First, if anyone feels his or her time is being wasted. There are other threads and subforums, of course. No one has to read my posts or threads.
Second, do you have any evidence that the apostles were "flim flam" men? If so, please present it. Otherwise, you are merely asserting your opinion, and it is an opinion that does not stand up when we stop to consider all that we know of the character of these men or of the possible motives that they may have had for advancing their claims.
Finally, yes, I do understand that having an accurate text is not proof of anything in and of itself. HOWEVER, without an accurate text, it would not be possible to determine whether they were "flim flam" men or not. So, the first step in the process of discovery is important.
[quot]This could be very insulting if anyone here were taking you seriously. The question of God's existence can be seen as of ultimate importance, even by atheists. Because if it's true, it has the ultimate implications for all of us. You think we just blew off a question that important, without looking at it as close as you do? We have looked at the question. We just evaluate the evidence much more critically than you do.[/quote]
Not more critically. Plenty of hard-nosed skeptics have examined the same evidence that you have before you...and come to believe! So, your examination is not superior to mine BECAUSE you reached a different conclusion.
QuoteYou are not the first theist to have come here with what he thinks is "the evidence presented well...in a compelling and logical manner," in a format far more clear and concise than your forebears, and that we are incapable fools who blind ourselves to the truth.
Get over yourself.
Nor are you the first atheist to assume that his rejection of the gospel is final. PLENTY of former atheists are Christians today because someone else continued to present the evidence until the light finally went on for them.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 05:07:17 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 05:07:17 PM
Yeah. It's totally accurate and consistent.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 05:14:48 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 05:14:48 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:03:58 PMNor are you the first atheist to assume that his rejection of the gospel is final. PLENTY of former atheists are Christians today because someone else continued to present the evidence until the light finally went on for them.
That's where you're wrong. Actually, you're wrong everywhere, but that's a given. The majority of atheists are former Christians. The majority of Christians are people who were indoctrinated to believe from an early age. No one converts to Christianity because of facts; most often atheists who convert do so because of emotional vulnerability. That is, something bad happens to them, and the idea of a God being in control to help them offers them the comfort they need. It's a mindless shift, not a logical one.
On the other hand, Christians who convert into atheists do so despite their emotional well-being. In fact, the choice to convert out of Christianity is an EXTREMELY uncomfortable process for most. When it does happen, it happens because the facts become too obvious to ignore. That is the difference. Atheists are born from rationality. Christians are born out of convenience.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 06:36:00 PM
If you have such valuable "information" then take it to historians, not to the public, and show them how very right you are. Why don't you do that? Why don't the people you get your information from do that? Because the conversation won't go the way you want it to when you're talking to people who know more about the subject than you do. But, that's kind of how it's going here, too.
First, it was from scholars and historians that I GOT most of this. Experts already know this; it's the muddled masses who need to know.
Second, are you one of those people who know more about Christianity than I do, widdershins? Hot damn! An atheist I can learn from at last! You have no idea how truly rare someone like you is in forums like this. EXTREMELY rare.
QuoteI dismiss it lightly because experts did.
Actually, no. Even skeptics acknowledge the Five Minimal Facts, and they make a powerful argument for the resurrection of Jesus. That's not conjecture, btw, that the result of a longitudinal study (30+ years) of peer-reviewed papers about Jesus published in scholarly journals. Bottom line: the majority of scholars accept these five facts, and they are supportive - not dismissive - of the core Christian message.
QuoteI don't want, have the time or have the money to waste to learn what they know just to satisfy my curiosity and, if I did, this would be the LAST subject I would waste my limited resources on. I would rather learn advanced mathematics or particle physics or advanced computer programming concepts than to study ancient magics. Why? Because the "probability" that magic is real is very, VERY low. And I hate to break it to you, but the only real difference between Biblical texts and other ancient texts is people still believe in them. Why that is really isn't much of a mystery. Once Christianity gained traction ancient Christians set about on a campaign of slaughter and forced conversions, relating the worship of any other deity to the worship of their specific anti-diety, Satan, giving them an excuse to torture, maim and kill any who disagreed with them. And when they weren't converting by force, they were converting by assimilation. Find a SINGLE Christian holiday with no ties to ancient pagan holidays. Good luck with that. Christianity invented holidays to correspond with pagan holidays so that pagans could convert without giving up their celebrations.
Actually, we converted both the pagans AND their celebrations and made them Christian. Pretty clever. Sorry if that bothers you somehow.
QuoteYeah, the problem is that you keep inventing an "accuracy" which just doesn't exist, according to historians and scholars, AKA, "People who know what they're talking about". Why should I believe you over them? I can tell you why I should NOT believe you over them. You're not trained, you haven't studied ANY of the actual documents in question, you get your information from whatever source agrees with you, you came to your conclusions BEFORE you started looking into it and, thus, you only look at information which supports your conclusion and ignore any information which does not. So why should I bother reading your "information"? Garbage in, garbage out.
There is not a lot of "historical" evidence to suggest that Jesus ever did exist (and before you say it, any book that talks about the magical powers of Jesus does not qualify as a "historical" document). He MAY HAVE existed. But there is certainly no evidence to prove this is true, and there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to show he was Harry Potter.
Riiiiiiight. No historical evidence whatsoever. Sorry, but when even atheists like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan acknowledging the existence of Jesus, there's not much credibility for Jesus Mythicism. However, I see that you are saying, "He MAY HAVE existed." So, that's a step in the right direction.
QuoteAnd yes, the Bible HAS BEEN corrupted over time. There is plenty of evidence that historical events were added after the fact, and that is not coming from atheists. That is coming from historians and scholars, some of whom are actually believers. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that your "other sources" of evidence that Jesus existed, aside from the Bible, have also been tampered with after the fact. In fact, some are PROVED to have been tampered with by the church itself. Lie to me ONCE and I can say with absolute certainty that you are no follower of a perfect being.
I get all this. I do. But what you may be overlooking is the fact that researchers can admit, "Hey, there are some interpolations here...I wonder what the text looks like without them?" and then get to work sifting through the material.
And you know what, widdershins? When the variants and interpolations are taken into consideration, not a single Christian doctrine is called into question by them. Even Ehrman concedes this point.
Now to your last point. This has to be one of the most illogical things I've heard in some time. If God is perfect and I am not, how does my lack of perfection call His into question? This simply does not follow. Being an imperfect follower of God does nothing to prove His imperfection because there is no claim that God makes ALL of His followers perfect. So, I may be the worst liar on the planet and this is no proof of God's lack of honesty.
QuoteIf scholars and historians disagree with you, then you are wrong, end of story. So, you are wrong, end of story. But let's ignore that and get straight to the point. Let's say you have successfully proved your false claim that the New Testament contains "eyewitness reports". It very much does not. This is wrong. It is not true. You are mistaken. But let's say you're not. Let's say you have successfully proved that these are the writings of eyewitnesses to the event. Let's even take it one step further and say we are in a court of law, trying to prove these are the accurate events.
Let me interject here that you are merely asserting that I am wrong without providing any evidence to prove what you are saying. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, widdershins, that the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts? What is your basis for believing this? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Answering this one question may be the key to our entire discussion. I hope you will provide a thoughtful response.
QuoteSo, what do we have? We have copies of copies of copies of the original.
We do. And there are LOTS of copies, and the greater the number of copies, the easier it is for textual critics to determine what the original said. You like science? Great. This is a scientific approach for examining ancient texts.
{pausing here to save due to impending thunderstorm}
QuoteIn court that's called "hearsay" and is inadmissible. But let's say that rule didn't apply to move on to our next problem.
It doesn't apply and here's why (the author is an expert in this field):
Why the Hearsay Rule Shouldn’t Apply to the Gospels
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/why-the-hearsay-rule-shouldnt-apply-to-the-gospels/
Moving on.
QuoteAll our witnesses are dead. No witness, no case. But let's say that even THAT isn't a problem and move on to witness credibility.
It isn't a problem, and it's simply incorrect to say that "no witness, no case". Living witnesses can lie intentionally. And J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective , will tell you that he's never had a case with a living witness. And he's never lost a case with a record of 30 convictions and 0 losses.
Moreover, he PREFERS cold-cases with no living witnesses. Why?
Quote"Everyone lies." Greg House
QuoteAnyone familiar with police work or the courtroom will tell you that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. And these witnesses are claiming magical powers happened. Water into wine, healing the sick, the dead rising from the grave, dogs and cats living together...even a crappy lawyer would get that testimony thrown out as unreliable. Your dream "court case" would be thrown out 3 times before it even went to trial.
{pausing here to save due to impending thunderstorm}
Okay. I have to keep posting and then continuing by modifying in case the power goes out. Sorry.
widdershins, you misunderstand how the case would be built. We don't simply walk in and say, "Hey, we have all these ancient account of miracles, so Jesus must be God." I wouldn't believe you if you told me that, and I don't expect you to, either.
No, the case for Jesus is built by laying a carefully presenting compelling evidence that
• The gospels were written very early
• The gospels were transmitted carefully
• The gospel information was protected and preserved
• The gospel claims about Jesus were consistent with non-Christian sources
• The gospel accounts were testable
I have covered most of these points in separate threads. Look at the title of this thread, for example. And only after giving you solid reasons to believe that the NT itself is accurate and reliable based upon your own conviction that the authors were not mere "flim flam" men, then we can BEGIN to talk about the possibility that what they claimed about the resurrection is true. But not before.
QuoteBut let's ignore EVEN THAT. Let's say that you've just convinced me that the NT contains eyewitness accounts, you've convinced me that Jesus really walked the earth, you've convinced me that your timeline is correct. Let's say that EVERYTHING you are claiming, I now believe. Now you just have one more simple little task. A tiny thing, really. You just have to convince me that they were telling the truth. That shouldn't be too hard.
Harder than you are admitting, apparently, but I'll play along. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
QuoteExcept, there is one, specific way that I'm going to need you to convince me of that. You need to convince me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that magic is real.
Can we begin with whether or not it's even possible? And to give me a fighting chance, can we begin by treating it (and me) with some respect?
We're talking about miracles...not "magic". We're considering whether the supernatural exists and, if so, how God might interact with the natural world.
So, I won't belittle your beliefs, if you won't belittle mine. Fair?
QuoteIf you can't do that then everything else you might convince me of adds up to nothing more than that this fairy tale is the same one told 2,000 years ago. So, cast a magic spell for me. Teach me how to do it. Pray to Jesus, have him come down and cast a magic spell for me. Something unmistakable. Pick a children's hospital. Heal every child in the terminal ward. You get Jesus to do that and I'll do whatever it says. It would make the news, so I don't even need to see it. Every kid in the ward dying of cancer suddenly gets up, feeling fine with a full head of hair and goes home happy and healthy that very day. That would do it. So you could do that, or you could just give me an excuse. "God has nothing to prove to you" seems to be a popular one. But, if that's true, why are you here? Aren't you hear speaking for God? And aren't you trying to prove something to me? So that one won't work. How about, "You have to have faith?" Says who? Thomas, a man who walked with Jesus, knew him personally AND SAW that he had come back from the dead STILL didn't believe. But Jesus didn't tell Thomas that he just had to have faith it was true, he gave Thomas the evidence he needed. Why should I have MORE faith than someone who actually KNEW Jesus? Unless you're telling me that Thomas is now condemned to Hell for all eternity for not having enough faith then I demand AT LEAST the evidence he got. Or you could use the excuse, "You wouldn't listen anyway". No, I wouldn't, but only because you have no proof to offer, so there is nothing to "listen" to. How about, "Cast not your pearls before the swine"? That means, "I got nothing".
I think I get the gist of the challenge before me. Thanks.
QuoteI'm sure you could come up with plenty of other one-liners to explain away why it's perfectly reasonable for you to ask me to believe in magic, but utterly unreasonable for me to ask you to prove magic is real. What you CANNOT come up with is proof magic is real. And any argument you give really doesn't matter one damned bit in light of that. If you want me to believe that magic is real, show me some magic. If you can't do that then you can argue about how all the actual historians in the world got the history wrong and you, biased as you may be, JUST HAPPENED to find the "truth" which JUST HAPPENED to be exactly what you wanted to hear but, for some reason, is in no way "biased" all you want. If you can't give me a very good reason to believe in magic, well, I'm not 8, so I'm not going to just buy it.
Nor should you "just buy it." You need to consider it very carefully, because if you decide to accept it, it will cost you everything.
Go slow.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:01:04 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:01:04 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 03, 2016, 07:22:41 AM
Dropping other shoe ... if he claimed to work miracles, or claimed to the be the Messiah, he would be lying. That doesn't help his, or your position. Ultimately you have to put faith in an institutional authority, and old book, or your "faith" without evidence in a personal savior. Thus the many forms of Christianity. Not that I am opposed to that ... though some here are. But I know Santa Claus when I see him ;-)
He would be lying? You know that for certain how?
Is it outside the realm of possibility that not only did Jesus claim to be God but He worked miracles, also? Is it POSSIBLE?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:02:57 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:02:57 PM
Quote from: Shiranu on May 03, 2016, 01:20:49 PM
He violates free will all the time in the Bible so I cant see that being a huge deal for him.
This would be an interesting topic to explore. What examples do you have in mind?
Start with just one for now...I've got a lot of posts to get to.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:05:28 PM
Post by: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:05:28 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:45:09 PMThe point is, oh brilliant one, is the goat herders who wrote the babble proved that even they didn't actually believe it. When a god almighty shows himself to you, you don't go around disobeying his orders. This is why even today, you still violate the rules of the babble, you don't believe they apply to you. You pick the rules that don't effect your lifestyle and ignore the rest. Typical christian nut job.
And if God had simply forced people to bow down before him against their will, would you have respected him the more for it?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:07:14 PM
Post by: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:07:14 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:47:03 PMDodge much? Make excuses for the lies in the babble much? Ignore the truth much? Yeah, the thing is you ARE representative of the christian elite…LOLOL…another whack-a-doodle nut job.
Man, if you are representative of the atheist intellectual elite...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:09:50 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:09:50 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:02:57 PM
This would be an interesting topic to explore. What examples do you have in mind?
Start with just one for now...I've got a lot of posts to get to.
Romans 9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209) mentions the Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau, and makes it clear that none of us really choose God, but that he chooses us.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:10:51 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:10:51 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 03, 2016, 02:43:17 PM
The text of the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are also accurate. And they are also fiction.
Correct.
Now, if we had a corrupted text, then we could not discuss what Tolkien wanted to convey to any real degree because we would not KNOW what he actually wrote. However, because he have his words, we can carry on a meaningful discussion.
Similarly, without an accurate text, we would only be speculating about what the apostles saw Jesus say and do. So, having confidence in the accuracy of the text must preface our discussion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:15:33 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:15:33 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 02:49:02 PM
What????Frodo isn't real?????
Damn! I hate it when kids learn about Santa and the Easter Bunny and Frodo on the playground like this.
We wanted to tell you before...I guess we should talk about the facts of life, too, while we're at it.
<deep breath>
About that stork...
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:17:38 PM
Post by: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:17:38 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:10:51 PM
So, having confidence in the accuracy of the text must preface our discussion.
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.†7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
So the sky is water….HEY GOOD JOB WITH THAT ACCURACY THING…..LOLOLOL…….yeah..go ahead and argue about the SLOT when your babble tells us the sky is water…….yeah…..brilliant oh babblest.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:18:06 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:18:06 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:10:51 PM
Correct.
Now, if we had a corrupted text, then we could not discuss what Tolkien wanted to convey to any real degree because we would not KNOW what he actually wrote. However, because he have his words, we can carry on a meaningful discussion.
Similarly, without an accurate text, we would only be speculating about what the apostles saw Jesus say and do. So, having confidence in the accuracy of the text must preface our discussion.
Actually, Tolkien did have corrupted text. There's a whole book made up of his unfinished works, which his son later attempted to complete and put into a cohesive story. This is called The Silmarillion. Additionally, there's a ton of lore he had detailed, but which were never fully explained in his actual works. For example: the mysterious disappearance of the Ent women. We know that all of the Ent women disappeared, but we don't know why. He never said.
If only the Bible were as consistent and detailed as the works of Tolkien, then at least it would be interesting to read for entertainment. As is, it's just a tangled up mess full of contradictions, and it's boring as hell.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:25:50 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:25:50 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 05:14:48 PM
That's where you're wrong. Actually, you're wrong everywhere, but that's a given.
Everywhere? Can you prove this or is it just an ad hominem?
QuoteThe majority of atheists are former Christians.
I am aware of this.
QuoteThe majority of Christians are people who were indoctrinated to believe from an early age. No one converts to Christianity because of facts; most often atheists who convert do so because of emotional vulnerability. That is, something bad happens to them, and the idea of a God being in control to help them offers them the comfort they need. It's a mindless shift, not a logical one.
Heh. No one converts to Christianity because of fact? Really? No one? Not one person? Ever? If I made such bold assertions, you'd call BS.
There are a number of common reasons why people leave Christianity. Do I need to list them to prove that I know what they are? However, if you are being honest, and I'll give you more benefit of the doubt than you give me, you will have to admit that many people LEAVE Christianity because they have been hurt by someone in the Church (family, pastor, friends) who let them down. Scandal and hypocrisy are HUGE issues.
QuoteOn the other hand, Christians who convert into atheists do so despite their emotional well-being. In fact, the choice to convert out of Christianity is an EXTREMELY uncomfortable process for most. When it does happen, it happens because the facts become too obvious to ignore. That is the difference. Atheists are born from rationality. Christians are born out of convenience.
Atheists are not born out of convenience? Ever?
I want to have sex with my (insert gender of your preference here)friend, but I keep getting told this is sinful. I don't like that. I do like sex. God is the problem. Good-bye, God.
Pretty convenient, if you ask me.
And frankly, I think there would be fewer atheists if there were more and better apologists. That would eliminate purely volitional atheists, but it would reduce the number of intellectual objections.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:34:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:34:53 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:05:28 PM
The point is, oh brilliant one, is the goat herders who wrote the babble proved that even they didn't actually believe it.
If they didn't actually believe it, then why are there still practicing Jews to this very day?
QuoteWhen a god almighty shows himself to you, you don't go around disobeying his orders.
My point precisely. Many people would be coerced into acknowledging God, and this is not the type of relationship He wants with His people. Love should be a free choice.
QuoteThis is why even today, you still violate the rules of the babble, you don't believe they apply to you. You pick the rules that don't effect your lifestyle and ignore the rest.
Which does not actually apply to Orthodox Jews, does it? So you see, there are still people who follow ALL of the rules of the OT.
However, Christianity has considered these things and determined which laws are still in effect and which are not. I PERSONALLY don't pick and choose; I try to follow the guidance of the Catholic Church which, in my opinion, has superceded the authority of the Jews and the Laws of Moses. Other Catholics do, sadly, pick and choose as you have suggested.
QuoteTypical christian nut job.
Could be.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:36:21 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:07:14 PM
Dodge much? Make excuses for the lies in the babble much? Ignore the truth much? Yeah, the thing is you ARE representative of the christian elite…LOLOL…another whack-a-doodle nut job.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/prayer/signofcross.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:39:32 PM
Post by: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:39:32 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:25:50 PM
No one converts to Christianity because of fact? Really? No one? Not one person? Ever?
No, the lies in the babble far outweigh the four or five facts that actually have nothing to do with the myths of the babble. People believe in the babble because:
a) they were born to christians and were "molded" and "washed"
b) they were exposed to horrible conditions in life and succumbed to the idea that something else was in charge and they would be granted this "award" once they die…never before of course….that would be too obvious eh?
c) ex drunks, addicts, life long criminals in prison forever…..why not? Simple minds need simple excuses.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:41:22 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:41:22 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:18:06 PM
Actually, Tolkien did have corrupted text. There's a whole book made up of his unfinished works, which his son later attempted to complete and put into a cohesive story. This is called The Silmarillion. Additionally, there's a ton of lore he had detailed, but which were never fully explained in his actual works. For example: the mysterious disappearance of the Ent women. We know that all of the Ent women disappeared, but we don't know why. He never said.
Yes, I have read the Silmarillion and some of his other works.
Now, I do realize that we are dealing with a work of fiction, but for argument's sake: how do you know with certainty that the Ent women disappeared?
All we have are some old writings, and the author is dead.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 06:42:11 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 06:42:11 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:01:04 PMNo.
He would be lying? You know that for certain how?
Is it outside the realm of possibility that not only did Jesus claim to be God but He worked miracles, also? Is it POSSIBLE?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:42:47 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:42:47 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 03, 2016, 06:39:32 PM
No, the lies in the babble far outweigh the four or five facts that actually have nothing to do with the myths of the babble. People believe in the babble because:
a) they were born to christians and were "molded" and "washed"
b) they were exposed to horrible conditions in life and succumbed to the idea that something else was in charge and they would be granted this "award" once they die…never before of course….that would be too obvious eh?
c) ex drunks, addicts, life long criminals in prison forever…..why not? Simple minds need simple excuses.
True. Those are some possibilities.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:43:10 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:43:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 06:42:11 PM
No.
And why is that, Mike?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:45:27 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:45:27 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:25:50 PM
Everywhere? Can you prove this or is it just an ad hominem?
Heh. No one converts to Christianity because of fact? Really? No one? Not one person? Ever? If I made such bold assertions, you'd call BS.
You are undoubtedly aware of the common use of hyperbole in every day language. Stop dodging.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:25:50 PMI am aware of this.
And yet you fail to consider why most Christians are only Christians because they were raised that way, while most atheists are not atheists because they were raised that way. It's because the stories of the Bible are so ridiculous that the only way a religion centered around it could survive is through indoctrination. The few who are converted from other religious backgrounds are not enough to support the religion.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:25:50 PMThere are a number of common reasons why people leave Christianity. Do I need to list them to prove that I know what they are? However, if you are being honest, and I'll give you more benefit of the doubt than you give me, you will have to admit that many people LEAVE Christianity because they have been hurt by someone in the Church (family, pastor, friends) who let them down. Scandal and hypocrisy are HUGE issues.
A girl is raped by her pastor, the girl realizes that there is no God to protect her, and that the people who claim to represent him are no better--if not worse--than the general population. The trauma leads to realization, which leads to change. You don't see people leaving atheism because some atheist abused them, do you? That's because atheism doesn't make some BS claim about a God who watches over and protects them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:25:50 PMAtheists are not born out of convenience? Ever?
I want to have sex with my (insert gender of your preference here)friend, but I keep getting told this is sinful. I don't like that. I do like sex. God is the problem. Good-bye, God.
Pretty convenient, if you ask me.
Option 1: Do your sin in secret, don't put yourself through the emotional rollercoaster that is deconversion so you can justify it. Use religion to justify yourself instead, because God forgives and no sinner has the right to judge you.
Option 2: Give up your religion, which a considerable portion of your life has been devoted to. Give up a major source of emotional support, both the imaginary God you pray to and the congregation that gives you a sense of belonging. Give up your hope for an afterlife, and the sense that your life has a purpose. All so that you can sleep with your (insert gender of your preference here)friend.
If you think that option 2 is easier and more convenient, you're a fucking idiot.
EDIT: Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I do not appreciate people telling me that I took the easy way out. My life from 16-24 years of age was centered around church. I was the most devout young man you could find. The most important thing in my life was making my heavenly father proud, but as circumstances in my life grew more and more challenging, it became painfully obvious that God was not listening to my cries for help. The other believers I consulted told me that God was allowing me to suffer so that I could grow, but I knew that my faith was breaking. If your God exists, he knew what I needed for my faith to survive, and yet he chose to withhold it from me. Such a god is not worthy of my praise. And now that I can see beyond the programming I was fed from an early age, I can see all the problems with the Bible and Christianity that my faith blinded me to. Now I can see that the very idea of a perfectly good, omnipotent, omniscient god in a world this imperfect is laughably ridiculous.
Giving up on my faith was not easy. I still feel a longing to return to my old life, to forget what history taught me so that I could feel at peace again. I can't tell my parents what's going on, or else they'd cut my off from my younger sister. There is nothing easy about giving up your faith.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:25:50 PMAnd frankly, I think there would be fewer atheists if there were more and better apologists. That would eliminate purely volitional atheists, but it would reduce the number of intellectual objections.
There is no lack of apologists. Increasing the number of them would only increase our annoyance at the ignorance of the Christian population.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 06:47:27 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 06:47:27 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:43:10 PMBecause everything that exists is natural. There is no supernatural. There is no magic. Therefore there are not now and never have been miracles.
And why is that, Mike?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:48:48 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:48:48 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 06:41:22 PM
Yes, I have read the Silmarillion and some of his other works.
Now, I do realize that we are dealing with a work of fiction, but for argument's sake: how do you know with certainty that the Ent women disappeared?
All we have are some old writings, and the author is dead.
I know that the Ent women disappeared because the back of my book has a collection of random lore written by Tolkien for his own personal reference. He was EXTREMELY thorough when creating his fictional world. Heck, he even created a whole language just for the elf characters of his world to speak. Not everything made it into his books.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 03, 2016, 06:49:07 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 03, 2016, 06:49:07 PM
I just don't have time to read all that, so let me just say this:
Quote from: Robert G. IngersollIf a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: hrdlr110 on May 03, 2016, 07:13:26 PM
Post by: hrdlr110 on May 03, 2016, 07:13:26 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 03:07:08 PM
LOL! That coming from you is precious!!!!!!!
I was thinking the same thing!!!! LoL
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on May 03, 2016, 10:52:00 PM
Post by: trdsf on May 03, 2016, 10:52:00 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
The gospels were written very early. (Before AD 70)
Not proven. Possible, certainly, but not proven. The oldest known fragment is dated to somewhere between 100 and 250CE -- it has not been reliably dated any narrower than that. That's a lot of time, even in a non-technological age. And the oldest complete NT is dated to the middle 300s.
Quote from: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
The gospels were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or by those who had access to them (Mark, Luke).
The authors are not known with certainty. You are free to believe that these are the authors, but it is not proven.
Quote from: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
The gospels were written by men who intended to write accurate history.
This is simple and pure nonsense. They do not agree on the sequence of events of the nativity (if they address it at all), the events of ministry of Jesus, the sequence of events of the crucifixion, and the events after the alleged resurrection. The best you can hope for here is to assert one of them is correct, but then why bother with the other three -- to say nothing of figuring out which one has the right order, the right events.
It sounds more like fanfic to me, than four historians.
Quote from: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
The gospels were written by former skeptics who had become convinced that Jesus was God. (This is not bias...this is conviction.)
You can say that they were convinced by the alleged ministry of Jesus, but it's a stretch to call them converted skeptics -- especially if you mean skeptic in the modern sense. They were all believers in one form of mysticism or another; none were atheists or agnostics.
Quote from: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
The gospels were judged to be accurate by living witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.
See above re: four contradictory accounts. And in any case, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. If you want to convince a skeptic (skeptic in the modern sense, not the sloppy way you used it above), you need an incontrovertible and repeatable observation, not "some guy said so".
Quote from: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
The gospels have been preserved to an astonishingly high degree of accuracy which can be demonstrated by textual criticism. (We KNOW what the authors wrote.)
No, we don't. We don't have the original copies. Unless you've read the Codex Sinaiticus in the original Greek, you've only ever read translations of translations of translations of translations of translations of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. And even the Codex is itself a copy/translation of a copy/translation of a copy/translation of unknown degree. The King James, for example, was explicitly a political translation of an earlier translation, written in such a way to favor and disfavor various factions of English Protestantism -- and funny how the favored factions were also the ones who supported James (and vice versa).
Bluntly put, when you say IS and KNOW, you're lying. Not deliberately -- I don't doubt that you believe it to be true.
But it is absolutely not settled fact.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 11:54:20 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 11:54:20 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:45:27 PM
And yet you fail to consider why most Christians are only Christians because they were raised that way, while most atheists are not atheists because they were raised that way. It's because the stories of the Bible are so ridiculous that the only way a religion centered around it could survive is through indoctrination. The few who are converted from other religious backgrounds are not enough to support the religion.
Are there Christians who were raised by atheist parents who later converted? Yep. Smart people, too...not just idiots.
QuoteA girl is raped by her pastor, the girl realizes that there is no God to protect her, and that the people who claim to represent him are no better--if not worse--than the general population. The trauma leads to realization, which leads to change. You don't see people leaving atheism because some atheist abused them, do you? That's because atheism doesn't make some BS claim about a God who watches over and protects them.
Your scenario is flawed because it is based upon a poor presumption. In actual fact, Christianity does not make the claim that God will protect everyone from all harm.
QuoteIf you think that option 2 is easier and more convenient, you're a fucking idiot.
EDIT: Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I do not appreciate people telling me that I took the easy way out. My life from 16-24 years of age was centered around church. I was the most devout young man you could find. The most important thing in my life was making my heavenly father proud, but as circumstances in my life grew more and more challenging, it became painfully obvious that God was not listening to my cries for help. The other believers I consulted told me that God was allowing me to suffer so that I could grow, but I knew that my faith was breaking. If your God exists, he knew what I needed for my faith to survive, and yet he chose to withhold it from me. Such a god is not worthy of my praise. And now that I can see beyond the programming I was fed from an early age, I can see all the problems with the Bible and Christianity that my faith blinded me to. Now I can see that the very idea of a perfectly good, omnipotent, omniscient god in a world this imperfect is laughably ridiculous.
Giving up on my faith was not easy. I still feel a longing to return to my old life, to forget what history taught me so that I could feel at peace again. I can't tell my parents what's going on, or else they'd cut my off from my younger sister. There is nothing easy about giving up your faith.
Yes, the silence of God would have been on my list of reasons people become atheists. It is an inscrutable mystery as to why He allows us to go through these dark times.
I'm confident that He has never left your side and that He still loves you. Nor is He surprised by your current view of Him. But He's not done with you yet.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:07:52 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:07:52 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 06:47:27 PM
Because everything that exists is natural. There is no supernatural. There is no magic. Therefore there are not now and never have been miracles.
Can you prove this, Mike?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:13:22 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2016, 06:48:48 PM
I know that the Ent women disappeared because the back of my book has a collection of random lore written by Tolkien for his own personal reference. He was EXTREMELY thorough when creating his fictional world. Heck, he even created a whole language just for the elf characters of his world to speak. Not everything made it into his books.
So you have a book. But the author is dead, so you can't ask him any clarifying questions.
Despite all that, you believe the book's account to be true.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif)
I don't buy it, Blackleaf. Call me an Ent Wife Mythicist, but I don't think there is any evidence that the Ent Wives ever existed, and some fairy tale recorded in an old book isn't convincing. I think Tolkien made the whole thing up. His son never witnessed the existence of the Ent Wives, either. This is just a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 12:24:46 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 12:24:46 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:07:52 PMCan you prove otherwise?
Can you prove this, Mike?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 12:25:54 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:13:22 PM
So you have a book. But the author is dead, so you can't ask him any clarifying questions.
Despite all that, you believe the book's account to be true.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif)
I don't buy it, Blackleaf. Call me an Ent Wife Mythicist, but I don't think there is any evidence that the Ent Wives ever existed, and some fairy tale recorded in an old book isn't convincing. I think Tolkien made the whole thing up. His son never witnessed the existence of the Ent Wives, either. This is just a conspiracy.
I don't see how your argument does anything but discredit your own faith. Both the Bible and the LotR books are fiction. As you said, his son never witnessed the existence of Ent wives. That's because they were made up for the fictional world that Tolkien created. In the same way, the Bible's stories were not written by eyewitnesses, but by people making up stories. The difference, however, is that the Bible had countless authors, which resulted in a predictable number of inconsistencies, while LotR had one author plus his son who patched up the leftovers and had a much more consistent story.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 04, 2016, 12:28:21 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 04, 2016, 12:28:21 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 01:04:59 PMAll that wouldn't prove divinity.
Now, we're finally getting somewhere. If Jesus really existed, if he wrote a book, if we had that original autograph...it wouldn't matter to you.
And why is that, Baruch?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 12:34:37 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 12:34:37 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 11:54:20 AM
Are there Christians who were raised by atheist parents who later converted? Yep. Smart people, too...not just idiots.
Smart people who didn't care about the facts. Christianity is based on belief, not facts. Hell, many Christians consider the lack of facts to be essential to faith, and is their excuse for why God refuses to show himself: because when he would, it wouldn't be faith any more. Of course, God didn't care about faith when he showed himself to Moses or Job or Jesus' disciples or all the other people he supposedly directly interacted with...
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 11:54:20 AMYour scenario is flawed because it is based upon a poor presumption. In actual fact, Christianity does not make the claim that God will protect everyone from all harm.
No. It makes the claim that God is watching over us, silently watching as his people are raped, murdered, and abused while he has the power to stop it.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 11:54:20 AMYes, the silence of God would have been on my list of reasons people become atheists. It is an inscrutable mystery as to why He allows us to go through these dark times.
I'm confident that He has never left your side and that He still loves you. Nor is He surprised by your current view of Him. But He's not done with you yet.
You're dodging again. Which is the more convenient option, 1 or 2?
Option 1: Do your sin in secret, don't put yourself through the emotional rollercoaster that is deconversion so you can justify it. Use religion to justify yourself instead, because God forgives and no sinner has the right to judge you.
Option 2: Give up your religion, which a considerable portion of your life has been devoted to. Give up a major source of emotional support, both the imaginary God you pray to and the congregation that gives you a sense of belonging. Give up your hope for an afterlife, and the sense that your life has a purpose. All so that you can sleep with your (insert gender of your preference here)friend.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:38:32 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 01, 2016, 02:31:20 PM
That might work with the flock in church but not here. There was no mention of a Jesus (there were hundreds of them at the time, it was a common name) until about 45 CE. That's about 15 years after his alleged death. That's like reading about Prince's death in 2031 as breaking news.
The death of Prince may be a "news" item to you and me, but the closest associates of Prince would have learned of his death immediately. And while it is common for us to write about things like the death a famous person today, that was not the case in antiquity.
What is the earliest record we have of Alexander the Great? It came 400 years later. What is the earliest record we have of Julius Caesar? Suetonius and Plutarch wrote 100 years later. So, having so many accounts of the life of Jesus written within a few years of his life is unparalleled in ancient history.
Quote
But it really doesn't matter if a Jesus existed or not. He was a Jew preaching Mosaic law to the Jews. No divinity, that's why his crucifixion was explained as sacrifice to forgive our sins. Which is of course complete nonsense if you think about that even a little bit. A omnipotent deity sends his son (who is also himself and a ghost) into certain death to forgive our sins. That is the only way to explain the torture death of a mortal human. The question arises: what was accomplished? What changed? Why did this god not forgive us in the first place? The absurdity of it all makes it plausible says Tertullian. That's probably the most sensible explanation I have read. Doesn't make it true in any case.
Well, I can't fault you for not understanding - only for not trying to understand. But your "no divinity" assertion is just that - an assertion and your own personal opinion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:46:09 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:46:09 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2016, 05:04:13 PM
Randy, you say: "Start with the OP of this thread. Let me know whether my case for early dating of the gospels is beyond a reasonable doubt.
One step at a time, Mike. One step at a time."
My reply:
A chronological New Testament sequences the documents very differently. Its order is based on contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship. Though there is uncertainty about dating some of the documents, there is a scholarly consensus about the basic framework.
It begins with seven letters attributed to Paul, all from the 50s. The first Gospel is Mark (not Matthew), written around 70. Revelation is not last, but almost in the middle, written in the 90s. Twelve documents follow Revelation, with II Peter the last, written as late as near the middle of the second century.
A chronological New Testament is not only about sequence, but also about chronological context â€" the context-in-time, the historical context in which each document was written. Words have their meaning within their temporal contexts, in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole.
Seeing and reading the New Testament in chronological sequence matters for historical reasons. It illuminates Christian origins. Much becomes apparent:
ï,·Beginning with seven of Paul’s letters illustrates that there were vibrant Christian communities spread throughout the Roman Empire before there were written Gospels. His letters provide a “window†into the life of very early Christian communities.
ï,·Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel â€" the good news â€" of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.
ï,·Reading the Gospels in chronological order beginning with Mark demonstrates that early Christian understandings of Jesus and his significance developed. As Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, they not only added to Mark but often modified Mark.
ï,·Seeing John separated from the other Gospels and relatively late in the New Testament makes it clear how different his Gospel is. In consistently metaphorical and symbolic language, it is primarily “witness†or “testimony†to what Jesus had become in the life and thought of John’s community.
ï,·Realizing that many of the documents are from the late first and early second centuries allows us to glimpse developments in early Christianity in its third and fourth generations. In general, they reflect a trajectory that moves from the radicalism of Jesus and Paul to increasing accommodation with the cultural conventions of the time.
Awareness of the above matters not just for historical reasons but also for Christian reasons. American Christianity today is deeply divided. At the heart of the division, especially among Protestants, is two very different ways of seeing the Bible and the New Testament. About half of American Protestants belong to churches that teach that the Bible is the inerrant “Word of God†and “inspired by God.â€
So, no, your push for an 'early' bible does not cut it.
(BTW, this was copied from the Huffington Post--I did not write the above--but I have suggested just such a reorganization of the bible for decades now.)
Yeah, we know books of the NT are not listed in chronological order. This is not a problem.
But I never pushed for an "early Bible". I pushed for early dating of the Gospels, and you have not actually explained line-by-line why my reasoning is incorrect.
The reason the early dating is so significant is that in order for the gospels to be eyewitness testimony, the authors had to actually be present to the events they describe.
The OP gives the logic and evidence for believing that the gospels were written early enough to have been ACTUAL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY and not fairy tales made up much later.
Two pieces are in place:
1. The texts we have are accurate.
2. The texts were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses.
Still to come:
Did the authors actually intend to write reliable history, or were they just indulging in a bit of "fan fiction"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:57:05 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 01, 2016, 05:06:59 PM
The Bible is definitely earlier than Gutenberg ;-) Unsupported hypotheses in general won't push the date much earlier than 200 CE ... where we have substantial manuscripts in Greek. Even so, it is only of interest to textual critics, which Randy rejects.
The earliest manuscript is a small fragment (about the size of a credit card) of John 18. It has been dated at about AD 150. That's only slightly more than 50 years from the time John actually wrote.
The OP lays out the timeline working back from the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:06:41 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:06:41 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 12:46:09 PMYou do seem to think your belief establish facts. If you believe it, then it is so. And if you can find others who agree with you, then they are experts and help you establish your belief as a fact--in your mind only. You are so blinded by your irrational need to believe this fiction that you will go to any lengths to keep your belief.
Yeah, we know books of the NT are not listed in chronological order. This is not a problem.
But I never pushed for an "early Bible". I pushed for early dating of the Gospels, and you have not actually explained line-by-line why my reasoning is incorrect.
The reason the early dating is so significant is that in order for the gospels to be eyewitness testimony, the authors had to actually be present to the events they describe.
The OP gives the logic and evidence for believing that the gospels were written early enough to have been ACTUAL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY and not fairy tales made up much later.
Two pieces are in place:
1. The texts we have are accurate.
2. The texts were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses.
Still to come:
Did the authors actually intend to write reliable history, or were they just indulging in a bit of "fan fiction"?
You have not established, nor has anybody else, that the text of the NT is accurate. That would be impossible since we don't have a single autograph to check back to. And there is no consensus about the dates when these essays were written. Nor has it ever been established who wrote them. Since we do not know when they were written nor who wrote them (with the exception of Paul's actual writings), how would you know what they intended? Facts have been presented to you but they don't fit into your belief system so they are not facts.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 01:11:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 01:11:53 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 02, 2016, 02:04:02 PM
History is not a court of law. Science does not use the same standards as our court systems. And if it did, science would quickly become a whole lot less useful.
Of course not. I'm tempted to laugh at the fact that you even bothered to state such an obvious point.
But let me ask you this: Can any court of law repeat a murder in the courtroom the same way it happened on the street? Nope. Sure, science can repeat an experiment more than once in a lab, but history is not like that.
QuoteDo you know how many innocent people are behind bars? Do you know how many guilty people get off on technicalities? Are you aware that the way our court systems are set up the "facts" of any given case take a DISTANT SECOND to who is better at arguing? Why do you think it's so expensive to get a good lawyer? Will a good lawyer bring better facts to the court room? No. A good lawyer is simply better at arguing, better at twisting reality, better at distorting the facts to get the outcome he wants. There is a reason science isn't modeled after our court system, much as you might wish it were.
True but irrelevant.
QuoteAs we have firmly established prior to this, you have NO eyewitness accounts until you can convince a great majority (95% is the standard) of scholars and historians that you do. And not only have they not been convinced that you are right, they HAVE been convinced that you are wrong. YOU HAVE NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS!
There are written accounts from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. Bart Ehrman actually cites six more reliable sources of information about Jesus.
QuoteAnd that's the second most popular thing that believers in various nuttery want to use, eyewitness accounts. Because if someone claims they saw something then it's true without fail, right? Just ask David Koresh! Hey, a couple of years ago I read an eyewitness account from a doctor in India who said, FOR THE SECOND TIME IN HIS CAREER, that he confirmed some magic guy there had not eaten or drank anything for about 40 years! That's not only an eyewitness account, that's an eyewitness account from a PROFESSIONAL! That guy knows what he's talking about, so magic MUST be real! And Trickle-Down Economics works, too! There are LOTS of Republican eyewitness accounts to attest to that! Step one, give rich people more money. Step two, ????? Step three, PROFIT!
Rants like this are not especially compelling, IMO.
Look, people go into court every day and listen to eyewitness accounts. These accounts are deemed so reliable by our judicial system that life and death verdicts are based upon them. But SOME eyewitnesses are judged to be UNRELIABLE. The jury does NOT believe the testimony that they give.
So, we can make judgments about which eyewitnesses we believe to be truthful and which ones are not. If you don't want to believe the guy from India, I won't blame you without substantial corroboration.
Christianity has compelling evidence and strong corroboration.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:17:39 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:17:39 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 01:11:53 PMActually, it has neither. But you do seem to have problems with 'facts' and 'beliefs'--can't tell them apart. Strong corroboration from within christian documents. None from outside those documents. But you hold on to your security beliefs, for I have a feeling you would literally fall apart without them.
Christianity has compelling evidence and strong corroboration.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 01:28:04 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 01:28:04 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:17:39 PM
Actually, it has neither. But you do seem to have problems with 'facts' and 'beliefs'--can't tell them apart. Strong corroboration from within christian documents. None from outside those documents. But you hold on to your security beliefs, for I have a feeling you would literally fall apart without them.
Mike, this is silly. The kind of thing folks say when they are running out of actual arguments and they're left with raw emotional responses.
Yes, there are both canonical and non-canonical references to Jesus' existence. The non-Christian accounts provide corroboration that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and that he had a brother named James.
There is the existence of the Church itself. Where did that come from and why? No Jesus, no Church, Mike.
So, we have two points in place:
1. The texts we have are accurate.
2. The texts were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses.
Still to come:
Did the authors actually intend to write reliable history, or were they just indulging in a bit of "fan fiction"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 01:35:50 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 01:35:50 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:06:41 PM
You do seem to think your belief establish facts. If you believe it, then it is so. And if you can find others who agree with you, then they are experts and help you establish your belief as a fact--in your mind only. You are so blinded by your irrational need to believe this fiction that you will go to any lengths to keep your belief.
You have not established, nor has anybody else, that the text of the NT is accurate. That would be impossible since we don't have a single autograph to check back to. And there is no consensus about the dates when these essays were written. Nor has it ever been established who wrote them. Since we do not know when they were written nor who wrote them (with the exception of Paul's actual writings), how would you know what they intended? Facts have been presented to you but they don't fit into your belief system so they are not facts.
Then you are speaking from ignorance about textual criticism. This is not just some "Christian thing". Scholars use textual criticism to establish the correct text of all sorts of ancient documents. It's a legit methodology.
So, when you claim, "You have not established, nor has anybody else, that the text of the NT is accurate", you are speaking out of ignorance.
We don't NEED an autograph; we just need an adequate sample size for the manuscripts. And we have over 25,000 manuscripts of the NT...more than all other ancient works combined.
Finally, you assert that my dating is not correct without proving me wrong. Read the OP. Go through it line-by-line. Show me where I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 04, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 04, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Prove Jesus ever said anything about being God. Impartial evidence, not apologetics.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:48:25 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:48:25 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 01:35:50 PM
Then you are speaking from ignorance about textual criticism. This is not just some "Christian thing". Scholars use textual criticism to establish the correct text of all sorts of ancient documents. It's a legit methodology.
So, when you claim, "You have not established, nor has anybody else, that the text of the NT is accurate", you are speaking out of ignorance.
We don't NEED an autograph; we just need an adequate sample size for the manuscripts. And we have over 25,000 manuscripts of the NT...more than all other ancient works combined.
Finally, you assert that my dating is not correct without proving me wrong. Read the OP. Go through it line-by-line. Show me where I'm wrong.
I guess I'll have to quote myself, since you seem to not like to read that which displeases you:
Oh, yes, Randy, you do like to bring up Homer--which makes sense, since you are a homer for Jesus. :)
5000 Greek manuscripts ("More reliable than Homer" argument)
The claim is along the lines of "over 5000 distinct pieces of evidence for Jesus" is often presented[115]). Examples of this are Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in their book [7] and Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ.
This argument is absurd as textual reliability has nothing to do with historical reliability as demonstrated by how the printing press from 1436 on allowed the production of perfect copies of fantastical (and now known to be totally fictitious) material.
Moreover, we have no reason to suspect that scribes altered writings from Homer to support their particular religious dogma. But we have every reason to suspect it with the New Testament â€" in fact, we know they did. Also, and rather very ironically, this analogy boomerangs on apologists trying to defend the historic evidence for Jesus since few historians today believe that a single historical individual named “Homer†ever really existed.
Finally, as "Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament" by Islamic Awareness[116] shows the argument is deceptive in many ways:
The often quoted "over 5000 Greek manuscripts" actually covers a period of time from the 2nd century to the 16th: i.e. 14 centuries!
The over 5000 Greek manuscripts also cover all 27 books of the New Testament.
Just 6.29% of these 5000 distinct pieces of evidence have been dated before the 9th century and only 48 supposedly predate our oldest intact Bibles[116]
Most of the really early manuscripts are actually fragments no larger then a modern credit card and in many cases not even forming complete words.
"Comparing the above-named seven major critical editions, from Tischendorf to Nestle-Aland, we can observe an agreement in wording of only 62.9% of the verses of the New Testament."
"The percentage agreement of the verses when all the four Gospels are considered is 54.5%."
So the Gospels, the key point of the Jesus story, have verses that have about the chance of a coin toss of matching or being different over the course of 14 centuries.
Our oldest complete Bibles are the Codex Siniaticus (330â€"360 CE) and Codex Vaticanus (c325â€"350 CE), so anything regarding historical reliability must involve Greek manuscripts before those dates. This at best gets us a pathetic 48 Greek manuscripts, all of which have date ranges that allow them to be after Irenaeus's c.180 CE work Against Heresies which extensively quotes from what would in the 4th century become the four canonical Gospels.
This is why there are so many different bibles in existence today. There is so much disagreement within the extent bibles and bits of bibles, that one can fashion a collection of writings that reflect just about any viewpoint of Jesus and what he taught. Anybody who studies textual criticism in any depth comes to understand this. Randy, find that 'thinking' cap of yours and put it on!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:29:24 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:29:24 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 12:24:46 PM
Can you prove otherwise?
Don't play games. You made a positive statement and the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate works.
Otherwise, all you have is an opinion which you are asserting.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:33:34 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:33:34 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 12:25:54 PM
I don't see how your argument does anything but discredit your own faith. Both the Bible and the LotR books are fiction. As you said, his son never witnessed the existence of Ent wives. That's because they were made up for the fictional world that Tolkien created. In the same way, the Bible's stories were not written by eyewitnesses, but by people making up stories. The difference, however, is that the Bible had countless authors, which resulted in a predictable number of inconsistencies, while LotR had one author plus his son who patched up the leftovers and had a much more consistent story.
Late editing and additions to the text?!? We can't trust anything from LotR because the Silmarillion has been interpolated by Ringians who came later!!!
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
I was just pointing out that you are willing to accept the existence of the Ent Wives because of a reference to a book whose author is now dead.
You won't accept the existence of Jesus despite a bunch of references from a bunch of books whose authors are now dead.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:35:20 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:35:20 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 04, 2016, 12:28:21 PM
All that wouldn't prove divinity.
No, it wouldn't. But having an accurate text and reasons to believe that the authors were honest and reliable is a pre-requisite for considering whether what they claim about Jesus' divinity is true.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:36:38 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 12:34:37 PM
Smart people who didn't care about the facts. Christianity is based on belief, not facts.
Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Yes or no.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 03:07:37 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 03:07:37 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:33:34 PM
Late editing and additions to the text?!? We can't trust anything from LotR because the Silmarillion has been interpolated by Ringians who came later!!!
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
I was just pointing out that you are willing to accept the existence of the Ent Wives because of a reference to a book whose author is now dead.
You won't accept the existence of Jesus despite a bunch of references from a bunch of books whose authors are now dead.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I don't believe that Ent wives ever existed in human history. Your logic is broken.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:36:38 PM
Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Yes or no.
I don't care if he actually existed or not. The miracles attributed to him cannot be validated. Either he was a complete fiction or he was a real person that people transformed into a diety with their stories. The same is true of Muhammed. Did he exist? I don't care. If he did exist, did ALL of the world stop to look in his direction when he was born? No.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 03:49:54 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 03:49:54 PM
Fascinating! Sigfried would have a hay day. The depth of indoctrination for some is astonishing. That many need an emotional crutch and turn to religious superstition is one thing, but to come to an atheist forum and try to proselytize is a complete different animal. Presenting nothing but the same old fables and mythologies as facts here is a hopeless undertaking.
We have to ask ourselves why this poor, needy soul posts here. It's either to try and convert others or to provoke. Neither works here.
The resident sheep is trying to convince us that claims of miracles from UNKNOWN sources are proven facts. OK, then. I give him that for a moment. All the texts of the Torah and the NT, are true facts through eyewitness accounts (I can't believe I am even contemplating that)!
That means the following:
A) The god in the Torah is a capricious monster on a permanent killing spree. According to the Jewish bible, god killed over 2 million people before wiping out every living thing on Earth. Satan killed 10.
Now what kind of a sick mind would grovel and submit himself to serfdom to a mass murderer like that? What must go on in someone's mind to stoop to such low? What a miserable existence must one live, in order to relinquish any rational judgement and ignore morality and ethics? What a pathetic way to waste a life! To enjoy and admire a celestial North Korea and to give up independent thought for dogma is the very definition of being spiritually and mentally enslaved.
I don't feel resentment towards people like that, just pity. Pity for losing out on the fascinating subject how the universe actually works, without heavenly creation or interference. Pity for being so caught up in a fictional reality, that reason and logic falls by the wayside. I wish there would be an indoctrination detox center, where the most ardent sheep can be sent to lose their toxic beliefs. But we have to co-exist with these backward minds and fight them every step of the way in order not to be taken over. That goes for Islam as well. And fight we will...until superstition is replaced with compassion, empathy and love for our fellow brothers and sisters, regardless of color, creed or tribe.
We have to ask ourselves why this poor, needy soul posts here. It's either to try and convert others or to provoke. Neither works here.
The resident sheep is trying to convince us that claims of miracles from UNKNOWN sources are proven facts. OK, then. I give him that for a moment. All the texts of the Torah and the NT, are true facts through eyewitness accounts (I can't believe I am even contemplating that)!
That means the following:
A) The god in the Torah is a capricious monster on a permanent killing spree. According to the Jewish bible, god killed over 2 million people before wiping out every living thing on Earth. Satan killed 10.
Now what kind of a sick mind would grovel and submit himself to serfdom to a mass murderer like that? What must go on in someone's mind to stoop to such low? What a miserable existence must one live, in order to relinquish any rational judgement and ignore morality and ethics? What a pathetic way to waste a life! To enjoy and admire a celestial North Korea and to give up independent thought for dogma is the very definition of being spiritually and mentally enslaved.
I don't feel resentment towards people like that, just pity. Pity for losing out on the fascinating subject how the universe actually works, without heavenly creation or interference. Pity for being so caught up in a fictional reality, that reason and logic falls by the wayside. I wish there would be an indoctrination detox center, where the most ardent sheep can be sent to lose their toxic beliefs. But we have to co-exist with these backward minds and fight them every step of the way in order not to be taken over. That goes for Islam as well. And fight we will...until superstition is replaced with compassion, empathy and love for our fellow brothers and sisters, regardless of color, creed or tribe.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:03:41 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:03:41 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 04, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Prove Jesus ever said anything about being God. Impartial evidence, not apologetics.
Sure. Someone else asked me this once, so I put some thoughts together.
We can take a look at what Jesus said, how he acted, what others said and how they responded, etc.
The Divinity of Jesus Christ Proved from Scripture
I. Did Jesus claim to be God?
1. Jesus claimed the Divine Name (‘I AM’)
Exodus 3:14
13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?†14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.†And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’†15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.
John 8:58
53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?†54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.†57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?†58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.†59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
Why did the Jews want to stone Jesus if they did not believe that He was claiming to be God?
2. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and equal to God.
John 5:18
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.†18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
3. Jesus claimed to be the First and the Last â€" a Title Reserved for God Alone
Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.â€
Revelation 1:17-18
“Do not be afraid; I [Jesus] am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.â€
Would a mere prophet claim to be the “First and the Last�
4. Jesus claimed to be Truth â€" not just to proclaim the truth.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
5. Jesus claimed to share in Divine Glory
In the Old Testament, we find that Yahweh will not share his glory with anyone.
Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.†(Cf. Isaiah 48:11â€"“My glory I will not give to another.â€)
Yet Jesus claimed, not only that he would be glorified with the Father, but that he had glory with the Father before the world was created!
John 17:5
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.â€
How can anyone see this as anything other than a claim to deity?
6. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God Before the Sanhedrin
Daniel 7:13-14
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Daniel prophesied that the Son of Man would be worshiped as God.
Mark 14:61-65
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?†62 “I am,†said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.†63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?†he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?†They all condemned him as worthy of death.
Replying to the High Priest at His trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus quoted the Daniel and applied this prophecy to Himself.
II. Did Jesus act as God might act?
1. Jesus forgave sins â€" which only God can do.
Luke 5:20
2. Jesus accepted worship.
Matthew 2:2, 11
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 28:9, 17
Luke 24:52
John 9:35-38
3. Jesus did not reject worship.
Revelation 19:10 â€" the angel tells John to worship God only; Jesus never tells anyone not to worship Him.
III. Did Jesus’ disciples believe He was God?
1. Thomas worshipped Jesus
John 20:28-29
2. John declared that Jesus is God.
John 1:1, John 1:14
3. Paul taught that Jesus was God.
Romans 10:9-13
because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord (kurios) and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.†For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord (kurios) will be saved.â€
In verse 13, Paul quotes an Old Testament prophet who was speaking about God when he wrote:
Joel 2:32
“And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD (kurios) shall be deliveredâ€
Thus, in one brief passage, Paul uses the word kurios, or Lord, to speak about both the Father and the Son proving that Paul believes that Jesus is God.
4. The author of Hebrews clearly shows that the Son of God is God.
Hebrews 1:1-9
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father�
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son�
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.â€
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.â€
8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.â€
IV. Did Jesus’ enemies believe He claimed to be God?
1. The Jews tried to stone him for blasphemy.
John 8:58 â€" “I AM’
John 10:30-33 â€" second attempted stoning
2. The Sanhedrin asked Jesus if He was the Messiah and the Son of God
Mark 14:61-62 (cf. Daniel 7:13-14, Psalm 110)
V. Did the demons recognize Him as God?
Mark 1:23-24
23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you areâ€"the Holy One of God!â€
VI. Does the Bible tell us that Jesus is God?
Acts 20:28 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood.
Titus 2:13 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
2 Peter 1:1 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
Hebrews 1:8 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Revelation 1:17-18
Son of God, Son of Man
What do these phrases mean in the context of the culture in which Jesus lived and spoke?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:08:07 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:08:07 PM
Ask for impartial evidence, get Bible quotes.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:25:08 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:25:08 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 01:48:25 PM
I guess I'll have to quote myself, since you seem to not like to read that which displeases you:
Oh, yes, Randy, you do like to bring up Homer--which makes sense, since you are a homer for Jesus. :)
5000 Greek manuscripts ("More reliable than Homer" argument)
The claim is along the lines of "over 5000 distinct pieces of evidence for Jesus" is often presented[115]). Examples of this are Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in their book [7] and Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ.
This argument is absurd as textual reliability has nothing to do with historical reliability as demonstrated by how the printing press from 1436 on allowed the production of perfect copies of fantastical (and now known to be totally fictitious) material.
If it's absurd, why doesn't your copy-paste source explain why this is the case?
Mike are you saying that we DON'T have over 5,000 separate copies of these texts? That would come as quite a shock to the museum curators where they are housed.
QuoteMoreover, we have no reason to suspect that scribes altered writings from Homer to support their particular religious dogma. But we have every reason to suspect it with the New Testament â€" in fact, we know they did. Also, and rather very ironically, this analogy boomerangs on apologists trying to defend the historic evidence for Jesus since few historians today believe that a single historical individual named “Homer†ever really existed.
This is an argument?
Mike, WE KNOW that scribes altered the New Testament texts. This is not in question. What you seem to be IGNORANT about is why this is not the problem you think it to be.
Seriously, Mike. Watch Dr. Wallace's presentation. You will save yourself a lot of time.
QuoteFinally, as "Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament" by Islamic Awareness[116] shows the argument is deceptive in many ways:
The often quoted "over 5000 Greek manuscripts" actually covers a period of time from the 2nd century to the 16th: i.e. 14 centuries!
Sure. Not a problem. Having manuscripts from the second century is the kind of material scholars would love to have. Here's how others compare:
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ipY6Zr0HtR8/SiV_o6IHekI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/BvKDfooYQig/Date%20of%20NT%20Copies%20Chart_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800)
QuoteThe over 5000 Greek manuscripts also cover all 27 books of the New Testament.
Yes! The average manuscript is 490 pages in length.
QuoteJust 6.29% of these 5000 distinct pieces of evidence have been dated before the 9th century and only 48 supposedly predate our oldest intact Bibles[116]
Most of the really early manuscripts are actually fragments no larger then a modern credit card and in many cases not even forming complete words.
"Comparing the above-named seven major critical editions, from Tischendorf to Nestle-Aland, we can observe an agreement in wording of only 62.9% of the verses of the New Testament." "The percentage agreement of the verses when all the four Gospels are considered is 54.5%."
So the Gospels, the key point of the Jesus story, have verses that have about the chance of a coin toss of matching or being different over the course of 14 centuries.
Possibly correct but irrelevant. Scholars consider even spelling variation of one letter in a wored wird werd word to be a variant. I just gave you four as an example of this. But we are 99+% sure of what the autographs said because we have so many copies with which to derive that text, and even Bart Ehrman admits in Misquoting Jesus that no major Christian doctrines are in doubt as a result of these variants.
So, you see, what these Muslims believe in their efforts to support their own fanciful beliefs is based on a misunderstanding of what textual criticism really tells us. IOW, you fail.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_dancing.gif)
QuoteOur oldest complete Bibles are the Codex Siniaticus (330â€"360 CE) and Codex Vaticanus (c325â€"350 CE), so anything regarding historical reliability must involve Greek manuscripts before those dates. This at best gets us a pathetic 48 Greek manuscripts, all of which have date ranges that allow them to be after Irenaeus's c.180 CE work Against Heresies which extensively quotes from what would in the 4th century become the four canonical Gospels.
Pathetic?
What's pathetic is attempting to dismiss the treasure trove of NT manuscripts that scholars of other ancient authors would love to have.
QuoteThis is why there are so many different bibles in existence today. There is so much disagreement within the extent bibles and bits of bibles, that one can fashion a collection of writings that reflect just about any viewpoint of Jesus and what he taught. Anybody who studies textual criticism in any depth comes to understand this. Randy, find that 'thinking' cap of yours and put it on!
Yeah. Uh...no. Watch Dr. Wallace's talk on YouTube.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 04:27:40 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 04:27:40 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:08:07 PM
Ask for impartial evidence, get Bible quotes.
Hey, come on! If Jesus said so, it must be true! :pullhair:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:29:34 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:29:34 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:08:07 PM
Ask for impartial evidence, get Bible quotes.
Where else do you expect to get quotes from Jesus?
There were numerous eyewitnesses to what Jesus said and did. They wrote down what they saw and heard. These books were compiled into what is known as the NT.
Doesn't make them unreliable.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:30:09 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 04:27:40 PM
Hey, come on! If Jesus said so, it must be true!
That's not the argument being made.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:31:16 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:31:16 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 04:27:40 PM
Hey, come on! If Jesus said so, it must be true! :pullhair:
You mean if someone said that Jesus' disciples said that Jesus said so. Tertiary sources are the best things to base all your life decisions on.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:40:21 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:40:21 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:31:16 PM
You mean if someone said that Jesus' disciples said that Jesus said so. Tertiary sources are the best things to base all your life decisions on.
Most of life is like that. Most of our knowledge comes to us like that.
Ever been to Beijing? The back side of the moon? If not, how do you know what they are like?
Because reliable people can be trusted to tell us things that we cannot verify for ourselves. Oh, sure...you COULD go to the moon...it's possible...but you won't. So, you rely on others who have seen it and taken photographs to know what it looks like.
And you rely on them to be honest and not produce photoshopped pictures, so that's no out.
Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 03:07:37 PM
I don't believe that Ent wives ever existed in human history. Your logic is broken.
Sucks when you get backed into a corner like that, don't it? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 04:46:12 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 04:46:12 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:30:09 PMThat's EXACTLY the argument you make!
That's not the argument being made.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:48:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
I don't care if he actually existed or not. The miracles attributed to him cannot be validated. Either he was a complete fiction or he was a real person that people transformed into a diety with their stories.
Are those ALL the possibilities? Nope.
It's also possible that Jesus existed AND performed all those miracles AND rose from the dead.
You intentionally leave out some possibilities because of your presuppositions. That's not how objective science is done, is it?
QuoteThe same is true of Muhammed. Did he exist? I don't care. If he did exist, did ALL of the world stop to look in his direction when he was born? No.
Fine. You have objections to the foundation of Islam. So do I. Muslims need to prove that this actually occurred before we will believe it.
In the case of Christianity, there are five facts which need to be addressed:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus tomb was found to be empty
How do you account for these facts? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:50:14 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:50:14 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 03:49:54 PM
Fascinating! Sigfried would have a hay day. The depth of indoctrination for some is astonishing. That many need an emotional crutch and turn to religious superstition is one thing, but to come to an atheist forum and try to proselytize is a complete different animal. Presenting nothing but the same old fables and mythologies as facts here is a hopeless undertaking.
We have to ask ourselves why this poor, needy soul posts here. It's either to try and convert others or to provoke. Neither works here.
The resident sheep is trying to convince us that claims of miracles from UNKNOWN sources are proven facts. OK, then. I give him that for a moment. All the texts of the Torah and the NT, are true facts through eyewitness accounts (I can't believe I am even contemplating that)!
That means the following:
A) The god in the Torah is a capricious monster on a permanent killing spree. According to the Jewish bible, god killed over 2 million people before wiping out every living thing on Earth. Satan killed 10.
Now what kind of a sick mind would grovel and submit himself to serfdom to a mass murderer like that? What must go on in someone's mind to stoop to such low? What a miserable existence must one live, in order to relinquish any rational judgement and ignore morality and ethics? What a pathetic way to waste a life! To enjoy and admire a celestial North Korea and to give up independent thought for dogma is the very definition of being spiritually and mentally enslaved.
I don't feel resentment towards people like that, just pity. Pity for losing out on the fascinating subject how the universe actually works, without heavenly creation or interference. Pity for being so caught up in a fictional reality, that reason and logic falls by the wayside. I wish there would be an indoctrination detox center, where the most ardent sheep can be sent to lose their toxic beliefs. But we have to co-exist with these backward minds and fight them every step of the way in order not to be taken over. That goes for Islam as well. And fight we will...until superstition is replaced with compassion, empathy and love for our fellow brothers and sisters, regardless of color, creed or tribe.
Whether God is an immoral monster is a challenging question. But not the topic of this thread.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:53:56 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:53:56 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 04:46:12 PM
That's EXACTLY the argument you make!
Nope. We don't have any testimony directly from Jesus. He wrote nothing and left no artifacts. Not even his bones.
What we DO have is the testimony of others who claimed that they saw Him. So, it's about whether what THEY said is true, not about what He said.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:58:11 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:58:11 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:40:21 PM
Most of life is like that. Most of our knowledge comes to us like that.
Ever been to Beijing? The back side of the moon? If not, how do you know what they are like?
Because reliable people can be trusted to tell us things that we cannot verify for ourselves. Oh, sure...you COULD go to the moon...it's possible...but you won't. So, you rely on others who have seen it and taken photographs to know what it looks like.
And you rely on them to be honest and not produce photoshopped pictures, so that's no out.
Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth.
When it comes to trustworthiness, primary sources > secondary sources > tertiary sources. What you offer is a tertiary source at best. It's a copy of a copy of a book that is claimed to have originally been written by Jesus' followers and eyewitnesses who claim to report what Jesus said. That's not a trustworthy source. All you have to do to tell this is compare the four gospels. They contradict each other, which should tell you that if there was an original event that they were based on, the true events were not reliably reported or the copies changes details of it. The infallible Word of God is incredibly flawed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 05:01:20 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 05:01:20 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:29:24 PMI see that you do understand the sane rules of the game. But you don't play by them. You say your god exists. You say Jesus is the son of god. Yet you feel you don't have to prove it. It is simply self evident to you. As you said--all you have is an opinion. I guess you feel that badgering a person, nagging them, hounding them gets them (or at least some of them) to believe as you do. If you say it enough then it has to be true. Typical of your ilk. Doesn't work on me; once I get the sense that you are simply full of hot air and opinion, I simply become more ensconced in my position.
Don't play games. You made a positive statement and the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate works.
Otherwise, all you have is an opinion which you are asserting.
As far as nothing being supernatural, this is how it works. All that I can see, touch, feel, smell, experience is based in nature. The entire universe is natural. In order for something to be supernatural, it has to be not of nature. The is nothing that is not of nature. Yes, people have claimed that there is the spiritual realm and that they have had spiritual experiences. Good for them. But those are all personal happenings, and they cannot reproduce it. And the skeptical Randy will pay you a million dollars if you can prove there is anything supernatural in this universe.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 05:06:18 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:42:41 PMYes Randy, you should know. You live in a perpetual corner always running out the same old tired bromides, same old opinions foisted on us as facts---time and again as though saying it enough somehow validates your thoughts. Yes, it is a pity.
Sucks when you get backed into a corner like that, don't it? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 05:10:48 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 05:10:48 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:50:14 PM
Whether God is an immoral monster is a challenging question. But not the topic of this thread.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Nice try and avoidance, but no dice. I gave you the position that the NT and Torah is the true word of god, which is exactly the topic here. And if it is true, then you enslaved yourself to a monstrous killer, capiche? Or is that too complicated for you?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 05:21:08 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:53:56 PM
Nope. We don't have any testimony directly from Jesus. He wrote nothing and left no artifacts. Not even his bones.
What we DO have is the testimony of others who claimed that they saw Him. So, it's about whether what THEY said is true, not about what He said.
Aaaand wrong again! You are saying that there are no quotes of a Jesus in the NT? You just dug yourself a bigger hole.
So there are a few bronze age simpletons who 'claim that they saw him'. We went through that. So what? I saw my brother yesterday, that doesn't make him a god. It only starts to get absurd when the miraculous and supernatural enters the picture.
keep wiggling...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 05:22:41 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Sucks when you get backed into a corner like that, don't it? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Backed into a corner? You painted yourself into a corner. Your arguments make no sense. They work better as arguments AGAINST your position. Comparing your Bible to a clear work of fiction? That's what WE do, and for good reason. Your book has no credibility to it. It's a mess written by a ton of authors who continually recreated this god of theirs over time. One author says that God is too weak to defeat an enemy of Israel because they use iron chariots, another says that he's omnipotent. One says that God changes his mind. Another says that God never changes. One says that God punishes the son for the sins of the father, another says that he does not. Another says that "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," then another says the exact opposite.
Do you not see the problem here? Not only is the Bible a work of fiction, it's a terrible work of fiction with a ton of plot holes.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 06:07:47 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 06:07:47 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:25:08 PMYeah, your replies are about what I expected. And I did try to watch that video of Wallace's. Did not last very long. Not going to invest and hr. watching somebody vomit back up dribble I've heard for over 60 yrs. now. The fact is that when I started thinking about Jesus and his religion 60 odd years ago, there were almost no published works suggesting that Jesus was not real. Even as a child I questioned that, but only to myself.
Yeah. Uh...no. Watch Dr. Wallace's talk on YouTube.
The search for a historical Jesus is usually divided into three quests.
First Quest:
Started in Germany in the 1800's, with Albert Schweitzer being the most prominent. Bruno Bauer was the first scholar to suggest that Jesus was not historical. He died in the 1880's. And it is generally said that this quest ended in 1906 or so.
Second Quest:
There was a space of 45/50 yrs. where little was done in this area, but in '53 Ernest Kasemann delivered a speech that suggested a historical Jesus could be uncovered is the tools of historical analysis were used in a systematic way. A small spate of material and books then were generated exploring that idea. This second wave reached it's zenith in the '70's.
Third Quest:
It has not precise beginning but began to be seen in the late 70's or early 80's. The first two quests were driven mostly by European Protestant theologians. The third quest is world wide and has input from experts in many disciplines.
So, Randy, the quest for a historical Jesus is quite new. And the quest for an ahistorical Jesus is even newer. This is just a start, Randy. You claimed there were only 7 who thought that--I have not looked it up--if so, that is a 700% increase in books that suggest that he did not exist. And that is just a start.
Even after reading several of those new books, I was still not convinced that Jesus could not have been some guy that had a heap of deeds given to him as time passed. Now I am convinced (especially after reading Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus") that Jesus is simply a fiction. But I really do hope Carrier's plea is acted upon. He asks any and all to tear his book apart and show him where he is in error. But don't do it with opinion, but with facts (so that leaves you out, Randy--sorry). I look forward to that happening.
A big reason why this has been so slow in developing is that people like you, Randy, want to label as scholars and experts only those who are theists and theologians. Well, hell, that is the group who will not countenance the idea that Jesus is not real; that's how they get paid--feeding that line to the masses; that way the masses will continue to pay these leeches for their own serfdom. People care less and less if an 'expert' is a graduate from a bible school or not; whether they are a theist or not; a theologian or not. More and more will be published on this subject as time goes on. And much to your delight, eh, Randy?!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:14:09 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:14:09 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 04:58:11 PM
When it comes to trustworthiness, primary sources > secondary sources > tertiary sources. What you offer is a tertiary source at best. It's a copy of a copy of a book that is claimed to have originally been written by Jesus' followers and eyewitnesses who claim to report what Jesus said.
True. But because we have a boatload of these texts, we can be confident that we know that primary sources said. That's what the science of textual criticism is all about.
And yes, they were written by Jesus' apostles and those who had access to the eyewitnesses.
QuoteThat's not a trustworthy source. All you have to do to tell this is compare the four gospels. They contradict each other, which should tell you that if there was an original event that they were based on, the true events were not reliably reported or the copies changes details of it. The infallible Word of God is incredibly flawed.
If the four gospels were word-for-word identical, then you would reject them because of the clear appearance of collusion or conspiracy. They would not represent four testimonies but one. Police investigators recognize when criminals tell the same story too closely...it's evidence that they rehearsed their alibi.
So, the four gospels have just enough differences to suggest that they are actually independent accounts, but enough similarities to demonstrate the truth of the core message.
For example, all of the gospels acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead regardless of how many people they report at the tomb on Easter morning.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:19:54 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:19:54 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 05:21:08 PM
Aaaand wrong again! You are saying that there are no quotes of a Jesus in the NT? You just dug yourself a bigger hole.
Did I say that we have no quotes? No. I said that we have no testimony DIRECTLY from Jesus. We have his words indirectly through eyewitnesses.
QuoteSo there are a few bronze age simpletons who 'claim that they saw him'. We went through that. So what? I saw my brother yesterday, that doesn't make him a god. It only starts to get absurd when the miraculous and supernatural enters the picture.
keep wiggling...
Simpletons? Matthew was a government employee...a tax-collector. Paul was clearly a scholar under the tutelage of one of the greatest rabbis of his day. So, no.
Merely seeing your brother or Jesus does not make either of them God.
You would have to provide more compelling evidence. Like the gospel writers did.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 06:33:19 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 06:33:19 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:14:09 PMTrue. But because we have a boatload of these texts, we can be confident that we know thatprimarysecondary sources said. That's what the science of textual criticism is all about.
Fixed. You do not have the original documents, and even if you did, they'd still be secondary sources. A secondary source is still not reliable, and there is a ton of variety among these copies of copies of copies that suggest many errors and purposeful changes were made to them. You can rule out some of those changes, but you're still left with an imperfect Bible.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:14:09 PMAnd yes, they were written by Jesus' apostles and those who had access to the eyewitnesses.
You cannot verify that. All we know is who the author claimed to be. We have no reason to trust that Matthew was actually written by Matthew and not some other Christian who wanted to have some sort of authority to point to.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:14:09 PMIf the four gospels were word-for-word identical, then you would reject them because of the clear appearance of collusion or conspiracy. They would not represent four testimonies but one. Police investigators recognize when criminals tell the same story too closely...it's evidence that they rehearsed their alibi.
So, the four gospels have just enough differences to suggest that they are actually independent accounts, but enough similarities to demonstrate the truth of the core message.
For example, all of the gospels acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead regardless of how many people they report at the tomb on Easter morning.
Now I know you're just repeating what you're told, because that is one of the many flawed arguments that Christians pass around to each other and never question. First, you claim this book to be the inspired Word of God, and yet you find evidence of flaws due to contradictions in different versions of the same stories. This means that the book was written by imperfect men, whose credibility could be when it comes to spiritual matters should be called into question. Second, minor differences are one thing, but when the exact opposite is reported in one story than in another, that's a sign that both are lying. Why do you think that cops separate people before questioning them? It's because they can't come up with a story together. When their stories don't match up, it means that one or both are lying.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:34:11 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:34:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 06:07:47 PM
Yeah, your replies are about what I expected. And I did try to watch that video of Wallace's. Did not last very long. Not going to invest and hr. watching somebody vomit back up dribble I've heard for over 60 yrs. now. The fact is that when I started thinking about Jesus and his religion 60 odd years ago, there were almost no published works suggesting that Jesus was not real. Even as a child I questioned that, but only to myself.
For good reason. It's foolishness that comes up every so often. This latest batch of mythicists are merely the latest batch of mythicists.
QuoteThe search for a historical Jesus is usually divided into three quests.
First Quest:
Started in Germany in the 1800's, with Albert Schweitzer being the most prominent. Bruno Bauer was the first scholar to suggest that Jesus was not historical. He died in the 1880's. And it is generally said that this quest ended in 1906 or so.
Second Quest:
There was a space of 45/50 yrs. where little was done in this area, but in '53 Ernest Kasemann delivered a speech that suggested a historical Jesus could be uncovered is the tools of historical analysis were used in a systematic way. A small spate of material and books then were generated exploring that idea. This second wave reached it's zenith in the '70's.
Third Quest:
It has not precise beginning but began to be seen in the late 70's or early 80's. The first two quests were driven mostly by European Protestant theologians. The third quest is world wide and has input from experts in many disciplines.
Ah. Well done. This is what I was alluding to.
QuoteSo, Randy, the quest for a historical Jesus is quite new. And the quest for an ahistorical Jesus is even newer. This is just a start, Randy. You claimed there were only 7 who thought that--I have not looked it up--if so, that is a 700% increase in books that suggest that he did not exist. And that is just a start.
No. I mentioned Richard Carrier. You (or someone else) posted a quote from Carrier who had apparently managed to scrounge up six more folks to join his little crusade.
As for the increase in books, sure...I have no doubt that people who are looking for any excuse to engage in all sorts of sinful activities will be eager to lap up whatever nonsense Dan Brown, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others churn out. If there is no God, then you can pretty much do as you please.
QuoteEven after reading several of those new books, I was still not convinced that Jesus could not have been some guy that had a heap of deeds given to him as time passed. Now I am convinced (especially after reading Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus") that Jesus is simply a fiction. But I really do hope Carrier's plea is acted upon. He asks any and all to tear his book apart and show him where he is in error. But don't do it with opinion, but with facts (so that leaves you out, Randy--sorry). I look forward to that happening.
Ehrman took Carrier to task on more than one occasion. So have others. You can read their books and blog posts if you like, but I suspect you'd rather continue in your delusion.
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
QuoteA big reason why this has been so slow in developing is that people like you, Randy, want to label as scholars and experts only those who are theists and theologians. Well, hell, that is the group who will not countenance the idea that Jesus is not real; that's how they get paid--feeding that line to the masses; that way the masses will continue to pay these leeches for their own serfdom. People care less and less if an 'expert' is a graduate from a bible school or not; whether they are a theist or not; a theologian or not. More and more will be published on this subject as time goes on. And much to your delight, eh, Randy?!
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Bart Ehrman is a theist and theologian?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
In addition to this about Carrier: http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/, Ehrman has also said this about mythicists in general:
“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds â€" thousands? â€" of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.†(Quoted in an article published by the Huffington Post)
And Atheist Tim O'Neill destroys Carrier and the Mythicists here:
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/
and here:
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/
That's friendly fire raining down on your head, Mike. It's not coming from me. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 06:38:23 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:36:38 PM
Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Yes or no.
I don't believe there was any such place as Nazasreth - it was a misunderstanding of the term 'nazarite', which had nothing to do with any place:
Nazareth â€" The Town that Theology Built (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html)
The word 'nazarene'appears only once in the whole Bible:
Mat 2:23
QuoteAnd he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.I wonder by which prophets this was spoken?
But the word 'nazarite' appears 9 times in the Bible, and none reference a place:
Num 6:2
QuoteSpeak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:Num 6:13
QuoteAnd this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:Num 6:18
QuoteAnd the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.Num 6:19
QuoteAnd the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven:Num 6:20
QuoteAnd the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.Num 6:21
QuoteThis is the law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, and of his offering unto the LORD for his separation, beside that that his hand shall get: according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation.Jdg 13:5
QuoteFor, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.Jdg 13:7
QuoteBut he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.Jdg 16:17
QuoteThat he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:46:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:46:44 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 06:33:19 PM
Fixed. You do not have the original documents, and even if you did, they'd still be secondary sources.
I stand corrected. You are thinking of the original speaker while I was thinking of the original author. I cede to your reckoning.
QuoteA secondary source is still not reliable, and there is a ton of variety among these copies of copies of copies that suggest many errors and purposeful changes were made to them.
Sorry, but a secondary source can be extremely reliable..or not. That would depend on the author. And yes, there were changes. We know this. It is not a problem once you understand how textual criticism works.
QuoteYou can rule out some of those changes, but you're still left with an imperfect Bible.
Perhaps. But not an unreliable Bible. Does anyone doubt that the gospel writers claim that Jesus rose from the dead? This has not been impacted by later interpolations.
QuoteYou cannot verify that. All we know is who the author claimed to be. We have no reason to trust that Matthew was actually written by Matthew and not some other Christian who wanted to have some sort of authority to point to.
If you were some other person writing a gospel and trying to get it accepted by the growing Church, would you claim it was written by a hated tax collector? Or would you ascribe it to the pillars of the Early Church - Peter, James or John? C'mon...use your understanding of basic marketing here.
QuoteNow I know you're just repeating what you're told, because that is one of the many flawed arguments that Christians pass around to each other and never question. First, you claim this book to be the inspired Word of God, and yet you find evidence of flaws due to contradictions in different versions of the same stories. This means that the book was written by imperfect men, whose credibility could be when it comes to spiritual matters should be called into question. Second, minor differences are one thing, but when the exact opposite is reported in one story than in another, that's a sign that both are lying. Why do you think that cops separate people before questioning them? It's because they can't come up with a story together. When their stories don't match up, it means that one or both are lying.
I know why cops separate people. That's what J. Warner Wallace knows as a detective in Los Angeles. That's why he finds the gospels so compelling and why he abandoned the atheism he learned in his parents' home and became a believer. However, it may also be the case that two people are telling the truth and emphasizing different things or simply recalling different details. This is expected by law enforcement professionals.
The authors of the NT were not mere scribes taking dictation from God. They were true authors who used their own skills and abilities to record what the Holy Spirit inspired them to record. There is no problem in this.
Yes, there are differences, but not things that flat-out contradictory - the exact opposite. If you think differently, please provide a NT example.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 06:47:02 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 06:47:02 PM
"That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man."
I feel like that every time I get a haircut. :surprise:
I feel like that every time I get a haircut. :surprise:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 06:50:59 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 06:50:59 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:48:53 PMAre those ALL the possibilities? Nope.
It's also possible that Jesus existed AND performed all those miracles AND rose from the dead.
You intentionally leave out some possibilities because of your presuppositions. That's not how objective science is done, is it?
Science doesn't deal with magic and miracles. Those things are mysteriously invisible to science. Yet you continue to put the burden of proof on others to show that your assumptions are NOT true. Skepticism is the default position, not belief.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:48:53 PMFine. You have objections to the foundation of Islam. So do I. Muslims need to prove that this actually occurred before we will believe it.
In the case of Christianity, there are five facts which need to be addressed:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus tomb was found to be empty
How do you account for these facts? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Easy. They're not facts. Done. Neither your religion or Islam have any facts. You have beliefs.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 06:53:50 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on April 30, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
The contradictions are overstated. It would take us quite awhile to iron out all the wrinkles that you think exist, but it CAN be done.
I don't think the contradictions are overstated, nor can the wrinkles be ironed out - but here's my list of the many contradictions in the Bible, in case you would care to give them a go:
Bible Contradictions - By Category (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=5.0)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 07:14:01 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 07:14:01 PM
"Simpletons? Matthew was a government employee...a tax-collector. Paul was clearly a scholar under the tutelage of one of the greatest rabbis of his day. So, no."
So yes. At the time and place 98% of the population were illiterate. You mention 2 out of 12 apostles. Jesus himself was a woodworker, one step above slave. They were all simpletons otherwise we would read about the germ theory or DNA or quantum mechanics or electricity or.....
The Jesus in the bible and his crew were with a couple exceptions carpenters, fishermen etc. who according to you were not only literate but spoke and wrote in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Even your godly dude Christos had no idea that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed. Duh. These people had no clue about anything but smiting, stoning and enslaving.
Give us ONE (1!) word in the bible that could not have been written by a simpleton and I stand corrected. Anything that would make our jaws drop in awe or be remotely surprised. Please prove us wrong.
So yes. At the time and place 98% of the population were illiterate. You mention 2 out of 12 apostles. Jesus himself was a woodworker, one step above slave. They were all simpletons otherwise we would read about the germ theory or DNA or quantum mechanics or electricity or.....
The Jesus in the bible and his crew were with a couple exceptions carpenters, fishermen etc. who according to you were not only literate but spoke and wrote in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Even your godly dude Christos had no idea that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed. Duh. These people had no clue about anything but smiting, stoning and enslaving.
Give us ONE (1!) word in the bible that could not have been written by a simpleton and I stand corrected. Anything that would make our jaws drop in awe or be remotely surprised. Please prove us wrong.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 07:31:57 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 07:31:57 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:46:44 PM
Perhaps. But not an unreliable Bible. Does anyone doubt that the gospel writers claim that Jesus rose from the dead? This has not been impacted by later interpolations.
Mark's Gospel ends at 16:8 leaving the women afraid and failing to record the resurrection (only the empty tomb), Christ's final instructions, and the Ascension.
If it weren't for the last 12 verses, added later, there would be exactly 666 verses in the gospel of Mark. Isn't that special?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 07:35:52 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 07:35:52 PM
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-10/4/20/campaign_images/webdr05/the-9-most-annoying-things-about-christians-2-28822-1412467634-0_dblbig.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on May 04, 2016, 07:41:27 PM
Post by: trdsf on May 04, 2016, 07:41:27 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:40:21 PM
Most of life is like that. Most of our knowledge comes to us like that.
Ever been to Beijing? The back side of the moon? If not, how do you know what they are like?
Because reliable people can be trusted to tell us things that we cannot verify for ourselves. Oh, sure...you COULD go to the moon...it's possible...but you won't. So, you rely on others who have seen it and taken photographs to know what it looks like.
And you rely on them to be honest and not produce photoshopped pictures, so that's no out.
Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth.
Again, incorrect. Reliable people tell us what they know to be true because other people can verify their statements independently. Mere eyewitness reporting is the least compelling form of evidence. I assert that I have seen a flying saucer. Do you believe me? I mean, I'm an eyewitness telling you it's true.
Beijing? Sure, I'm willing to accept Beijing exists without having seen it myself. Not only is there an overwhelming (i.e., not just one book that's been multiply copied and translated over two millennia) body of evidence for the existence of the place from multiple disparate sources, but I can look for myself at the photographic evidence. There are far too many photos -- ground level and satellite -- for them all to have been photoshopped to be in accord with each other. You're asking for a conspiracy that dates back hundreds, thousands of years to deliberately fool the rest of the world into thinking that a city of several million exists when it doesn't. Occam's Razor cuts the throat of that pretty efficiently.
The far side of the moon? Obviously, it must have one. There is no such thing as a topologically simple physical object that has only one side. The photographs from multiple sources all agree. Unless, of course, you want to suggest the the former Soviet Union and the US have been colluding for 50 years to convince astronomers and interested amateurs that the far side of the moon looks as photographed, when it actually looks differently. Occam's Razor again plays Sweeney Todd.
Now, there is a vast difference between my being willing to accept the existence of Beijing and the far side of the moon, and my being willing to accept either the historicity or the putative divinity of a first-century preacher in the Middle East. And the only "evidence" you're offering to accept the existence of this first century preacher's divinity is the very "evidence" that you're trying to assert in the first place.
I have two words for you: circular reasoning.
I use the word 'reasoning' advisedly.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: hrdlr110 on May 04, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
Post by: hrdlr110 on May 04, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 02, 2016, 02:15:13 PM
Oh. So when other people throw all sorts of crap at me, that's okay. But when I respond in kind, then I lack credibility. I see how it is. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif)
And seriously, reasonist..."bronze age mythologies and fairy tales" are just assertions without evidence. Try to back up your claims with something substantive.
The evidence we give you for this is probably already within your reach, maybe even sitting in your lap right this minute. Your hOlY biBLe and its many inconsistencies is what we often use as our evidence. I have one next to my bed as well - because of people like you. Cover to cover it's a tough read. If i were starting a religion today, and the bible was my marketing material to woo a potential following, I'd most likely be locked up.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 05, 2016, 02:05:36 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 05, 2016, 02:05:36 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:46:44 PMI stand corrected. You are thinking of the original speaker while I was thinking of the original author. I cede to your reckoning.
Since the question is whether or not Jesus claimed to be divine, someone else recording his words would not be the original source.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:46:44 PMIf you were some other person writing a gospel and trying to get it accepted by the growing Church, would you claim it was written by a hated tax collector? Or would you ascribe it to the pillars of the Early Church - Peter, James or John? C'mon...use your understanding of basic marketing here.
If I were to create my own religious text, I would claim it to be from someone else who directly experienced the miraculous events I write about. Someone like a disciple of the religious leader. And if I could make up a transformation story about how this hated tax collector became a holy man, that'd make my religion seem all the more exciting. If I claimed to be an eyewitness myself, then I would have to prove my credibility. But if I "found" a letter from Paul, who are they to question such an important leader of the church?
Believe it or not, Christians wouldn't be the first to lie to create their religious documents. I don't believe Islamic texts just because "hey, these copies are the same, so we must know what the original author wrote!"
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:46:44 PMI know why cops separate people. That's what J. Warner Wallace knows as a detective in Los Angeles. That's why he finds the gospels so compelling and why he abandoned the atheism he learned in his parents' home and became a believer. However, it may also be the case that two people are telling the truth and emphasizing different things or simply recalling different details. This is expected by law enforcement professionals.
You are painfully naive. If J. Warner Wallace was convinced so easily, that's his problem. Eyewitness testimony has long been known to be an EXTREMELY unreliable source of information. Not only that, but we don't have eyewitnesses to go by. We have copies of copies of copies of documents SUPPOSEDLY written by eyewitnesses. Not only that, but we have copies of copies of documents supposedly written by eyewitnesses of SUPERNATURAL EVENTS. I'd sooner trust someone who claimed to have been abducted by an alien spacecraft. At least then I know who the original source of the information is.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:46:44 PMThe authors of the NT were not mere scribes taking dictation from God. They were true authors who used their own skills and abilities to record what the Holy Spirit inspired them to record. There is no problem in this.
Or they are people who copied down stories passed down verbally to them. Or they are people who forged those documents. We have no reason to believe the authors are who they are claimed to be.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 06:46:44 PMYes, there are differences, but not things that flat-out contradictory - the exact opposite. If you think differently, please provide a NT example.
Jesus two genealogy accounts claim two different fathers for Joseph. (Contrary to what apologists say, Luke specifically states the his genealogy is from Joseph's side of the family in 3:23.)
Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, while Luke said that he was born during the first census of Israel after Quirinius became governor, which happened 10 years AFTER Herod died.
Luke claims that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there, but Matthew says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem THEN Joseph and Mary moved to Nazareth. Both authors jumped through hoops to put Jesus in Bethlehem, even inventing the ridiculous claim that the census required everyone to travel to their original home town. The point of a census is to count numbers, not to keep record of where everyone was born. And even if they needed that information, it would have been less expensive just to ASK.
In John 1:29, John the Baptist declares who Jesus is as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" just before Baptising Jesus for the beginning of his ministry. But later, when he's thrown into prison in the book of Luke, John sends some of his men to Jesus to ask, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?" I guess watching God descend on Jesus head like a dove wasn't a clear enough message for John... Or, you know, both stories, written by different men, were made up.
The first three gospel books claim that the Last Supper took place on the day of the Passover, while the book of John says that the Last Supper was the day before the Passover and that Jesus was crucified the day of the Passover.
Matthew 27:7 says the priests bought the potter's field while Acts 1:18 says that Judas bought it. Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hung himself out of grief. Acts 1:18 says that Judas tripped and accidentally disemboweled himself with a sharp rock.
After seeing the angel at Jesus' empty tomb, Mary simultaneously tells no one about it out of fear (Mark 16:8) and immediately ran to tell the eleven disciples about what she found (every other account).
No sign shall be given to this generation (Mark 8:12), but many people followed Jesus because of the miracles he performed (John 6:2).
The disciples are instructed both to take a staff (Mark 6:8) and not to take a staff (Matthew 10:9-10).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 06:38:05 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 06:38:05 AM
Yawn ... I see nothing new is happening. Randy ... you need to try harder, without repeating yourself.
"Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth." ... there are no reliable men. I am not sure G-d is reliable (pretty sure G-d is not). Greeks and Irish think that words are true. Zen knows that words are powerless. Testimonies ... again ... speaks to primitive trial situations. Old Roman trials asked ... Qui Bono. Who benefits? Well the Roman Emperor and the "orthodox/catholic" clergy who become civil servants ... benefit. But no miracles please ... you only discredit yourself. Any real Jesus ... was clinically psycho. That does work in your favor, because I feel that G-d is real, but psycho.
"Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth." ... there are no reliable men. I am not sure G-d is reliable (pretty sure G-d is not). Greeks and Irish think that words are true. Zen knows that words are powerless. Testimonies ... again ... speaks to primitive trial situations. Old Roman trials asked ... Qui Bono. Who benefits? Well the Roman Emperor and the "orthodox/catholic" clergy who become civil servants ... benefit. But no miracles please ... you only discredit yourself. Any real Jesus ... was clinically psycho. That does work in your favor, because I feel that G-d is real, but psycho.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 06:42:25 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 06:42:25 AM
Quote from: hrdlr110 on May 04, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
The evidence we give you for this is probably alway within your reach, maybe even sitting in your lap right this minute. Your hOlY biBLe and its many inconsistencies is what we often use as our evidence. I have one next to my bed as well - because of people like you. Cover to cover it's a tough read. If i were starting a religion today, and the bible was my marketing material to woo a potential following, I'd most likely be locked up.
This is why in the US, Christianity is simplified ... for the rubes. Down to WWJD.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2016, 06:46:16 AM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2016, 06:46:16 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:35:20 PMAnd your efforts to promote their credibility are tainted by a severe bias that you obviously don't notice.
No, it wouldn't. But having an accurate text and reasons to believe that the authors were honest and reliable is a pre-requisite for considering whether what they claim about Jesus' divinity is true.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 06:53:09 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 06:53:09 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:35:20 PM
No, it wouldn't. But having an accurate text and reasons to believe that the authors were honest and reliable is a pre-requisite for considering whether what they claim about Jesus' divinity is true.
Other's claims for Jesus' divinity, are even weaker than Jesus claims (arguable that they are).
"Yes, the silence of God would have been on my list of reasons people become atheists." ... as a mystic, G-d isn't silent or invisible to me, the exact opposite. Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear know this ... but there are very few of us, who get G-d. Most humans have the wrong definitions of their words, if they even know what the words they use even mean. In the Gospel of John, people demand miracles, and Jesus refuses them (except for the miracle of Jonah ... which people then misinterpret, because they are ignorant of Jonah). What was miraculous about Jonah ... is that Jonah, in spite of running away from G-d's call, preached to the Ninevites and they repented (temporarily). It wasn't about being swallowed by Leviathan (not a whale) or about the burial and resurrection of Jesus. That is felt-cut-out picture apologetics for children. Christian interpretation of NT ... is mostly Gentile ignorant. But then again, they don't have the spirit of G-d in them. If they did, they would be mystics like myself, and know G-d. Without the spirit of G-d, the Bible is useless, as is everything else. Think Deconstructionism and Derrida ... that is what most readers of the Bible do ... project themselves into the text, they don't let the text speak to them, get a word in edgewise. Theologians are the most guilty of this.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 06:53:50 PM
I don't think the contradictions are overstated, nor can the wrinkles be ironed out - but here's my list of the many contradictions in the Bible, in case you would care to give them a go:
Bible Contradictions - By Category (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=5.0)
Is this your personal work? Or are you merely linking me to someone else's site? I'm just curious, because I have access to sites and books that respond with volumes of material, too.
Instead, maybe you could layout for me a couple of contradictions from the NT that you find most damning for the truth of Christianity. Then we can actually have a conversation about those.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 10:53:06 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM
Instead, maybe you could layout for me a couple of contradictions from the NT that you find most damning for the truth of Christianity. Then we can actually have a conversation about those.
Thanks.
That's an easy one. To list them all would take a couple of weeks to write and for you to read. Here are a couple of obvious ones
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.
Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).
In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).
According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:
There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.
By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.
a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.
b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.
Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
It's a start. Something to ponder for our resident apologist.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 10:54:56 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 10:54:56 AM
Quote from: reasonist on May 04, 2016, 07:14:01 PM
"Simpletons? Matthew was a government employee...a tax-collector. Paul was clearly a scholar under the tutelage of one of the greatest rabbis of his day. So, no."
So yes. At the time and place 98% of the population were illiterate. You mention 2 out of 12 apostles. Jesus himself was a woodworker, one step above slave. They were all simpletons otherwise we would read about the germ theory or DNA or quantum mechanics or electricity or.....
The Jesus in the bible and his crew were with a couple exceptions carpenters, fishermen etc. who according to you were not only literate but spoke and wrote in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Even your godly dude Christos had no idea that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed. Duh. These people had no clue about anything but smiting, stoning and enslaving.
Give us ONE (1!) word in the bible that could not have been written by a simpleton and I stand corrected. Anything that would make our jaws drop in awe or be remotely surprised. Please prove us wrong.
The word "simpleton" means "a foolish or gullible person". Foolish and gullible people can be literate. People who are illiterate are not automatically foolish or gullible.
Aside from the brilliant theology of Paul or the poetry of the Psalms which both require a true talent, I offer this well-known passage which many people regard as among the most beautiful ever written:
Quote1 Corinthians 13:4-13
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Either you can appreciate the beauty of the prose or you cannot.
However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of the gospels which is the topic of this thread.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 11:07:22 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 07:31:57 PM
Mark's Gospel ends at 16:8 leaving the women afraid and failing to record the resurrection (only the empty tomb), Christ's final instructions, and the Ascension.
Mark's gospel ended this way:
QuoteMark 16:6-7
6 “Don’t be alarmed,†he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’â€
"He is risen." Yeah...Mark knew that Jesus rose from the dead.
QuoteIf it weren't for the last 12 verses, added later, there would be exactly 666 verses in the gospel of Mark. Isn't that special?
The earliest manuscripts suggest that the Mark of the Beast is actually 616, but so what?
QuoteJohn 6:66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Are YOU a former Christian?
But in all seriousness, the chapter and verse numbers were added centuries later. They were not part of the original texts, and they were not inspired.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 11:11:42 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 11:11:42 AM
"Either you can appreciate the beauty of the prose or you cannot.
However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of the gospels which is the topic of this thread".
It's wonderful poetry, no doubt. So is Shakespeare, Larkin, Dunne, and thousands others. Without silly claims pretending to be facts. At least we KNOW the authors also. The bible has beautiful passages of poetry and hundreds of pages of complete garbage and nonsense.
However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of the gospels which is the topic of this thread".
It's wonderful poetry, no doubt. So is Shakespeare, Larkin, Dunne, and thousands others. Without silly claims pretending to be facts. At least we KNOW the authors also. The bible has beautiful passages of poetry and hundreds of pages of complete garbage and nonsense.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 05, 2016, 11:14:19 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 05, 2016, 11:14:19 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 11:07:22 AMThe earliest manuscripts suggest that the Mark of the Beast is actually 616, but so what?
Actually, it was 666, but some writers knew what the original author meant and tried to correct it for their general audience. Back then, letters and numbers were the same. You could take someone's name and "calculate" what the number is. What name happens to add up to 666? Neron Caesar. That was what the Hebrew speakers called Nero Caesar. But since most of their growing numbers were not Hebrews, some copiers of the manuscripts changed it to 616 so that it would be the number that corresponds to Caesar's more common name.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 11:24:49 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: trdsf on May 04, 2016, 07:41:27 PM
Again, incorrect. Reliable people tell us what they know to be true because other people can verify their statements independently. Mere eyewitness reporting is the least compelling form of evidence. I assert that I have seen a flying saucer. Do you believe me? I mean, I'm an eyewitness telling you it's true.
And this is incorrect. If you do not PERSONALLY verify EVERYTHING you learn in life, then you admit that you are willing to accept some testimony on some subjects from people that you deem to be reliable. Dr. Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosphy at Oxford, argues for what he calls "the principle of testimony" - that in the absence of counter evidence, we should believe what others tells us they have done or seen.
QuoteBeijing? Sure, I'm willing to accept Beijing exists without having seen it myself. Not only is there an overwhelming (i.e., not just one book that's been multiply copied and translated over two millennia) body of evidence for the existence of the place from multiple disparate sources, but I can look for myself at the photographic evidence. There are far too many photos -- ground level and satellite -- for them all to have been photoshopped to be in accord with each other. You're asking for a conspiracy that dates back hundreds, thousands of years to deliberately fool the rest of the world into thinking that a city of several million exists when it doesn't. Occam's Razor cuts the throat of that pretty efficiently.
Sure. Now tell me what Alexander the Great looked like. Do we have any descriptions of him? Are they reliable?
QuoteThe far side of the moon? Obviously, it must have one. There is no such thing as a topologically simple physical object that has only one side. The photographs from multiple sources all agree. Unless, of course, you want to suggest the the former Soviet Union and the US have been colluding for 50 years to convince astronomers and interested amateurs that the far side of the moon looks as photographed, when it actually looks differently. Occam's Razor again plays Sweeney Todd.
Of course it has one. Describe it in detail. But first, where did you get the information you will base your description upon? By relying on others.
QuoteNow, there is a vast difference between my being willing to accept the existence of Beijing and the far side of the moon, and my being willing to accept either the historicity or the putative divinity of a first-century preacher in the Middle East. And the only "evidence" you're offering to accept the existence of this first century preacher's divinity is the very "evidence" that you're trying to assert in the first place.
Do you accept the existence of Nazareth? How about Arimathea?
See, the NT can be viewed as a non-inspired collection of books, and they can be tested to see how accurate the information contained in them really is. Archaeology has been very, very kind to Christianity.
Quote
I have two words for you: circular reasoning.
I use the word 'reasoning' advisedly.
Those two words are very important. When they actually apply. If you think they do in this case, then you have misunderstood my argument.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 11:32:35 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 11:32:35 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 11:24:49 AMYour arguments are crystal clear--and they are opinions and they are circular. But that does make sense for the scales that rest upon your eyes are circular and are very heavy--I doubt you will ever remove them. Tis a pity.
Those two words are very important. When they actually apply. If you think they do in this case, then you have misunderstood my argument.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 11:42:58 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 11:42:58 AM
"Aside from the brilliant theology of Paul or the poetry of the Psalms which both require a true talent, I offer this well-known passage which many people regard as among the most beautiful ever written"
Very nice...and now maybe you could offer us that single word I was challenging you about. Just one word that could have NOT been written by bronze age simpletons but could ONLY come from a divine source.
Thank you :evil:
Very nice...and now maybe you could offer us that single word I was challenging you about. Just one word that could have NOT been written by bronze age simpletons but could ONLY come from a divine source.
Thank you :evil:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 12:14:39 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 12:14:39 PM
Baruch, as a Jew do you accept the NT and the divinity of Jesus?
I am not a mystic but belief in spirituality (non religious) as long as I can differentiate between the numinous and the supernatural.
I am not Jewish but lost most of my family in WWII. Every male in my family (6) were killed in Russia for absolutely nothing. So I feel with you and your tribe especially now during Yom HaShoa.
I am not a mystic but belief in spirituality (non religious) as long as I can differentiate between the numinous and the supernatural.
I am not Jewish but lost most of my family in WWII. Every male in my family (6) were killed in Russia for absolutely nothing. So I feel with you and your tribe especially now during Yom HaShoa.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 05, 2016, 02:05:36 AM
Since the question is whether or not Jesus claimed to be divine, someone else recording his words would not be the original source.
Jesus is the source of the words. The autographs of the gospels are the original sources of those accounts which recorded those words. But I think we are in sync.
QuoteIf I were to create my own religious text, I would claim it to be from someone else who directly experienced the miraculous events I write about.
Yes!
QuoteSomeone like a disciple of the religious leader.
Yes!
QuoteAnd if I could make up a transformation story about how this hated tax collector became a holy man, that'd make my religion seem all the more exciting.
Yes!
Except that there is actually almost nothing the the gospels about Matthew's growth in holiness. Peter, James and John, sure. But Matthew? And here is the bigger problem:
Suppose you wrote a book about the current political and economic situation in the United States. In the book you laid out your vision for what steps we need to take as a nation in order to turn things around and get them moving in the right direction. Then you publish the book under the name of "Ted Cruz" and try to sell it at a Donald Trump rally? Do you see a potential problem here? Is there any reason to think that you might not sell too many copies of the book?
The Romans occupied Israel, and the Jews HATED them. They were pagans. They imposed taxes. And they openly mocked these unsophisticated, bronze-age, goat herders and their silly superstitions about "one god". The Jews also hated those who collaborated with the Romans - like the tax collectors. Every watch a documentary about what happened to people who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. When France was liberated, it did not go well for those women who had taken German lovers. The men who collaborated were shot.
So, if you're trying to sell a book about Jesus (who already had a bad rap having been hung on a tree which was proof of being cursed by God according to scripture), and you want to sell it in the greater Jerusalem metropolitan area, claiming that it was authored by a Roman collaborator on the dust jacket was not a smart marketing strategy.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
QuoteIf I claimed to be an eyewitness myself, then I would have to prove my credibility.
Yes!
Which is why there are explicit statements to this effect from Luke, John and Peter. And why we need to verify these statements for ourselves.
QuoteBut if I "found" a letter from Paul, who are they to question such an important leader of the church?
Yes!
Provided you could prove that it was actually from Paul, of course.
QuoteBelieve it or not, Christians wouldn't be the first to lie to create their religious documents. I don't believe Islamic texts just because "hey, these copies are the same, so we must know what the original author wrote!"
Of course not. The existence of accurate texts means nothing. However, without accurate texts we have nothing to discuss. They are a pre-requisite.
And as this thread seeks to explain, the texts must have been written early enough to have been authored by eyewitnesses before they all died out.
The texts are reliable. They were written early.
QuoteYou are painfully naive.
Really? You know this or you are assuming it because my beliefs differ from yours and it is convenient to dismiss me?
QuoteIf J. Warner Wallace was convinced so easily, that's his problem.
Yeah, because no true atheist would ever convert, right? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
QuoteEyewitness testimony has long been known to be an EXTREMELY unreliable source of information. Not only that, but we don't have eyewitnesses to go by.
Your first point is absurd. We rely on eyewitnesses EVERY day. Your second point is irrelevant. We have indirect testimony from the eyewitnesses who wrote them. This type of evidence is just as valid in a court of law as direct evidence.
QuoteWe have copies of copies of copies of documents SUPPOSEDLY written by eyewitnesses.
Yep. And using the methodology of textual criticism (discussed in another thread), we can reconstruct the original texts with a high degree of accuracy.
QuoteNot only that, but we have copies of copies of documents supposedly written by eyewitnesses of SUPERNATURAL EVENTS. I'd sooner trust someone who claimed to have been abducted by an alien spacecraft. At least then I know who the original source of the information is.
So, now we come to the heart of the matter.
If we have accurate texts written by men who can be shown to be reliable by careful examination of the details included in their accounts and to have been corroborated by non-Christian sources, then we are faced with the question of what to do with their claims.
Were they lying? Did they actually believe what they wrote? What accounts for the fact that otherwise sober, honest men make an otherwise unbelievable claim of supernatural events?
QuoteOr they are people who copied down stories passed down verbally to them.
Mark and Luke did. Accurately. We can test this.
QuoteOr they are people who forged those documents. We have no reason to believe the authors are who they are claimed to be.
You mean other than two facts:
1. The earliest sources ascribe the books to the traditional authors, and
2. There is no competing list of candidates who might have written them?
QuoteJesus two genealogy accounts claim two different fathers for Joseph. (Contrary to what apologists say, Luke specifically states the his genealogy is from Joseph's side of the family in 3:23.)
Really? What if Joseph had two fathers as a result of Levirate marriage requirements?
QuoteMatthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, while Luke said that he was born during the first census of Israel after Quirinius became governor, which happened 10 years AFTER Herod died.
Luke claims that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there, but Matthew says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem THEN Joseph and Mary moved to Nazareth. Both authors jumped through hoops to put Jesus in Bethlehem, even inventing the ridiculous claim that the census required everyone to travel to their original home town. The point of a census is to count numbers, not to keep record of where everyone was born. And even if they needed that information, it would have been less expensive just to ASK.
In John 1:29, John the Baptist declares who Jesus is as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" just before Baptising Jesus for the beginning of his ministry. But later, when he's thrown into prison in the book of Luke, John sends some of his men to Jesus to ask, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?" I guess watching God descend on Jesus head like a dove wasn't a clear enough message for John... Or, you know, both stories, written by different men, were made up.
The first three gospel books claim that the Last Supper took place on the day of the Passover, while the book of John says that the Last Supper was the day before the Passover and that Jesus was crucified the day of the Passover.
Matthew 27:7 says the priests bought the potter's field while Acts 1:18 says that Judas bought it. Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hung himself out of grief. Acts 1:18 says that Judas tripped and accidentally disemboweled himself with a sharp rock.
After seeing the angel at Jesus' empty tomb, Mary simultaneously tells no one about it out of fear (Mark 16:8) and immediately ran to tell the eleven disciples about what she found (every other account).
No sign shall be given to this generation (Mark 8:12), but many people followed Jesus because of the miracles he performed (John 6:2).
The disciples are instructed both to take a staff (Mark 6:8) and not to take a staff (Matthew 10:9-10).
Oh...stump the apologist, eh?
Okay, but not in this thread. Start your own.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:37:08 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 06:38:05 AM
Yawn ... I see nothing new is happening. Randy ... you need to try harder, without repeating yourself.
"Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth." ... there are no reliable men.
Can we rely on Einstein to teach us about relativity? What about Stephen Hawking to explain black holes? Or Francis Collins to discuss the human genome?
Oh, wait...Collins became a Christian which PROVES he's an idiot... (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
QuoteI am not sure G-d is reliable (pretty sure G-d is not). Greeks and Irish think that words are true. Zen knows that words are powerless. Testimonies ... again ... speaks to primitive trial situations. Old Roman trials asked ... Qui Bono. Who benefits? Well the Roman Emperor and the "orthodox/catholic" clergy who become civil servants ... benefit. But no miracles please ... you only discredit yourself. Any real Jesus ... was clinically psycho. That does work in your favor, because I feel that G-d is real, but psycho.
Ah. So, Jesus was a Lunatic who merely claimed to be God?
And how did the apostles benefit from their claim that Jesus was alive? What was their motivation?
Did they genuinely believe it to be true? Or were they lying?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:42:42 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:42:42 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 10:53:06 AM
That's an easy one. To list them all would take a couple of weeks to write and for you to read. Here are a couple of obvious ones
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.
Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).
In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).
According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:
There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.
By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.
a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.
b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.
Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
It's a start. Something to ponder for our resident apologist.
1. My request was directed to Unbeliever. Let him have a chance.
2. If you REALLY need these issues addressed, start your own thread.
3. If I do address them, what will that prove? Will you concede that Jesus rose from the dead at that point? Or will you merely dredge up another list?
IOW, at what point will you concede that I have successfully defended the New Testament? Without a clear path to victory, why should I play your game?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:43:50 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:43:50 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 11:11:42 AM
"Either you can appreciate the beauty of the prose or you cannot.
However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of the gospels which is the topic of this thread".
It's wonderful poetry, no doubt. So is Shakespeare, Larkin, Dunne, and thousands others. Without silly claims pretending to be facts. At least we KNOW the authors also. The bible has beautiful passages of poetry and hundreds of pages of complete garbage and nonsense.
Yes. And none of the authors you listed were simpletons. My point is made.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:50:36 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:50:36 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 05, 2016, 11:14:19 AM
Actually, it was 666, but some writers knew what the original author meant and tried to correct it for their general audience. Back then, letters and numbers were the same. You could take someone's name and "calculate" what the number is. What name happens to add up to 666? Neron Caesar. That was what the Hebrew speakers called Nero Caesar. But since most of their growing numbers were not Hebrews, some copiers of the manuscripts changed it to 616 so that it would be the number that corresponds to Caesar's more common name.
<sigh>
Now, I got my information from a talk on YouTube by one of the world's leading experts on ancient biblical manuscripts, Dr. Daniel Wallace. But you won't bother to listen to him - not because he's wrong - but because he's a Christian. So, you can get the confirmation you need of what I already told you here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_(number)
QuoteWhile 666 is called the "number of the beast" in most manuscripts of Revelation 13:18,[1] a fragment of papyrus 115 gives the number as 616.
(http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast300.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 12:59:25 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 12:59:25 PM
"1. My request was directed to Unbeliever. Let him have a chance.
2. If you REALLY need these issues addressed, start your own thread.
3. If I do address them, what will that prove? Will you concede that Jesus rose from the dead at that point? Or will you merely dredge up another list?"
Are you telling me where and when I can post? LOL Try again...
What have the contradictions I listed to do with Jesus rising from the dead? The point is just that: there is so much nonsense and contradictions in your book that the claim of resurrection is just another fallacy. Do you personally KNOW people who rose from the dead? Please share.
"IOW, at what point will you concede that I have successfully defended the New Testament? Without a clear path to victory, why should I play your game?"
You are joking, I know. It's OK, I have the faculty of humor. FACT is that you not only have proven nothing but exposed your ignorance.
2. If you REALLY need these issues addressed, start your own thread.
3. If I do address them, what will that prove? Will you concede that Jesus rose from the dead at that point? Or will you merely dredge up another list?"
Are you telling me where and when I can post? LOL Try again...
What have the contradictions I listed to do with Jesus rising from the dead? The point is just that: there is so much nonsense and contradictions in your book that the claim of resurrection is just another fallacy. Do you personally KNOW people who rose from the dead? Please share.
"IOW, at what point will you concede that I have successfully defended the New Testament? Without a clear path to victory, why should I play your game?"
You are joking, I know. It's OK, I have the faculty of humor. FACT is that you not only have proven nothing but exposed your ignorance.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:02:01 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:02:01 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 11:32:35 AM
Your arguments are crystal clear--and they are opinions and they are circular. But that does make sense for the scales that rest upon your eyes are circular and are very heavy--I doubt you will ever remove them. Tis a pity.
If my arguments are crystal clear and circular, you should have no problem illustrating this.
Please show me.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:50:36 PM
<sigh>
Now, I got my information from a talk on YouTube by one of the world's leading experts on ancient biblical manuscripts, Dr. Daniel Wallace. But you won't bother to listen to him - not because he's wrong - but because he's a Christian. So, you can get the confirmation you need of what I already told you here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_(number)
(http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast300.jpg)
I trust what experiments show about that scrap ... not what Einstein or Hawking say about it.
That proves that scraps of papyrus exist (as is already known). Also that in handwriting study, and carbon dating, it can be approximately dated. Doesn't prove people arising from the dead, or any Jewish or Universal messiah. But it is amazing what bits and pieces survive from centuries ago.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:03:42 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:03:42 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 11:42:58 AM
"Aside from the brilliant theology of Paul or the poetry of the Psalms which both require a true talent, I offer this well-known passage which many people regard as among the most beautiful ever written"
Very nice...and now maybe you could offer us that single word I was challenging you about. Just one word that could have NOT been written by bronze age simpletons but could ONLY come from a divine source.
Thank you :evil:
How could we know that God is a trinity if He had not revealed it to us? How could we have discovered it on our own?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:05:37 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 12:59:25 PM
"1. My request was directed to Unbeliever. Let him have a chance.
2. If you REALLY need these issues addressed, start your own thread.
3. If I do address them, what will that prove? Will you concede that Jesus rose from the dead at that point? Or will you merely dredge up another list?"
Are you telling me where and when I can post? LOL Try again...
What have the contradictions I listed to do with Jesus rising from the dead? The point is just that: there is so much nonsense and contradictions in your book that the claim of resurrection is just another fallacy. Do you personally KNOW people who rose from the dead? Please share.
"IOW, at what point will you concede that I have successfully defended the New Testament? Without a clear path to victory, why should I play your game?"
You are joking, I know. It's OK, I have the faculty of humor. FACT is that you not only have proven nothing but exposed your ignorance.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/computers/compcoff.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Christian innumeracy ;-) Also in Kabbalah we know that G-d has 10 parts, as is shown by my ten fingers/thumbs. That trumps St Patrick with the shamrock.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:08:08 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:08:08 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
I trust what experiments show about that scrap ... not what Einstein or Hawking say about it.
That proves that scraps of papyrus exist (as is already known). Also that in handwriting study, and carbon dating, it can be approximately dated. Doesn't prove people arising from the dead, or any Jewish or Universal messiah. But it is amazing what bits and pieces survive from centuries ago.
Indeed. This scrap is simply one that shows that the number is 616 and not 616 - possibly.
Studying these scraps and those which are much larger, of course, is how we arrive at an accurate text for the NT.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:09:00 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:09:00 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Christian innumeracy ;-) Also in Kabbalah we know that G-d has 10 parts, as is shown by my ten fingers/thumbs. That trumps St Patrick with the shamrock.
God has no parts. He is simple (as in "not complex").
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 01:13:33 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 01:13:33 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:03:42 PM
How could we know that God is a trinity if He had not revealed it to us? How could we have discovered it on our own?
Phew! Why didn't I think of that? LOL You KNOW that there is a god and he is a trinity, including a ghost.
I was asking you for a (ONE) word that could not have been written by mortals like you and I. No dice?????
Maybe if you get your head out of your arse, you will understand the question.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 01:48:27 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 01:48:27 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 01:13:33 PMI'm afraid it is so far up that he does not really need blinders--the colon wall are his blinders. It is simply round and round we go--with no stop in sight.
Phew! Why didn't I think of that? LOL You KNOW that there is a god and he is a trinity, including a ghost.
I was asking you for a (ONE) word that could not have been written by mortals like you and I. No dice?????
Maybe if you get your head out of your arse, you will understand the question.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:56:06 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:56:06 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 05:01:20 PM
I see that you do understand the sane rules of the game. But you don't play by them. You say your god exists. You say Jesus is the son of god. Yet you feel you don't have to prove it. It is simply self evident to you. As you said--all you have is an opinion. I guess you feel that badgering a person, nagging them, hounding them gets them (or at least some of them) to believe as you do. If you say it enough then it has to be true. Typical of your ilk. Doesn't work on me; once I get the sense that you are simply full of hot air and opinion, I simply become more ensconced in my position.
Well, clearly, this is untrue. I have come to this forum with the express purpose of presenting a strong case for Christianity. I have started several threads which provide the necessary foundation for proceeding with an investigation of the claims of Jesus and the Church.
My OPINION is that the case is strong.
QuoteAs far as nothing being supernatural, this is how it works. All that I can see, touch, feel, smell, experience is based in nature. The entire universe is natural. In order for something to be supernatural, it has to be not of nature. The is nothing that is not of nature.
And what is your proof for that last sentence, Mike?
QuoteYes, people have claimed that there is the spiritual realm and that they have had spiritual experiences. Good for them. But those are all personal happenings, and they cannot reproduce it. And the skeptical Randy will pay you a million dollars if you can prove there is anything supernatural in this universe.
If that could be proved empirically, who wouldn't be willing to pay for that information?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:57:07 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:57:07 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 05:06:18 PM
Yes Randy, you should know. You live in a perpetual corner always running out the same old tired bromides, same old opinions foisted on us as facts---time and again as though saying it enough somehow validates your thoughts. Yes, it is a pity.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:01:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:01:44 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 06:38:23 PM
I don't believe there was any such place as Nazasreth - it was a misunderstanding of the term 'nazarite', which had nothing to do with any place:
Thanks. I wrote "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of just "Jesus" to see if anyone would take the bait. It was too easy.
Pavlovian, really.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:06:05 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 06:50:59 PM
Science doesn't deal with magic and miracles. Those things are mysteriously invisible to science. Yet you continue to put the burden of proof on others to show that your assumptions are NOT true. Skepticism is the default position, not belief.
Easy. They're not facts. Done. Neither your religion or Islam have any facts. You have beliefs.
No, Blackleaf. These are facts that are acknowledged by real scholars who hold a broad spectrum of beliefs.
But let me illustrate why only the ignorant deny these five facts.
The Christian Church: why does it exist?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:08:47 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:08:47 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 04, 2016, 07:35:52 PM
<stupid meme removed>
Ah...so we have reached that stage in your argumentation. I had hoped you might do better.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: hrdlr110 on May 04, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
The evidence we give you for this is probably already within your reach, maybe even sitting in your lap right this minute. Your hOlY biBLe and its many inconsistencies is what we often use as our evidence.
The Bible (and I'd like to focus on the NT since it is smaller, younger and more easy to review and manage) does contain some inconsistencies. So what?
Eyewitness testimony OFTEN contains inconsistencies. For example, the witnesses to the Michael Brown shooting in Missouri disagreed as to whether he was running toward or away from the police officer who shot him. Yet no one denied that he was dead.
There may be some inconsistencies in the gospels, but none of them denied that Jesus was raised from the dead. Their testimony is remarkably consistent.
QuoteI have one next to my bed as well - because of people like you. Cover to cover it's a tough read. If i were starting a religion today, and the bible was my marketing material to woo a potential following, I'd most likely be locked up.
That might be true. Good thing God has better timing than you. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:14:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:14:44 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 06:42:25 AM
This is why in the US, Christianity is simplified ... for the rubes. Down to WWJD.
Hey, as a Catholic (and former Protestant), I could not agree more.
It's also why Mohammed simplified Christianity and Judaism when he invented Islam.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:15:46 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:15:46 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2016, 06:46:16 AM
And your efforts to promote their credibility are tainted by a severe bias that you obviously don't notice.
Are you referring to their bias? Or to mine? Both may exist, but we would deal with them differently.
Please advise.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:45:34 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:45:34 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 01:13:33 PM
Phew! Why didn't I think of that? LOL You KNOW that there is a god and he is a trinity, including a ghost.
I was asking you for a (ONE) word that could not have been written by mortals like you and I. No dice?????
Maybe if you get your head out of your arse, you will understand the question.
Any word used by humans could obviously be written by humans.
I, on the other hand, have demonstrated two TYPES of things that could not be reasonably attributed to simpletons:
1. Beautiful prose.
2. Theological mystery.
Maybe if you think a little deeper, you will understand my answers.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 05, 2016, 04:40:00 PM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 05, 2016, 04:40:00 PM
I don't think Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter are good examples. You guys keep forgetting that these people actually, really believe that these stories happened in 'reality' while both sides agree former examples are fiction. There is no suitable example from their point of view, because it is not a fantasy for them.
OK, this could get things far worse, but let's try:
Brothers Karamazov is accurate. The family never existed, but it's accurate. Alyosha is a nice guy. Fyodor is a douchebag. A fucking a parasite. I can attest to that.
Crime and Punishment is accurate. Raskolnikov is a sad, desperate man, dealing with real problems. I always liked him. I can describe him to you and I have even seen people who looks just like him.
Gregor Samsa is still sleeping on that bed. There are billions of Gregor Samsas in the world, many of them sleeping in that bed right now. They will never get transformed into a bug, but what they are feeling is very accurate.
Zeze is actually a very clever, hyperactive boy. He gets beaten a lot. He really cut his feet deep with that piece of glass and read the word 'pharmacy' correctly the first time. There are many Zezes in Rio and they are being beaten up badly everyday.
OK, this could get things far worse, but let's try:
Brothers Karamazov is accurate. The family never existed, but it's accurate. Alyosha is a nice guy. Fyodor is a douchebag. A fucking a parasite. I can attest to that.
Crime and Punishment is accurate. Raskolnikov is a sad, desperate man, dealing with real problems. I always liked him. I can describe him to you and I have even seen people who looks just like him.
Gregor Samsa is still sleeping on that bed. There are billions of Gregor Samsas in the world, many of them sleeping in that bed right now. They will never get transformed into a bug, but what they are feeling is very accurate.
Zeze is actually a very clever, hyperactive boy. He gets beaten a lot. He really cut his feet deep with that piece of glass and read the word 'pharmacy' correctly the first time. There are many Zezes in Rio and they are being beaten up badly everyday.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 05:07:13 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 05:07:13 PM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 05, 2016, 04:40:00 PMYour examples are good. The results will be the same. As you fully realize, theists don't think, they believe. So, to suggest they use some critical thinking would roll off them like water off a ducks back. Many would not even know what you are talking about, since they believe they already are thinking critically; they conflate thinking with believing. And when they really need to turn from critical thinking they use their faith. A Randy will never lose his faith--unless something just shakes him to his core and he can't help but notice that faith means nothing. And who knows what that something would be; and it doesn't happen very often. Randy could carry on like this forever and nothing we say will even register with him that he is wrong about anything or even a small detail is incorrect. He is the Catholic Church's dream lay person--he just prays and pays and tries to suck in more and more paying customers.
I don't think Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter are good examples. You guys keep forgetting that these people actually, really believe that these stories happened in 'reality' while both sides agree former examples are fiction. There is no suitable example from their point of view, because it is not a fantasy for them.
OK, this could get things far worse, but let's try:
Brothers Karamazov is accurate. The family never existed, but it's accurate. Alyosha is a nice guy. Fyodor is a douchebag. A fucking a parasite. I can attest to that.
Crime and Punishment is accurate. Raskolnikov is a sad, desperate man, dealing with real problems. I always liked him. I can describe him to you and I have even seen people who looks just like him.
Gregor Samsa is still sleeping on that bed. There are billions of Gregor Samsas in the world, many of them sleeping in that bed right now. They will never get transformed into a bug, but what they are feeling is very accurate.
Zeze is actually a very clever, hyperactive boy. He gets beaten a lot. He really cut his feet deep with that piece of glass and read the word 'pharmacy' correctly the first time. There are many Zezes in Rio and they are being beaten up badly everyday.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 05, 2016, 05:32:38 PM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 05, 2016, 05:32:38 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Christian innumeracy ;-) Also in Kabbalah we know that G-d has 10 parts, as is shown by my ten fingers/thumbs. That trumps St Patrick with the shamrock.
:rotflmao:
Nothing trumps St Pat... It's da BEEER!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 05:41:29 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 05:41:29 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:01:44 PM
Thanks. I wrote "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of just "Jesus" to see if anyone would take the bait. It was too easy.
Pavlovian, really.
OK, I'll bite:
If there was no Nazareth, how could there be such a person as Jesus of Nazareth?
There were certainly many people with the name Jesus in those days, Josephus records several, I think.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2016, 05:45:09 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2016, 05:45:09 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:06:05 PMPeople are really good at thinking up scams.
The Christian Church: why does it exist?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 05:53:26 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 05:53:26 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AMWell, I did research, but the ordering is mine. I can't claim to have personally rooted out every one of them, but I saw similar lists that were all jumbled up, with no easy way to find any particular contradiction, so I just put them in some order to make it easier.
Is this your personal work? Or are you merely linking me to someone else's site? I'm just curious, because I have access to sites and books that respond with volumes of material, too.
QuoteInstead, maybe you could layout for me a couple of contradictions from the NT that you find most damning for the truth of Christianity. Then we can actually have a conversation about those.
Thanks.
Well, here's an easy ont to start with:
45. Is Jesus' witness of himself true?
Yes
Jn 8:14
QuoteJesus answered and said unto him, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell hence I come, and whither I go.No
Jn 5:31
QuoteIf I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 06:01:08 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 06:01:08 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 11:07:22 AM
Mark's gospel ended this way:
"He is risen." Yeah...Mark knew that Jesus rose from the dead.
The earliest manuscripts suggest that the Mark of the Beast is actually 616, but so what?
So, some guy just happens to be there to tell them Jesus was risen, and they believed him!?
QuoteAre YOU a former Christian?
Yeah, I was raised as a Southern Baptist, but then I read the Bible, and that put the kibosh on that.
QuoteBut in all seriousness, the chapter and verse numbers were added centuries later. They were not part of the original texts, and they were not inspired.
Yeah, I know, it's just a fun fact that, as far as I know, no one before me noticed. I could be wrong on that, though, I just haven't seen it anywhere else.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 06:25:40 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 06:25:40 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:06:05 PM
The Christian Church: why does it exist?
Because, as Jerry Falwell said, "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 06:26:00 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 06:26:00 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:45:34 PMBut not any word from a omnipotent deity. Gotcha
Any word used by humans could obviously be written by humans.
Imagine if the bible would say 'and at the end of the 20th century A.D. (!) a communication method will be invented called the internet. Astronauts from a continent called America will land and walk on the moon and at roughly the same time the first heart transplant will be performed in South Africa.'
But no such thing. Instead we have to stay away from our neighbor's ass and worry about gnashing teeth. Maybe if you think a little deeper you will understand.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:13:04 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:13:04 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:08:08 PM
Indeed. This scrap is simply one that shows that the number is 616 and not 616 - possibly.
Studying these scraps and those which are much larger, of course, is how we arrive at an accurate text for the NT.
As made up in the fevered imaginations of Nestle-Aland. I have a copy of the 26th edition ... it keeps changing from edition to edition, and variant readings keep disappearing. Newspeak anyone?
Scribes made mistakes and emendations all the time ... unless they were Jewish. The tradition still stands, you have to throw out a Torah scroll for a single mistake ... no erasing or lining out like the Codex Siniaticus ... in Jewish terms, $40,000 down the drain if you make a mistake.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:14:28 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:14:28 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 01:09:00 PM
God has no parts. He is simple (as in "not complex").
Innumeracy ... 3 not equal to 1, 10 not equal to 1 either. You are criticizing the wrong point ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:16:02 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:16:02 PM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 05, 2016, 05:32:38 PM
:rotflmao:
Nothing trumps St Pat... It's da BEEER!
I like him too ... even if he did practice Druid magic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:22:33 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:22:33 PM
"But in all seriousness, the chapter and verse numbers were added centuries later. They were not part of the original texts, and they were not inspired."
Wrong, it is very inspired. Try reading without any chapter, verse or punctuation! It is a great improvement on the original. But not as great an invention as an electronic text that can be freely "string" searched ... that could only come from Roswell aliens ;-)
The chapter divisions were devised around 1200 CE. The verse divisions were devised around 1550 CE, after printing was developed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible
Wrong, it is very inspired. Try reading without any chapter, verse or punctuation! It is a great improvement on the original. But not as great an invention as an electronic text that can be freely "string" searched ... that could only come from Roswell aliens ;-)
The chapter divisions were devised around 1200 CE. The verse divisions were devised around 1550 CE, after printing was developed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:51:37 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:51:37 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 12:14:39 PM
Baruch, as a Jew do you accept the NT and the divinity of Jesus?
I am not a mystic but belief in spirituality (non religious) as long as I can differentiate between the numinous and the supernatural.
I am not Jewish but lost most of my family in WWII. Every male in my family (6) were killed in Russia for absolutely nothing. So I feel with you and your tribe especially now during Yom HaShoa.
Thanks for the commiseration. I am sorry for your family's loss as well. Fortunately most of my people were in the US already. We don't know what happened to the Czech relatives. There are many tragedies for many people ... Jewish people are not special ... just more pissed!
You are very careful, to separate numinous from supernatural. Words entrap, particularly in dialectical opposition. "Natural" and "supernatural" are poor choices ... actually "numinous" is much better, but most people wouldn't realize that!
No, I am not a Christian Jew (also often called Messianic Jew). But I have worshipped with both Regular Jews, Messianic Jews and Christians. My spirituality is too universal to be overly ethnic. For the last several years I have been irreligious, but still theist. So no, I don't accept the NT or Jesus' divinity ... as such. But then I don't accept the OT or Moses' divinity ... as such. What I mean by scripture and by divinity, doesn't fit a stereotype. After studying most religions intensively, I can see the value in each, particular the Eastern ones. I am just not very social in my old age. But I might get back to the social aspect some day. Never say never ;-) But I am not far from being a Universalist Unitarian.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:54:02 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:54:02 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:14:44 PM
Hey, as a Catholic (and former Protestant), I could not agree more.
It's also why Mohammed simplified Christianity and Judaism when he invented Islam.
The most fundamentalist Sunnis have reduced Islam down to WWMD. Sad. Yet, they don't ride a camel to work (in most places). If following WWJD ... I suppose one could ride a donkey are just walk.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 09:50:50 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 09:50:50 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 08:51:37 PM
No, I am not a Christian Jew (also often called Messianic Jew). But I have worshipped with both Regular Jews, Messianic Jews and Christians. My spirituality is too universal to be overly ethnic. For the last several years I have been irreligious, but still theist. So no, I don't accept the NT or Jesus' divinity ... as such. But then I don't accept the OT or Moses' divinity ... as such. What I mean by scripture and by divinity, doesn't fit a stereotype. After studying most religions intensively, I can see the value in each, particular the Eastern ones. I am just not very social in my old age. But I might get back to the social aspect some day. Never say never ;-) But I am not far from being a Universalist Unitarian.
To stay with the topic of the thread, I was just curious if you accept the NT and Jesus' divinity. You answered it eloquently but left me somewhat confused. You don't accept the Torah either but you state that you are a 'freethinking theist" which is a bit of an oxymoron to me. I'd like to separate spirituality and faith but free thinking usually cancels out faith or theism. You don't adhere to any dogma but you are a theist? I just can't get my head around it but if you can do that, all the power to you, friend.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 06, 2016, 02:33:16 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 06, 2016, 02:33:16 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 02:06:05 PM
No, Blackleaf. These are facts that are acknowledged by real scholars who hold a broad spectrum of beliefs.
But let me illustrate why only the ignorant deny these five facts.
The Christian Church: why does it exist?
The Mormon Church: why does it exist?
Muslims: why do they exist?
Stupid people who wouldn't know good logic if it was delivered via ACME anvil landing on their feet: why do you exist?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:01:09 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:01:09 AM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 09:50:50 PM
To stay with the topic of the thread, I was just curious if you accept the NT and Jesus' divinity. You answered it eloquently but left me somewhat confused. You don't accept the Torah either but you state that you are a 'freethinking theist" which is a bit of an oxymoron to me. I'd like to separate spirituality and faith but free thinking usually cancels out faith or theism. You don't adhere to any dogma but you are a theist? I just can't get my head around it but if you can do that, all the power to you, friend.
Freethinking certainly implies non-dogmatic. Otherwise I would be a dogmatic theist ;-( "Freethinking" is closer to the facts about me than irreligious. So being non-dogmatic, I certainly can't accept clerical authority or scriptural authority or even lay group think. So once you take the authority out of religion, it is just a voluntary social club of like-thinking people. Though when I was married to a pastor, voluntary took on nuances ;-) So definitely arguments about NT accuracy are curiosities to me, not really important. Scripture means writing, and I am making new scripture right here, right now. But of course, I still have my own psychology, independent of my social relationships. But that is another thread.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:02:58 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:02:58 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 06, 2016, 02:33:16 AM
The Mormon Church: why does it exist?
Muslims: why do they exist?
Stupid people who wouldn't know good logic if it was delivered via ACME anvil landing on their feet: why do you exist?
Psychology and sociology trumps "snicker" logic. And average intelligence is a low bar, and most people try to limbo, not jump over.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 09:10:21 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 09:10:21 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:01:09 AMThat's what I've always liked about you Baruch. You think.
Freethinking certainly implies non-dogmatic. Otherwise I would be a dogmatic theist ;-( "Freethinking" is closer to the facts about me than irreligious. So being non-dogmatic, I certainly can't accept clerical authority or scriptural authority or even lay group think. So once you take the authority out of religion, it is just a voluntary social club of like-thinking people. Though when I was married to a pastor, voluntary took on nuances ;-) So definitely arguments about NT accuracy are curiosities to me, not really important. Scripture means writing, and I am making new scripture right here, right now. But of course, I still have my own psychology, independent of my social relationships. But that is another thread.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 12:22:58 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 12:22:58 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMCorrection, it's from fringe scholars and historians you got this. The MAJORITY do not agree with you. Every scientific field has their fringe nuts. In evolution it's Michael Behe. In physics it's Giorgio Tsoukalos. There are a few with climate change.
First, it was from scholars and historians that I GOT most of this. Experts already know this; it's the muddled masses who need to know.
The thing is YOU DO NOT GET TO PICK which historians you want to listen to. Yeah, they can give a convincing argument...to you. But their argument seem to fall the hell apart when they give it to their colleagues.
Which is why they (and you) feel they need to "take it to the public", a VERY well known way to peddle scientific bunk. If you can't convince peers because they know better the next best thing is to take it to the "muddled masses". If you can't prove you're right, well, at least convince a bunch of people who don't know better than you have. And THAT is what you and your heavily biased "scholars and historians" are doing.
I will make you a bet right now. NOT ONE of the people you get your information found religion based on their research into history, but EVERY ONE of them is Christian. That doesn't set up any red flags for you? That doesn't suggest that maybe this ONE THING they ALL have in common might just be a sign of a serious bias which just might be influencing their opinions? If not, you're deluded.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMI can't know anything about religion because I'm an atheist? Actually, many studies have found that atheists ROUTINELY know more about religion than religious people. That's just an ignorant statement. And, judging by some of the claims you've made here, especially claiming the the church can trace the line of popes clear back to the beginning, yes, I am very much one of those people who knows more about Christianity than you do. I was a Christian once and, unlike you, apparently, I looked into the viability of multiple Christian religions with an open mind with the intent of determining, not that it was real, not that it was false, but whether or not it was real. I didn't talk to any atheists during that 2 year search. I talked to only Christians of various Christian religions. And I got insight and perspective from multiple people in multiple religions, plus my own religious experiences, plus all the research I've done besides, plus reading the Bible. I know, for instance, that the Catholic church can only trace the line of popes back without dispute to, AT BEST, the third century. Any further back than that is definitely disputable. You, apparently, think the line is unbroken and ironclad clear back to Jesus. It is not. If you don't even know your own church's history how can I NOT know more about Christianity in general than you?
Second, are you one of those people who know more about Christianity than I do, widdershins? Hot damn! An atheist I can learn from at last! You have no idea how truly rare someone like you is in forums like this. EXTREMELY rare.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMNo, they don't acknowledge the "Five Minimal Facts". The first is "Jesus died". They don't even acknowledge that Jesus was a real historical figure, so how can they acknowledge these stupid "Minimal Assertions"? In fact, this argument is a method of AVOIDING having to prove that historical accuracy of the Bible.
Actually, no. Even skeptics acknowledge the Five Minimal Facts, and they make a powerful argument for the resurrection of Jesus. That's not conjecture, btw, that the result of a longitudinal study (30+ years) of peer-reviewed papers about Jesus published in scholarly journals. Bottom line: the majority of scholars accept these five facts, and they are supportive - not dismissive - of the core Christian message.
Those five "facts" are: 1. Jesus died, 2. Disciples believed they saw Jesus risen, 3. James the skeptical brother believed, 4. Paul the persecutor believed, 5. The tomb was empty. No, scholars and skeptics DO NOT acknowledge those as "facts". In fact, if you can't even prove that Jesus ever lived then NOT ONE of these "facts" is anything even resembling a "fact".
But let's put that aside. Let's say that everyone agrees with these ludicrous "facts". Dude dies + followers believe he rose + another dude believes + another dude believes + the tomb was empty = magic is real???? What the fuck? Even if your utter horseshit assertion that EVERYONE agrees with these 5 "facts" were true how does a guy dying + people believing he came back + one of the reasons they believed he came back make a "powerful argument" that magic happened? EVEN IF your idiotic and COMPLETELY FALSE assertion were true the only "powerful argument" it would make is that people were fucking stupid 2,000 years ago.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMActually, the acceptance of their celebrations was the method of conversion. Well, that, torture, death threats, the usual.
Actually, we converted both the pagans AND their celebrations and made them Christian. Pretty clever. Sorry if that bothers you somehow.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMAGAIN with the cherry picking of the EXCEPTIONS from the vast majority! Do you think finding one atheist scholar who says what you want to hear outweighs 100,000 atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu and other scientist saying what you DON'T want to hear? PLEASE finally understand that finding a few "exceptions" who agree with you, EVEN IF THEY ARE ATHEIST, does not prove that the MAJORITY are wrong! I DON'T CARE how many exceptions you can come up with or who they are. It's the MAJORITY I listen to because that is how science works! Frankly I'm getting sick of explaining how science works to you because it's the SAME FUCKING EXPLANATION EVERY SINGLE TIME! It's the MAJORITY which matters, NOT the credentials of each individual fringe. I don't care if Richard Fucking Dawkins accepts a historical Jesus, if the MAJORITY does not agree with him then HE IS WRONG until they do, THE FUCKING END!
Riiiiiiight. No historical evidence whatsoever. Sorry, but when even atheists like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan acknowledging the existence of Jesus, there's not much credibility for Jesus Mythicism. However, I see that you are saying, "He MAY HAVE existed." So, that's a step in the right direction.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMWhen I mentioned interpolations I was not talking about any "Christian" documents. I was talking about the tampered with "non-Christian" history. The "interpolation" to which I was referring is where the history says "some guy" and Christianity says, "Hey, that sounds like Jesus. Let's replace 'some guy' with Jesus."
I get all this. I do. But what you may be overlooking is the fact that researchers can admit, "Hey, there are some interpolations here...I wonder what the text looks like without them?" and then get to work sifting through the material.
And you know what, widdershins? When the variants and interpolations are taken into consideration, not a single Christian doctrine is called into question by them. Even Ehrman concedes this point.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMIt's simple. If you come to me using the tools of the devil then you are not sent by God. If you try to use the devil's tactics to convince me then you are not a messenger of God. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and you want me to follow you. It only makes sense to see where you're going before I hop on into your windowless van. I don't expect the followers of God to be perfect. Far from it. But, assuming God is real, what are the chances, do you think, that he would be okay with his people using the devil's toolbox to do his work? Do you REALLY think the vengeful, jealous God of the Bible would accept a liar into Heaven, EVEN IF that liar lied for what he believed was a good reason? Are God's people used car salesmen? Is God okay with them saying and doing whatever is necessary to save souls? Or is it more likely that if you come to me with a lie to convert me to your religion that you aren't really on the narrow path you think you're on and you'll actually be leading me astray? How the hell can you follow sin to Heaven? It's stupid if you think you can.
Now to your last point. This has to be one of the most illogical things I've heard in some time. If God is perfect and I am not, how does my lack of perfection call His into question? This simply does not follow. Being an imperfect follower of God does nothing to prove His imperfection because there is no claim that God makes ALL of His followers perfect. So, I may be the worst liar on the planet and this is no proof of God's lack of honesty.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMMan, you really don't see an issue with any of that argument do you? First, this is not a court of law. You would LIKE to use the standards of our legal system because they're actually a lot easier to meet than the standards of science, so you keep trying to get away from scientific method at every turn. I am NEVER going to accept an argument that throws out science and tries to rewrite the rules to make it easier for you to make your point.
Let me interject here that you are merely asserting that I am wrong without providing any evidence to prove what you are saying. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, widdershins, that the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts? What is your basis for believing this? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Second, have you EVER seen a case where the defendant had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he DIDN'T commit a crime? You don't prove a negative. Not in court, not in science, not on Internet forums discussing religion or other such voodoo nonsense. You are making the claim that magic is real, and it is a VERY high bar to prove beyond a "reasonable doubt" to prove that. You can't provide evidence for you, frankly, ludicrous claim that Jesus went around casting spells left and right 2,000 years ago. So the first thing you do is lower the bar for yourself. But even then it's STILL not low enough for you to prove magic is real. So then you shift the burden of proof onto me. Now you don't have to prove magic is real, I have to prove magic isn't real. But you know what, fucker? I can do that.
In all of history there has NEVER been a SINGLE proven case of any form of magic scientifically proven EVER!!! There's your reasonable fucking doubt.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMSo you DO know how science works, you just only use it when it's convenient and throw it out when it's not.
We do. And there are LOTS of copies, and the greater the number of copies, the easier it is for textual critics to determine what the original said. You like science? Great. This is a scientific approach for examining ancient texts.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMI really wish we could move on past this ridiculous courtroom nonsense. Science is nothing like a court of law. The rules of court to not apply here and they most certainly do not let us discard scientific method when it is inconvenient for our argument. Suddenly you don't like science so much again.
It doesn't apply and here's why (the author is an expert in this field):
Why the Hearsay Rule Shouldn’t Apply to the Gospels
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/why-the-hearsay-rule-shouldnt-apply-to-the-gospels/
Moving on.
You don't get to pick and choose which set of rules you want to follow at each step of your argument. You follow the same rules throughout the argument, and in this case those rules are scientific, not legal. We're not in a court. We're not prosecuting a case. We're talking history, and unfortunately for you, the debate is settled, by scientific rules, because the majority of historians and scholars disagree with what you would like to believe. So you switch to courtroom rules to lower the bar. That's not how reality works.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMRespect is earned. You want it, you earn it. You can start by not moving the goalposts all over the damned place by jumping back and forth between scientific and courtroom rules depending on how high you want the bar to be set.
Blah, blah, blah, more shit about court cases which really doesn't apply....
Can we begin with whether or not it's even possible? And to give me a fighting chance, can we begin by treating it (and me) with some respect?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMThey are the same. If Jesus turns water into wine you call it a miracle. If I do it you call it magic. But we both turned water into wine. We both did the same thing. You prefer that we not use the word magic to describe the particular magic you believe in. It bothers you to use the word "magic" to describe Jesus going all Harry Potter. But it's still magic. By the definition of magic, we're talking about magic and I will keep calling it magic because I believe it better illustrates how ludicrous your claim is. You are claiming that magic is real and Christians can cast spells through prayer. You would prefer it not be worded that way, but that statement is accurate.
We're talking about miracles...not "magic". We're considering whether the supernatural exists and, if so, how God might interact with the natural world.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMFair, but I don't care if you belittle my "lack of" beliefs. If you are going to make the claim that history shows Jesus was real, that history shows Jesus rose from the dead, that history shows magic is real, that is a belief I will very much belittle. You see, you are not simply claiming that you believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That, I could respect. You are claiming that history proves that Jesus rose from the dead, which means that you are claiming that history proves that magic is real, and that is not worthy of my respect. I can respect you if you present your beliefs as beliefs, and I would show you proper respect then. But when you're presenting an argument along the lines of, "It's stupid NOT to believe in magic because science shows how very real magic is", well, that's just stupid and I will treat it as stupid.
So, I won't belittle your beliefs, if you won't belittle mine. Fair?
EDIT: By the way, if you think you are not belittling my "beliefs" then you are very much mistaken. You come here, to the place I call home, and start demanding that we accept a history rewritten by you and a few fringe nuts, essentially claiming that we are unreasonable and/or stupid for not accepting your revisionist history. For some time now you have been making wild, unfounded assertions and all but saying that anyone who is both reasonable and intelligent must agree with you. If I made the claim that it's obvious Jesus never existed based on X, gave examples of people in the Catholic church agreeing with me (not the pope, mind you, just the odd priest here and there that you'd never heard of), COMPLETELY IGNORED the vast majority of Catholics who AND church doctrine, which says no such thing and, based on the cherry-picking of a few morons within your church made the claim that it was "obvious" that I was right, that it was "fact" because one wacky priest agrees with what I want to hear and that all "intelligent" people agree with me, would I be showing your beliefs any respect by doing that? Would I be showing you respect by pointing out the fringe and saying, "THAT is what your church teaches!"? Because that is what you are doing here. That's the "respect" that you are showing my "beliefs", not that you will do anything with that information other than to ignore it, as you have ever time I've brought up how you're ignoring the masses to focus on the few who say what you want to hear in your arguments.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMDid you just go all Neil Patrick Harris on that shit? Is that actually, "Challenge accepted!" Now THAT, I can respect. THAT is the attitude of someone who ACTUALLY believes, not some poser who has convinced himself that he believes, but shies away from ever "proving" that he is right because he's afraid he'll find he's not.
I think I get the gist of the challenge before me. Thanks.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PMBlah, blah, blah. Words. Meaningless, pointless words meant to sound mysterious without saying anything. It's like, "There is no 'I' in 'team'". You know my response to that? "No, but there is an 'M' and an 'E', fucker! Do you have a point?"
Nor should you "just buy it." You need to consider it very carefully, because if you decide to accept it, it will cost you everything.
Go slow.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 04:10:47 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 05:53:26 PM
Well, I did research, but the ordering is mine. I can't claim to have personally rooted out every one of them, but I saw similar lists that were all jumbled up, with no easy way to find any particular contradiction, so I just put them in some order to make it easier.
Okay. I do that sort of thing with material I'm learning, so that makes sense.
QuoteWell, here's an easy ont to start with:
45. Is Jesus' witness of himself true?
Yes
Jn 8:14No
Jn 5:31
In John 5:31, Jesus is referring to the law; specifically, whether His testimony about Himself would be accepted. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case. So, in a court of law, His testimony about Himself would not be considered "true" or sufficient.
This is commonly understood by atheists for example when they point out that believers sometimes try to prove the Bible by quoting the Bible. It's a circular argument. Jesus is saying, "If I merely testify about myself, then I have proved nothing." He then goes on to list two more witnesses to the truth of what He is saying: John the Baptist and the works that He is doing which are a sign that He is from God:
QuoteJohn 5:3-36
32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.
33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.
36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finishâ€"the very works that I am doingâ€"testify that the Father has sent me.
Further, here is an analogy taken from the article referenced below:
QuoteConsider the following illustration. An innocent man on trial for murder is judged to be guilty by the jury, even after proclaiming his innocence. (Suppose someone had framed the defendant for the murder and all of the evidence the jury heard pointed to the defendant as the offender.) When leaving the court house, if wrongly convicted defendant is asked by a reporter, “Are you guilty?,†and he responds by throwing up his hands up in exasperation and saying, “If the court says I’m guilty, I’m guilty,†has the man lied? Even though the statements, “I am guilty,†and “I am not guilty,†are totally different, they may not be contradictory, depending on the time and sense in which they are spoken. After the trial, the wrongly accused defendant simply repeated the jury’s verdict. He said, “I am guilty,†and meant, “The court has found me guilty.â€
In John 8:14, Jesus is simply referring to His own words which He knew to be true. Notice he says, "Even if I testify on my own behalf (despite the fact that a court would not accept it), my testimony is true...". How many people have been wrongly convicted of a crime and said, "I don't care what the court said, I know I'm telling the truth"? The same principle applies to this second quote.
Here is a fuller treatment of this apparent contradiction which is actually not a contradiction at all:
Was Jesus’ Witness “True†or “Not True�
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1028
I'd like to get back to the OP: the dating of the gospels, but to be fair, I'll try to answer one more if you like.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 04:27:30 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 06:01:08 PM
So, some guy just happens to be there to tell them Jesus was risen, and they believed him!?
Maybe not at that moment. Remember, the women went back and reported that Jesus was missing. Then John and Peter ran to the tomb. Even then there was doubt and confusion. It was not until they saw Jesus, they touched his wounds, He ate a piece of fish in their presence...then they believed.
QuoteYeah, I was raised as a Southern Baptist, but then I read the Bible, and that put the kibosh on that.
It is unfortunate that you did not have a good teacher who could help you to understand what you were reading better.
Acts 8:30-31
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 04:31:27 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 04:31:27 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 06:26:00 PM
But not any word from a omnipotent deity. Gotcha
Imagine if the bible would say 'and at the end of the 20th century A.D. (!) a communication method will be invented called the internet. Astronauts from a continent called America will land and walk on the moon and at roughly the same time the first heart transplant will be performed in South Africa.'
But no such thing. Instead we have to stay away from our neighbor's ass and worry about gnashing teeth. Maybe if you think a little deeper you will understand.
Oh. I see. You wanted a prophetic word.
Okay, given what happened to Jesus a thousand years later, what simpleton could have written this:
Isaiah 53:3-12
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah had no idea that Jesus would be pierced and crushed for our iniquities.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 06, 2016, 05:00:26 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 06, 2016, 05:00:26 PM
No, no dice again. I wasn't asking for a prophetic word, I was asking for one single word that could not have been written by a human and ONLY come from divine inspiration. So which word are you referring to that could only come from divine inspiration? Sheep, slaughter, crush, suffer....no can't be. Still looking......nope can't find any.
Could it be, possibly, theoretically, that the unknown authors of the bible made up history to fulfill the Torah prophecies? Nuh, can't be. And what about the hundreds of prophecies that weren't fulfilled? Apparently it's like the weather forecast: a crap shoot.
So again: ONE SINGLE word that could not have come from human origin and I am persuaded. Take your time.
I gave you examples like astronauts, America, internet and so on...now you get it?
Could it be, possibly, theoretically, that the unknown authors of the bible made up history to fulfill the Torah prophecies? Nuh, can't be. And what about the hundreds of prophecies that weren't fulfilled? Apparently it's like the weather forecast: a crap shoot.
So again: ONE SINGLE word that could not have come from human origin and I am persuaded. Take your time.
I gave you examples like astronauts, America, internet and so on...now you get it?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:02:31 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:02:31 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 05:07:13 PM
As you fully realize, theists don't think, they believe. So, to suggest they use some critical thinking would roll off them like water off a ducks back. Many would not even know what you are talking about, since they believe they already are thinking critically; they conflate thinking with believing. And when they really need to turn from critical thinking they use their faith. A Randy will never lose his faith--unless something just shakes him to his core and he can't help but notice that faith means nothing. And who knows what that something would be; and it doesn't happen very often. Randy could carry on like this forever and nothing we say will even register with him that he is wrong about anything or even a small detail is incorrect. He is the Catholic Church's dream lay person--he just prays and pays and tries to suck in more and more paying customers.
Sure, Mike. You're the man.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 05:07:49 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 05:07:49 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:02:31 PMThank you, Randy. I wish I could say the same about you.
Sure, Mike. You're the man.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:10:16 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:10:16 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 05:41:29 PM
OK, I'll bite:
If there was no Nazareth, how could there be such a person as Jesus of Nazareth?
It's not so clear that the there was no Nazareth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
QuoteThere were certainly many people with the name Jesus in those days, Josephus records several, I think.
And several of them had a brother named James put to death by Ananias? Josephus recorded this, also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#The_James_Passage_2
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:11:12 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:11:12 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2016, 05:45:09 PM
People are really good at thinking up scams.
True.
They're also pretty good at sniffing them out...especially when given a LOT of time to do so.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:13:07 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:13:07 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 06:25:40 PM
Because, as Jerry Falwell said, "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."
What about the Jews and Gentiles who were NOT Christians when the whole thing got started?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:16:01 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:16:01 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 06, 2016, 02:33:16 AM
The Mormon Church: why does it exist?
Because a real historical person started it.
QuoteMuslims: why do they exist?
Because a real, historical person started it.
QuoteStupid people who wouldn't know good logic if it was delivered via ACME anvil landing on their feet: why do you exist?
Because two real, historical people started me.
Why does the Christian Church exist?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 05:19:24 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 05:19:24 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:16:01 PMBecause real historical people started it. None of them were named Jesus.
Because a real historical person started it.
Because a real, historical person started it.
Because two real, historical people started me.
Why does the Christian Church exist?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 05:21:41 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 05:21:41 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:16:01 PMBecause Zeus started it, obviously.
Because a real historical person started it.
Because a real, historical person started it.
Because two real, historical people started me.
Why does the Christian Church exist?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 05:33:04 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 05:33:04 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 02:29:24 PMFunny. That's not how you saw it when you said this to me:
Don't play games. You made a positive statement and the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate works.
Otherwise, all you have is an opinion which you are asserting.
QuoteCan you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, widdershins, that the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 12:22:58 PMI will make you a bet right now. NOT ONE of the people you get your information found religion based on their research into history, but EVERY ONE of them is Christian. That doesn't set up any red flags for you? That doesn't suggest that maybe this ONE THING they ALL have in common might just be a sign of a serious bias which just might be influencing their opinions? If not, you're deluded.
It's possible, maybe even probable. After all, people tend to go to college to study things they are interested in and love. Some people are interested in God and love Jesus. Are they biased? Sure. Are they thereby unreliable? Hardly.
And sure, they have a desire to refute the stupidity of atheists who ALSO have their own biases. Can you admit that? If not, you're deluded.
QuoteI can't know anything about religion because I'm an atheist?
Cite the post # wherein I made this statement, please.
QuoteActually, many studies have found that atheists ROUTINELY know more about religion than religious people. That's just an ignorant statement.
"Religion" or Christianity specifically. I think I referenced Christianity, but I'm not going back to check. This is a pathetic line of argumentation.
QuoteAnd, judging by some of the claims you've made here, especially claiming the the church can trace the line of popes clear back to the beginning, yes, I am very much one of those people who knows more about Christianity than you do.
I already gave you two passages from two Early Church Fathers tracing the lineage of the popes back to Peter. Deal with them.
QuoteI was a Christian once and, unlike you, apparently, I looked into the viability of multiple Christian religions with an open mind with the intent of determining, not that it was real, not that it was false, but whether or not it was real.
I am a convert to Catholicism from the Methodist Church. I, too, did my homework...and have continued to examine the facts of history over the past 40 years since my conversion. I spend hours daily for the past 10 years in online apologetics forums answering questions from Protestants, Orthodox, and atheists alike. I'm fairly confident that I have done enough research in order to respond to them and to you quite well.
QuoteI didn't talk to any atheists during that 2 year search. I talked to only Christians of various Christian religions. And I got insight and perspective from multiple people in multiple religions, plus my own religious experiences, plus all the research I've done besides, plus reading the Bible. I know, for instance, that the Catholic church can only trace the line of popes back without dispute to, AT BEST, the third century. Any further back than that is definitely disputable.
No, you don't KNOW this because what you "know" is from non-Catholic critics of the Church. Hey, even the Eastern Orthodox would have no problem with the Catholic Church claim of Apostolic Succession from Peter (they simply disagree with who caused the schism among other things).
Only Protestant polemicists argue about the succession of the papacy. It's a LOST argument for anyone who denies it.
QuoteYou, apparently, think the line is unbroken and ironclad clear back to Jesus. It is not. If you don't even know your own church's history how can I NOT know more about Christianity in general than you?
Deal with the two passages from Irenaeus and Augustine. I'll lay them out again:
Irenaeus
"3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us." (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])
Peter (and Paul)
Linus
Anencletus
Clement
Evaristus
etc.
Deal with that. And since Augustine lived later, his lineage contains more names:
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known†(To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 [A.D. 400], in NPNF1,I:298).
Deal with that.
QuoteNo, they don't acknowledge the "Five Minimal Facts". The first is "Jesus died". They don't even acknowledge that Jesus was a real historical figure, so how can they acknowledge these stupid "Minimal Assertions"? In fact, this argument is a method of AVOIDING having to prove that historical accuracy of the Bible.
Oh, so you've read Habermas thoroughly? You know what his study over the past 30 years has revealed about trends in acceptance of these five facts?
And, since you bring it up, this argument is a method of demonstrating the probability of the Resurrection without having to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.
IOW: We don't actually need the to prove the resurrection of Jesus; we can do it from non-biblical sources and pure logic.
Deal with that.
QuoteThose five "facts" are: 1. Jesus died, 2. Disciples believed they saw Jesus risen, 3. James the skeptical brother believed, 4. Paul the persecutor believed, 5. The tomb was empty. No, scholars and skeptics DO NOT acknowledge those as "facts". In fact, if you can't even prove that Jesus ever lived then NOT ONE of these "facts" is anything even resembling a "fact".
So, you have read all of the peer-reviewed papers in publications in English, French and German that Habermas has read? You have another opinion about what scholars are saying in these scholarly papers? Or are you simply spouting your own opinion and wishful-thinking?
QuoteBut let's put that aside. Let's say that everyone agrees with these ludicrous "facts". Dude dies + followers believe he rose + another dude believes + another dude believes + the tomb was empty = magic is real???? What the fuck?
WTF? Well, I'll tell you. The Resurrection has explanatory scope and depth.
If these five things are true, what explaination for them can you offer?
QuoteEven if your utter horseshit assertion that EVERYONE agrees with these 5 "facts" were true how does a guy dying + people believing he came back + one of the reasons they believed he came back make a "powerful argument" that magic happened? EVEN IF your idiotic and COMPLETELY FALSE assertion were true the only "powerful argument" it would make is that people were fucking stupid 2,000 years ago.
Of course they were. Or that they were telling the truth about what they saw because it actually happened.
Now, how do you explain these five facts?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:47:59 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 05:19:24 PM
Because real historical people started it. None of them were named Jesus.
Why?
Why did these real, historical people start a new Church based upon claims that some guy who had been crucified by the Romans had actually risen from the dead?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:49:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:49:44 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 05:21:41 PM
Because Zeus started it, obviously.
That's an interesting claim, widdershins.
Do you have any supporting evidence? Links to online articles would be most helpful.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 06:16:09 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 06:16:09 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 06, 2016, 05:00:26 PM
No, no dice again. I wasn't asking for a prophetic word, I was asking for one single word that could not have been written by a human and ONLY come from divine inspiration. So which word are you referring to that could only come from divine inspiration? Sheep, slaughter, crush, suffer....no can't be. Still looking......nope can't find any.
Could it be, possibly, theoretically, that the unknown authors of the bible made up history to fulfill the Torah prophecies? Nuh, can't be. And what about the hundreds of prophecies that weren't fulfilled? Apparently it's like the weather forecast: a crap shoot.
So again: ONE SINGLE word that could not have come from human origin and I am persuaded. Take your time.
I gave you examples like astronauts, America, internet and so on...now you get it?
All of those words you chose ARE of human origin and we use them every day. Moreover, if a word is in the Bible, it is already a part of our knowledge since people study the Bible very, er, religiously. Thus, any words that have been used by us in the past do not meet your criteria. Further, if I give you some words for things that have not yet occurred in history (like Armageddon), then you will dismiss them as mere religious nonsense and non-qualifiers. So, you will only accept words that have only very recently entered into our lexicon...like within your lifetime, for example. That doesn't strike me as a very reasonable request. And it's arbitrary.
What you are overlooking (intentionally and not innocently) is that there are hundreds of prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus in ways that the prophets could not possibly have foreseen. These could only have come from divine inspiration, and there is far more here than a single word.
So you want a single word from the Bible that is evidence of foreknowledge or of something that the original author could not possibly have understood? A verse like, "In the latter days there shall come penicillin..." or "And you shall name him Barack, and he shall lead his people" or something like that.
Why would a word like these be evidence of anything?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 06, 2016, 06:44:10 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 06, 2016, 06:44:10 PM
"All of those words you chose ARE of human origin and we use them every day"
But not 2,000 years ago.
"Why would a word like these be evidence of anything?"
Because a human could not have written it 2,000 years ago.
You claim that the Bible has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, and is proof of its divine inspiration. In actuality, these so called fulfilled prophecies failed, were false or weren't prophecies at all. Many of these prophecies are so vague, they can be attributed to different events. It's also a fact that the Bible was written many years after these presumed prophecies and their "fulfillment" took place.
I copypaste a few for your perusal:
Genesis 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.
Here God tells Isaac that his descendents (Hebrews) will be as numerous as the stars. Considering the number of stars there are in the universe, that would have to be on the order of 1020 Jewish people.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Christians say that this verse is a prophecy of Jesus' birth to a virgin. There are a couple problems with this prophecy...First, virgin in this verse is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah", which actually means "young woman". A young woman is not necessarily a virgin. "Bethulah" would have been the correct word to use if the author meant virgin. Second, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus referred to as Immanuel.
Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Damascus is still inhabited today with over a million people, and hardly a ruinous heap.
Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.
The river mentioned here is the Nile. The Nile is still one of Egypt's greatest natural resource.
Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
The Canaanite language has never been spoken in Egypt, and is now an extinct.
Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.
There are uncircumcised people living in Jerusalem even today.
Ezekiel 29:10-11 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.
Never in its long history has Egypt ever been uninhabited for forty years.
Amos 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
Many times, Jews have been pulled up out of their land. The ownership of their land is still being fought for.
Jonah 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
Nineveh was never overthrown. Why? Because God changed his mind in verse 3:10, despite what Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19 and Ezekiel 24:14 says about God never changing his mind.
Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Zechariah 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Christians say that this prophecy is was fulfilled when Judas received 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. Matthew 27:9 recites this verse, but incorrectly credits Jeremiah with the prophecy.
Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Again, Jesus is never referred to as Emmanuel (Immanuel).
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is such a prophecy found, so how could such a one be fulfilled?
Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
There is no passage in the Old Testament that can be attributed to what Jesus is saying here.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Jesus states that all the signs marking the end of the world in Matthew 24 would be fulfilled before his generation ended. That generation ended 2000 years ago, and the world has not come to an end, neither has all those signs been fulfilled.
Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value.
This prophecy was never spoken by Jeremiah.
Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Jesus tells the high priest that he would see his second coming. The high priest is long dead, and Jesus hasn't returned yet.
Throughout the New Testament, the end of the world is prophesied as being very near, at hand, to be witnessed by those living at the time. Paul often told the people he preached to that they would be witnesses to Jesus' second coming. They are all long gone.
But not 2,000 years ago.
"Why would a word like these be evidence of anything?"
Because a human could not have written it 2,000 years ago.
You claim that the Bible has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, and is proof of its divine inspiration. In actuality, these so called fulfilled prophecies failed, were false or weren't prophecies at all. Many of these prophecies are so vague, they can be attributed to different events. It's also a fact that the Bible was written many years after these presumed prophecies and their "fulfillment" took place.
I copypaste a few for your perusal:
Genesis 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.
Here God tells Isaac that his descendents (Hebrews) will be as numerous as the stars. Considering the number of stars there are in the universe, that would have to be on the order of 1020 Jewish people.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Christians say that this verse is a prophecy of Jesus' birth to a virgin. There are a couple problems with this prophecy...First, virgin in this verse is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah", which actually means "young woman". A young woman is not necessarily a virgin. "Bethulah" would have been the correct word to use if the author meant virgin. Second, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus referred to as Immanuel.
Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Damascus is still inhabited today with over a million people, and hardly a ruinous heap.
Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.
The river mentioned here is the Nile. The Nile is still one of Egypt's greatest natural resource.
Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
The Canaanite language has never been spoken in Egypt, and is now an extinct.
Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.
There are uncircumcised people living in Jerusalem even today.
Ezekiel 29:10-11 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.
Never in its long history has Egypt ever been uninhabited for forty years.
Amos 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
Many times, Jews have been pulled up out of their land. The ownership of their land is still being fought for.
Jonah 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
Nineveh was never overthrown. Why? Because God changed his mind in verse 3:10, despite what Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19 and Ezekiel 24:14 says about God never changing his mind.
Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Zechariah 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Christians say that this prophecy is was fulfilled when Judas received 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. Matthew 27:9 recites this verse, but incorrectly credits Jeremiah with the prophecy.
Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Again, Jesus is never referred to as Emmanuel (Immanuel).
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is such a prophecy found, so how could such a one be fulfilled?
Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
There is no passage in the Old Testament that can be attributed to what Jesus is saying here.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Jesus states that all the signs marking the end of the world in Matthew 24 would be fulfilled before his generation ended. That generation ended 2000 years ago, and the world has not come to an end, neither has all those signs been fulfilled.
Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value.
This prophecy was never spoken by Jeremiah.
Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Jesus tells the high priest that he would see his second coming. The high priest is long dead, and Jesus hasn't returned yet.
Throughout the New Testament, the end of the world is prophesied as being very near, at hand, to be witnessed by those living at the time. Paul often told the people he preached to that they would be witnesses to Jesus' second coming. They are all long gone.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 06:55:26 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 06:55:26 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMYou are a lost cause, Randy. You would find a way to explain away Jesus coming down in a space ship and telling you, face to face, "Dude, it was a joke." You come here pretending, even believing that you have some irrefutable evidence which we would believe if only we would listen to you and see the sense in it, yet you can't grasp the basic fact that, if that were true, there would be NO non-Christian scholars well versed in this religious history. Jewish scholars looking to disprove Jesus would be forced to convert at the obviousness of what they found. You have an excuse for everything which disagrees with you, always. Everything which says what you want to hear is of the utmost importance, everything which doesn't you don't bother to examine.
It's possible, maybe even probable. After all, people tend to go to college to study things they are interested in and love. Some people are interested in God and love Jesus. Are they biased? Sure. Are they thereby unreliable? Hardly.
And sure, they have a desire to refute the stupidity of atheists who ALSO have their own biases. Can you admit that? If not, you're deluded.
I didn't choose to be an atheist. I came to the conclusion that magic wasn't real. This was not a happy thing for me. This is not something which made me excited. I wanted to believe that I would be looked after. I wanted to believe that I would live forever. By bias, at least back then, was to believe. People like you tend to think that atheists are miserable people, that we just want to keep going in our life of sin and don't want to listen to God. There is almost nothing I do now that I could not do as a Catholic, or even a much more strict Jehovah's Witness. It wouldn't be tough going to church. It wouldn't be a terrible burden following the rules. I don't have any strong desire for there not to be a God. My bias is not as strong as you think it is, and neither is your "evidence".
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMNo. I already quoted it just above this statement. You can read it there or search for it yourself.
Cite the post # wherein I made this statement, please.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMIt wasn't an argument, it was a statement, and it is factual. I believe I have links bookmarked if you would like the evidence for that statement.
"Religion" or Christianity specifically. I think I referenced Christianity, but I'm not going back to check. This is a pathetic line of argumentation.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMAnd I already told you that the church cannot trace back WITHOUT ARGUMENT further than about the third century. NOT that they couldn't trace it back AT ALL, but that they could not PROVE the trace any further than about the third century.
I already gave you two passages from two Early Church Fathers tracing the lineage of the popes back to Peter. Deal with them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMYeah? Well I talked to a Catholic, a Jehovah's Witness and someone from some third religion I don't remember any more all at about the same time over a period of a few weeks, each knowing I was talking to the others. EVERY ONE OF THEM could show me, in the Bible, where they were right and the other two were wrong, and that's what they spent their time doing. Catholics clearly violate the "graven image" law. As a Catholic you can explain that away, but that doesn't make it not true. They also violate the rule about not repeating prayers pointlessly. Again, you could explain that away, but it doesn't make it not true. And the founder of the Jehovah's Witness religion should have been put to death as a false prophet. The Bible clearly states that he did not speak for God because he falsely prophesied many times about the end of the world.
I am a convert to Catholicism from the Methodist Church. I, too, did my homework...and have continued to examine the facts of history over the past 40 years since my conversion. I spend hours daily for the past 10 years in online apologetics forums answering questions from Protestants, Orthodox, and atheists alike. I'm fairly confident that I have done enough research in order to respond to them and to you quite well.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMYou know so much about where I get my information don't you? As usual, you're full of shit. Where I got this information was a place I used to work, a place where the owner and, probably, 90% of the people I worked with were Catholic. Where I got the information that the church can trace back the pope without dispute to about the third century, well, that was from the smartest Catholic there. Not an atheist, not a Jehovah's Witness, not from Satan, from a fucking Catholic, and one who knew his shit.
No, you don't KNOW this because what you "know" is from non-Catholic critics of the Church. Hey, even the Eastern Orthodox would have no problem with the Catholic Church claim of Apostolic Succession from Peter (they simply disagree with who caused the schism among other things).
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMMaybe. But then the highly educated CATHOLIC who taught me about papal succession was not arguing. He was simply stating as a matter of pride that the church could trace back the papal succession without question to the third century.
Only Protestant polemicists argue about the succession of the papacy. It's a LOST argument for anyone who denies it.
Deal with the two passages from Irenaeus and Augustine. I'll lay them out again:
Blah, blah, blah[/quote]
No, I don't think I will. First you deal with reality. Then we'll talk.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMYeah, okay. I'll deal with that one. Number of scientifically documented cases of the dead rising from the grave: ZERO. Probability it happened AT ANY POINT in history: Statistically ZERO. There you go. Fucking dealt with.
Oh, so you've read Habermas thoroughly? You know what his study over the past 30 years has revealed about trends in acceptance of these five facts?
And, since you bring it up, this argument is a method of demonstrating the probability of the Resurrection without having to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.
IOW: We don't actually need the to prove the resurrection of Jesus; we can do it from non-biblical sources and pure logic.
Deal with that.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMJebus Fucking Christ, I DON'T FUCKING HAVE TO. There's a little fucking thing called scientific fucking consensus which says, big fucking surprise, MAGIC IS NOT REAL, you fucktard!
So, you have read all of the peer-reviewed papers in publications in English, French and German that Habermas has read? You have another opinion about what scholars are saying in these scholarly papers? Or are you simply spouting your own opinion and wishful-thinking?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:43:08 PMI don't HAVE to provide an explanation. Reality isn't fucking multiple choice. If I don't have an explanation that DOES NOT MEAN that magic is real by default. If I say, "I don't know" that IN NO WAY proves that some first century shithead went all Harry Potter on history!
WTF? Well, I'll tell you. The Resurrection has explanatory scope and depth.
If these five things are true, what explaination for them can you offer?
Of course they were. Or that they were telling the truth about what they saw because it actually happened.
Now, how do you explain these five facts?
[/quote]
I explain that they are NOT facts, they are ASSERTIONS. If they are facts, fine. PROVE each one. That shouldn't be hard. It's easy to prove a "fact".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:49:44 PMOf course I do. It's a FACT. Since I capitalized "FACT" it is now indisputable and from hear on out I simply have to reassert this "FACT" to make it once again a "FACT" even if it is proved not actually factual.
That's an interesting claim, widdershins.
Do you have any supporting evidence? Links to online articles would be most helpful.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:25:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:25:53 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 06:55:26 PM
And I already told you that the church cannot trace back WITHOUT ARGUMENT further than about the third century. NOT that they couldn't trace it back AT ALL, but that they could not PROVE the trace any further than about the third century.
Irenaeus wrote the passage I gave you around AD 180. Who was Irenaeus? Well, he was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John the Apostle.
1. John
2. Polycarp
3. Irenaeus
Now, here's an analogy:
1. Your Grandfather
2. Your Dad
3. You
Your dad says, "Listen carefully, widdershins, because I want to tell you something very important that I learned from your grandfather." Would you REALLY have such a hard time believing what your dad told you? Would you assume that your Grandfather was mistaken, that he lied or that your dad simply misunderstood the message?
Now, off the top of my head let me name a few presidents:
Obama
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Reagan
Carter
Nixon (resigned in second term)
Johnson
Kennedy (assassinated in 1963 in Dallas)
Eisenhower
Truman
Roosevelt (four terms, died in office)
Hoover (at the start of the depression)
Now, those are all I can name in order, because beyond this, I haven't made any effort to memorize the list. But I can name others in no particular order:
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln, and that's about it without more time and effort. 19 out of 44. FROM MEMORY.
Are you seriously doubting the ability of Irenaeus or Augustine to correctly identify the Bishops of Rome - especially if they took the time to refer to books and letters they might have had on hand?
SERIOUSLY?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:45:22 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:45:22 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 06:55:26 PM
Catholics clearly violate the "graven image" law. As a Catholic you can explain that away, but that doesn't make it not true.
I don't need to explain it away, I can explain it.
God Said To Make Them
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18â€"20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18â€"19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17â€"18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8â€"9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
Do Catholics Worship Statues?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp (http://docatholicsworshipstatues?%3Cbr/%3Ehttp://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:48:37 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:48:37 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 06:55:26 PMThey also violate the rule about not repeating prayers pointlessly. Again, you could explain that away, but it doesn't make it not true.
You simply misunderstand the passage.
Matthew 6:7-8: Vain Repetition
Many non-Catholics believe that praying the rosary violates Jesus’ teaching about “vain repetition†found in His Sermon on the Mount:
“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.†(Matthew 6:7-8)
Immediately after saying this, He went on to teach the crowd the following prayer:
Matthew 6:9-13
This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'â€
Jesus didn't say, "You might want to say something like the following"...he said, "When you pray, say" and He gave us precise words that we should pray daily for our daily bread, and these words have been repeated for 2,000 years. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.
Matthew 26:43-44
43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.
Jesus prayed a third time saying the same things he had said previously. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.
Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."
The creatures keep saying the same thing over and over and over again - day and night. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 07:50:57 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 07:50:57 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:45:22 PM
I don't need to explain it away, I can explain it.
God Said To Make Them
That explains nothing. For nothing is what god is. You have not shown a single fact about his/her existence.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:53:25 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:53:25 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:49:44 PM
That's an interesting claim, widdershins.
Do you have any supporting evidence? Links to online articles would be most helpful.
Thanks.
Its Greek to me! Zeus must have gotten tired of all the Greek this and Greek that ... and decided to try kosher ;-)
So you are part of the Protestant "back to orthodoxy" movement then? Heard about you folks 10 or more years ago. Of course Cardinal John Henry Newman already did this 150 years ago. He found no reason to continue King Henry VIII's hissy-fit over his relationship with Anne Boleyn as a matter for religious dogma to hold fast on.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 07:53:55 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 07:53:55 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:45:22 PMPure and simple, that is idol worship. And the worshiping of the parts of dead people is idol worship and a bit disgusting, as well. Your church is a collection of hypocrisies.
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8â€"9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
Do Catholics Worship Statues?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp (http://docatholicsworshipstatues?%3Cbr/%3Ehttp://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:57:24 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:57:24 PM
They are Christianized pagans, which is why Protestantism arose in the first place ... to people waking up to this, and wanting to be less pagan. The presence of Jewish community among Christians, and Muslim pressure from outside ... prompted this rethink. That and the Papal Schizm, the Black Death and the discovery of the New World.
There is nothing wrong being a Christianized pagan ... millions have lived this way successfully, including the bulk of my own ancestors. It is funny to be knowledgable about Christianity though, and not get this elephant in the room.
There is nothing wrong being a Christianized pagan ... millions have lived this way successfully, including the bulk of my own ancestors. It is funny to be knowledgable about Christianity though, and not get this elephant in the room.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:14:33 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:14:33 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 07:53:55 PM
Pure and simple, that is idol worship. And the worshiping of the parts of dead people is idol worship and a bit disgusting, as well. Your church is a collection of hypocrisies.
You are ignorant, Mike. Catholics don't worships statues anymore than you make love to a photograph of your wife in your wallet.
Your photograph and our statues are visual aids. Nothing more.
We don't worship relics, either. But I have a feeling you aren't interested in learning actual Catholic doctrine, so we can wrap this up.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
That was what the pagans said too, when you pulled down their temples and killed their priests ;-(
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 06, 2016, 08:21:59 PM
Post by: aitm on May 06, 2016, 08:21:59 PM
QuoteThe Text of the New Testament is Accurate
Upon finding out the whore Mary was with child.
"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily."
Yeah, first chapter in your whack-a-doo NT babble;
The OT demands the whore be stoned to death, so he ignored the law, this makes him just?
So ignoring gods law is now considered the just thing to do?
So the NT admits that god is unjust.
LOL..yeah,,preach on brother... LOLOL
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:22:35 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:22:35 PM
Does anyone have anything further to add to the discussion of the OP? If not, I'm ready to wrap up my participation in this thread.
SUMMATION
The Bible we have today is a reliable reconstruction of the original autograph manuscripts. Despite the existence of variants found in the many copies of the manuscripts, we know with a high degree of accuracy and confidence what the authors wrote, and significantly, no Christian doctrine may be called into question as the result of the existence of these manuscript variations.
SUMMATION
The Bible we have today is a reliable reconstruction of the original autograph manuscripts. Despite the existence of variants found in the many copies of the manuscripts, we know with a high degree of accuracy and confidence what the authors wrote, and significantly, no Christian doctrine may be called into question as the result of the existence of these manuscript variations.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:23:58 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:23:58 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
That was what the pagans said too, when you pulled down their temples and killed their priests ;-(
Pagans have been known to kill Catholic priests, also. But yeah, we won the battle for the hearts and minds of the people the world over.
Damn...we must have a good story to tell.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:24:43 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:24:43 PM
You didn't win any points with the folks here ... in this thread anyway. So is your Ginsu sufficiently sharp? And will you have to commit seppuku if you don't get a convert? I hope not.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 06, 2016, 08:26:01 PM
Post by: aitm on May 06, 2016, 08:26:01 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:45:22 PM
I don't need to explain it away, I can explain it.
God Said To Make Them
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18â€"20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18â€"19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17â€"18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8â€"9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
Do Catholics Worship Statues?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp (http://docatholicsworshipstatues?%3Cbr/%3Ehttp://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp)
I love how the xians promote the truth of the NT by claiming the rules of the OT was just for the jews and not meant for gentiles, then use the OT to justify the NT. LOLOLOL,,,,by god this babbliest is such a cherry picker I wonder if he ever found a wife?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:26:34 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:26:34 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:23:58 PM
Pagans have been known to kill Catholic priests, also. But yeah, we won the battle for the hearts and minds of the people the world over.
Damn...we must have a good story to tell.
Yes, we will know you by your love ;-( You won the political leaders, who told their people to convert. There was very little persuasion involved, other than what an authoritarian society already provided. Orthodox Christianity did the same in E Europe. Once people were able to read on their own, they tended to become Protestant or secular.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:27:10 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:27:10 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 06, 2016, 08:21:59 PM
Upon finding out the whore Mary was with child.
"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily."
Yeah, first chapter in your whack-a-doo NT babble;
The OT demands the whore be stoned to death, so he ignored the law, this makes him just?
So ignoring gods law is now considered the just thing to do?
So the NT admits that god is unjust.
LOL..yeah,,preach on brother... LOLOL
Off Topic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 06, 2016, 08:31:06 PM
Post by: aitm on May 06, 2016, 08:31:06 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:27:10 PM
Off Topic.
LOLOL…go ahead boy..wrap up your topic…..The text of the NT is accurate…..yeah. you sure proved it…..to yourself
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: gentle_dissident on May 06, 2016, 08:38:16 PM
Post by: gentle_dissident on May 06, 2016, 08:38:16 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:27:10 PMWhy is anyone responding to Randy's topics? Are we countering due to the chance there are some young historians out there who are on the fence? If you youngins are watching this parley, could you say "Hi!"?
Off Topic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:40:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:40:44 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 06, 2016, 08:31:06 PM
LOLOL…go ahead boy..wrap up your topic…..The text of the NT is accurate…..yeah. you sure proved it…..to yourself
If you have a counter argument or some evidence suggesting I'm wrong in my OP, I'm eager to hear it.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/popcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:41:39 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: gentle_dissident on May 06, 2016, 08:38:16 PM
Why is anyone responding to Randy's topics? Are we countering due to the chance there are some young historians out there who are on the fence? If you youngins are watching this parley, could you say "Hi!"?
Don't know about you, but Randy is a target rich environment for my version of "Whack A Mole".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 06, 2016, 08:43:24 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 06, 2016, 08:43:24 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:22:35 PM:bigbye:
Does anyone have anything further to add to the discussion of the OP? If not, I'm ready to wrap up my participation in this thread.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: gentle_dissident on May 06, 2016, 08:53:52 PM
Post by: gentle_dissident on May 06, 2016, 08:53:52 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 08:41:39 PMOK, If I had to say something to Randy, I would say, "I'm sorry you're wasting your life. I hope you don't convince others. If you do stop playing mind games, I hope you are able to look back in knowledge and not regret. Above all, please don't introduce religion as a reality to children. They are vulnerable in knowledge and emotion."
Don't know about you, but Randy is a target rich environment for my version of "Whack A Mole".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 09:06:12 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 09:06:12 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:14:33 PMCatholic doctrine. Yeah, I'm aware of it. The deeper I delved into it the most disgusted I have become. You have brought nothing new to discuss on this board. All you have proven is that you are a dupe of the Catholic church--and a willing one. You change words within the bible to suit your fancy. And no, I am not ignorant. You are willfully ignorant and most likely will remain such. Visual aids! :)))))))))))))) What the hell are idols???? What a blind and faithful fool you are.
You are ignorant, Mike. Catholics don't worships statues anymore than you make love to a photograph of your wife in your wallet.
Your photograph and our statues are visual aids. Nothing more.
We don't worship relics, either. But I have a feeling you aren't interested in learning actual Catholic doctrine, so we can wrap this up.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: leo on May 06, 2016, 09:19:23 PM
Post by: leo on May 06, 2016, 09:19:23 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 06:16:09 PMFirst of all, you are citing a mistranslated text. If you want the correct translation, you should read the text in the Tanakh. Second of all , you are citing a text out of the context. The Isaiah 53 text isn't talking about the messiah. Isaiah 53 is part of the suffering servant songs in the book of Isaiah. If you read the previous chapters ,The people of Israel is identified as the suffering servant many times. Seriously the Christianity claim that Jesus is the jewish Messiah is a big joke. Jesus never fulfill a single jewish prophecy apart of him being born a jew. The Messiah will be a 100 percent human being and not a demi god. The Jewish messiah will be descended from David. Tribal affilation is determined by the father side and the new testament or church claims that Jesus hasn't a human father. The Messiah will bring all the jewish tribes together and all the jews will return to Israel. That happened in the Jesus time ? of course not . The opposite just happened.
All of those words you chose ARE of human origin and we use them every day. Moreover, if a word is in the Bible, it is already a part of our knowledge since people study the Bible very, er, religiously. Thus, any words that have been used by us in the past do not meet your criteria. Further, if I give you some words for things that have not yet occurred in history (like Armageddon), then you will dismiss them as mere religious nonsense and non-qualifiers. So, you will only accept words that have only very recently entered into our lexicon...like within your lifetime, for example. That doesn't strike me as a very reasonable request. And it's arbitrary.
What you are overlooking (intentionally and not innocently) is that there are hundreds of prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus in ways that the prophets could not possibly have foreseen. These could only have come from divine inspiration, and there is far more here than a single word.
So you want a single word from the Bible that is evidence of foreknowledge or of something that the original author could not possibly have understood? A verse like, "In the latter days there shall come penicillin..." or "And you shall name him Barack, and he shall lead his people" or something like that.
Why would a word like these be evidence of anything?
The Messiah will bring world peace. That happened ? of course not . World peace don't happened in the first century and it seems world peace will not happen anytime soon. The Messiah will rebuild the jewish temple. It happened in the time of Jesus? of course not. The opposite happened , the second temple was destroyed ! The Messiah will bring full knowledge of god and all the world will acknowledge the Hebrew god as the true god. That happened already ? of course not. Infact atheism is on rise and most people worldwide don't believe in the Hebrew god. And Christianity god doesn't count because your 3 head god or the trinity isn't the same god as the monotheist jewish god. Also the Messiah will get married and will have children. Face it , your Catholic death cult and all Christianity isn't more than a Judaism heresy. Is ironic that the Catholic Church accused and killed many " heretics" , when the church itself were the first heretics. Your cult is as false as Mormonism. The only difference is that your cult is way older. What a joke. Also forget the second coming horseshit. The Messiah is supposed to accomplish everything in one coming.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2016, 09:52:10 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2016, 09:52:10 PM
Quote from: gentle_dissident on May 06, 2016, 08:38:16 PMBecause even though we have an "ignore" button, no one is really interested in using it. The only place I've ever seen actually use it is a guitar forum my father used to frequent... ten years ago. :lol:
Why is anyone responding to Randy's topics? Are we countering due to the chance there are some young historians out there who are on the fence? If you youngins are watching this parley, could you say "Hi!"?
Despite the fact that perfectly good discussion forums like /r/DebateReligion (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/) are entirely dedicated to this discussion, atheist forums will often get used as religious debate platforms. Self-styled missionaries like Randy want to convince us that we're wrong, so they seek us out and badger us. Since many of the atheists on this site are here precisely because they hate dealing with this BS in real life, seeing folks like Randy barging in and preaching like he owns the place angers them to the point where they feel as though they must respond.
Or maybe people just like being assholes, I don't fucking know.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: leo on May 06, 2016, 09:57:19 PM
Post by: leo on May 06, 2016, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2016, 09:52:10 PMYou are right . Even I responded to this catholic clown. and I'm mostly interested in winning the last person to posts thread.
Because even though we have an "ignore" button, no one is really interested in using it. The only place I've ever seen actually use it is a guitar forum my father used to frequent... ten years ago. :lol:
Despite the fact that perfectly good discussion forums like /r/DebateReligion (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/) are entirely dedicated to this discussion, atheist forums will often get used as religious debate platforms. Self-styled missionaries like Randy want to convince us that we're wrong, so they seek us out and badger us. Since many of the atheists on this site are here precisely because they hate dealing with this BS in real life, seeing folks like Randy barging in and preaching like he owns the place angers them to the point where they feel as though they must respond.
Or maybe people just like being assholes, I don't fucking know.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 10:51:25 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 10:51:25 PM
Quote from: leo on May 06, 2016, 09:19:23 PM
First of all, you are citing a mistranslated text. If you want the correct translation, you should read the text in the Tanakh. Second of all , you are citing a text out of the context. The Isaiah 53 text isn't talking about the messiah. Isaiah 53 is part of the suffering servant songs in the book of Isaiah. If you read the previous chapters ,The people of Israel is identified as the suffering servant many times. Seriously the Christianity claim that Jesus is the jewish Messiah is a big joke. Jesus never fulfill a single jewish prophecy apart of him being born a jew. The Messiah will be a 100 percent human being and not a demi god. The Jewish messiah will be descended from David. Tribal affilation is determined by the father side and the new testament or church claims that Jesus hasn't a human father. The Messiah will bring all the jewish tribes together and all the jews will return to Israel. That happened in the Jesus time ? of course not . The opposite just happened.
The Messiah will bring world peace. That happened ? of course not . World peace don't happened in the first century and it seems world peace will not happen anytime soon. The Messiah will rebuild the jewish temple. It happened in the time of Jesus? of course not. The opposite happened , the second temple was destroyed ! The Messiah will bring full knowledge of god and all the world will acknowledge the Hebrew god as the true god. That happened already ? of course not. Infact atheism is on rise and most people worldwide don't believe in the Hebrew god. And Christianity god doesn't count because your 3 head god or the trinity isn't the same god as the monotheist jewish god. Also the Messiah will get married and will have children. Face it , your Catholic death cult and all Christianity isn't more than a Judaism heresy. Is ironic that the Catholic Church accused and killed many " heretics" , when the church itself were the first heretics. Your cult is as false as Mormonism. The only difference is that your cult is way older. What a joke. Also forget the second coming horseshit. The Messiah is supposed to accomplish everything in one coming.
I'm somewhat familiar with the alternative interpretations of Isaiah 53, and you have listed a number of interesting points for discussion.
This thread is about the dating of the NT gospels. If you'd like to explore Is. 53 in more detail, please start a new thread. I may or may not have time to participate.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 10:53:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 10:53:28 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 09:06:12 PM
Catholic doctrine. Yeah, I'm aware of it. The deeper I delved into it the most disgusted I have become. You have brought nothing new to discuss on this board. All you have proven is that you are a dupe of the Catholic church--and a willing one. You change words within the bible to suit your fancy. And no, I am not ignorant. You are willfully ignorant and most likely will remain such. Visual aids! :)))))))))))))) What the hell are idols???? What a blind and faithful fool you are.
If you are not ignorant of Catholic doctrine, then you should know that Catholics do not worship idols.
Do you have anything more to add to the discussion of the OP concerning the accuracy of the NT texts?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 10:55:02 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 10:55:02 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2016, 09:52:10 PM
Because even though we have an "ignore" button, no one is really interested in using it. The only place I've ever seen actually use it is a guitar forum my father used to frequent... ten years ago. :lol:
Despite the fact that perfectly good discussion forums like /r/DebateReligion (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/) are entirely dedicated to this discussion, atheist forums will often get used as religious debate platforms. Self-styled missionaries like Randy want to convince us that we're wrong, so they seek us out and badger us. Since many of the atheists on this site are here precisely because they hate dealing with this BS in real life, seeing folks like Randy barging in and preaching like he owns the place angers them to the point where they feel as though they must respond.
Or maybe people just like being assholes, I don't fucking know.
I'd like to point out that this IS the Christianity subforum of AtheistForums.com.
What were you expecting to discuss here?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 12:19:18 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 12:19:18 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMExcept that there is actually almost nothing the the gospels about Matthew's growth in holiness.
That's besides the point. The author isn't supposed to get too much attention. You're supposed to focus on the stories, and don't think too much about who's telling them. The "author" is just an observer. That makes it easier to accept, despite a lack of evidence.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMAnd here is the bigger problem:
Suppose you wrote a book about the current political and economic situation in the United States. In the book you laid out your vision for what steps we need to take as a nation in order to turn things around and get them moving in the right direction. Then you publish the book under the name of "Ted Cruz" and try to sell it at a Donald Trump rally? Do you see a potential problem here? Is there any reason to think that you might not sell too many copies of the book?
Your "problem" isn't a problem. You stated no problem. You just gave a weird example that you could use as a strawman. Every religion has been successful because of the gullibility of the masses. There's no reason a forgery of an eyewitness account of Jesus would be any less palatable than any other religious texts.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMThe Romans occupied Israel, and the Jews HATED them. They were pagans. They imposed taxes. And they openly mocked these unsophisticated, bronze-age, goat herders and their silly superstitions about "one god". The Jews also hated those who collaborated with the Romans - like the tax collectors. Every watch a documentary about what happened to people who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. When France was liberated, it did not go well for those women who had taken German lovers. The men who collaborated were shot.
So, if you're trying to sell a book about Jesus (who already had a bad rap having been hung on a tree which was proof of being cursed by God according to scripture), and you want to sell it in the greater Jerusalem metropolitan area, claiming that it was authored by a Roman collaborator on the dust jacket was not a smart marketing strategy.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I've already debunked this bullshit reasoning of yours. The bad guy converting into a good guy just makes the story more attractive. Just like you would like to claim an atheist convert for your side, the early Christians wouldn't have had any issues at all with a tax collector turning over a new leaf to follow Jesus. And he's not even the best example of this. Paul, formerly Saul, was killing Christians before his conversion. So of course, they made his conversion story the most dramatic and miraculous of any disciple.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMYes!
Which is why there are explicit statements to this effect from Luke, John and Peter. And why we need to verify these statements for ourselves.
Wrong again. Focus, Randy. Repeat after me: We do NOT have any documents written by Luke, John, or Peter. We have copies of copies of documents that are BELIEVED to have been written by Luke, John, and Peter. I don't care how much you'd like to think that these documents were written by who the authors say they were. We have no evidence of this, and no way to verify it. In fact, all signs point to the documents being written by someone else, long after the events written about.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMYes!
Provided you could prove that it was actually from Paul, of course.
Not necessary, as again, people are gullible. EVERY religion takes advantage of this. Religions don't grow because their leaders provide strong evidence for their claims; they grow because what they say sounds good to them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMOf course not. The existence of accurate texts means nothing. However, without accurate texts we have nothing to discuss. They are a pre-requisite.
And as this thread seeks to explain, the texts must have been written early enough to have been authored by eyewitnesses before they all died out.
The texts are reliable. They were written early.
No, they weren't. They were written in the second century, after the original authors were long dead, and all of the supposed "witnesses" they spoke of could not be found. You will never find a single document written anywhere near the lifetime of Jesus. And once again, you fail to understand the point. Even if we found indisputable original manuscripts from Jesus' disciples themselves, it wouldn't prove that their contents were true. As I said, and you didn't address, Christianity wouldn't be the first religion to grow based on a lie. Every religion does it. This impossible barrier of eyewitness testimony or bust is a Christian invention to try to make its claims seem more believable. The problem is, if we're to just accept your assumption that people would have called bullshit without real evidence, none of the other religions in the world would exist. And yet they do, which proves you wrong.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMReally? You know this or you are assuming it because my beliefs differ from yours and it is convenient to dismiss me?
It's plain to see to everyone here aside from you that you've got your head firmly planted up your own ass.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMYeah, because no true atheist would ever convert, right? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Strawman. But such logical fallacies are to be expected from someone so hopelessly brainwashed and incapable of rational thought.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMYour first point is absurd. We rely on eyewitnesses EVERY day. Your second point is irrelevant. We have indirect testimony from the eyewitnesses who wrote them. This type of evidence is just as valid in a court of law as direct evidence.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Eyewitness testimonies have long been understood to be unreliable. Eyewitnesses frequently get important details wrong, such as the skin color of the perpetrator. They're worth virtually nothing in a court of law. Our memories are not as reliable as we'd like to think.
And...once again...YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM ANY EYEWITNESSES. Get that into your head. You're making huge assumptions based on what you were raised to believe. No one with a free mind would consider any books from the Bible to be eyewitness testimonies.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMYep. And using the methodology of textual criticism (discussed in another thread), we can reconstruct the original texts with a high degree of accuracy.
So you can accurately guess what the man claiming to be Luke wrote in the second century. How special.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMSo, now we come to the heart of the matter.
If we have accurate texts written by men who can be shown to be reliable by careful examination of the details included in their accounts and to have been corroborated by non-Christian sources, then we are faced with the question of what to do with their claims.
Which you don't have.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMWere they lying? Did they actually believe what they wrote? What accounts for the fact that otherwise sober, honest men make an otherwise unbelievable claim of supernatural events?
John Smith, Mohammed, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard...
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMMark and Luke did. Accurately. We can test this.
You mean other than twofactsbaseless assertions:
1. The earliest sources ascribe the books to the traditional authors, and
Nope.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PM2. There is no competing list of candidates who might have written them?
That's because they'd be claiming to be someone else, dumbass. Anyone alive at the time could have written them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMReally? What if Joseph had two fathers as a result of Levirate marriage requirements?
Oh the lengths Christians will go through to try to justify obvious problems in their holy book. Is this stated anywhere in either of these two books, or are you making shit up again? The point of the two genealogies was to show that Jesus was directly related to David by blood.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 12:19:50 PMOh...stump the apologist, eh?
Okay, but not in this thread. Start your own.
No. You asked for it. You got it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 12:31:48 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 12:31:48 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:16:01 PM
Because a real historical person started it.
Because a real, historical person started it.
Because two real, historical people started me.
Why does the Christian Church exist?
(http://blueprintsforliving.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/if-I-only-had-a-brain.jpg)
Turn on your brain for 60 seconds, Randy. You're making this guy look smart. You completely missed the fucking point. Here. Let me simplify it for you.
You: If the authors were lying, people would have figured it out, and Christianity wouldn't exist.
Me: By that same logic, Mormonism and Islam must be true, because people would have figured them out if they were lying.
You: Uh, well they were started by real people.
Me:
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/10/Chris-Rock-HUH-WTF.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on May 07, 2016, 03:51:24 AM
Post by: trdsf on May 07, 2016, 03:51:24 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 05, 2016, 11:24:49 AMMore doubletalk. You assert something is true about your bible, and then you use your bible to "support" your argument, and then you squeal like a stuck pig when you get called on it.
Those two words are very important. When they actually apply. If you think they do in this case, then you have misunderstood my argument.
This is the very essence of circular reasoning, and of being a dishonest debater -- since we can add your tactic of dodging questions you can't (or don't want to) answer by throwing up a smokescreen of counterquestions that you hope will obscure the fact that you haven't addressed the points made against you.
One last thing: thanks for destroying your own position. If you really want to suggest that I don't have to accept the existence of the far side of the moon because I haven't seen it for myself, then I don't have to accept the existence of your god either, since I definitely haven't seen him.
Unlike your god, however, I have good observational reasons to think there is a far side of the moon, good enough for me to feel comfortable saying I know (within the limits of scientific accuracy) there's a far side, and even to accept the evidence of the photography, without having to just rely on a mystical "someone said so".
I can observe the libration (http://earthsky.org/space/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration) of the moon, which demonstrates beyond question that the moon is a three-dimensional object, in which case it must have a far side. Nearly 60% of the lunar surface is visible from the Earth, just not all at the same time.
I can -- and have -- observed other bodies in the solar system, all of which are three-dimensional bodies, and all of which have far sides and near sides. This strongly corroborates the idea that there's a lunar far side.
With regard to the photographs of the lunar far side, Occam's razor strikes again. In order to believe that the photos of the far side of the moon are falsified, I not only have to believe in a massive conspiracy of every space scientist, rocket designer, astronomer, and lunar geologist in the world, I have to believe that at the height of the Cold War, the United States government colluded with the Soviet Union with regard to the Luna 3 photos, the first ones ever taken from the Moon's far side. That American politicians in 1959 were perfectly happy to connive at presenting a Soviet scientific fraud as true. And that they are still maintaining that same conspiracy to this day, even through eleven American presidents, six Soviet premiers, and the collapse of the USSR.
That would be not only delusional, that would probably require medication.
Thanks anyway, I'll take the real world.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 06:23:37 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 06:23:37 AM
I hate to say this, but Randy is starting to make sense to me. This is especially hard for me since I've been such a dick to him. While he makes unsupported claims, the shear volume of those claims is remarkable. The law of probability tells us that it's possible that at least one of those claims stands a good chance of being true. If one is true, then it's likely that the others could also be true. In addition, Randy has cut and pasted from many notable authorities (all of whom, like Randy, have good grammar). In addition, they are good spellers too.
Overall, I can't say that the Bible is really unreasonable. Walking on water? What's unreasonable about that? A dead guy coming back to life, turning water in to wine, making the blind see? These are all good things done out of the concern for others. I dunno, they may have happened. You can't prove they didn't.
You can say Catholicism is superstition, but most people are superstitious, so we shouldn't hold that against anyone. And almost everyone knows there is a god. With so many people assuming that Jesus was a real person, it really makes sense to go with the numbers.
As to which religion worships the real god, that's a little harder to say, but when you think about it, it's probably the Catholics. They are the oldest religion of all. The Protestants came so much later that they probably can't remember things from 2000 years ago as well as the Catholics, and none of the protestants even agree with each other. Their hearts are in the right place, but intellectually, the Catholics tend to be smarter, so they probably don't make as many mistakes.
It just seems logical that Randy might know more than any of us and really wants what's best for people.
Overall, I can't say that the Bible is really unreasonable. Walking on water? What's unreasonable about that? A dead guy coming back to life, turning water in to wine, making the blind see? These are all good things done out of the concern for others. I dunno, they may have happened. You can't prove they didn't.
You can say Catholicism is superstition, but most people are superstitious, so we shouldn't hold that against anyone. And almost everyone knows there is a god. With so many people assuming that Jesus was a real person, it really makes sense to go with the numbers.
As to which religion worships the real god, that's a little harder to say, but when you think about it, it's probably the Catholics. They are the oldest religion of all. The Protestants came so much later that they probably can't remember things from 2000 years ago as well as the Catholics, and none of the protestants even agree with each other. Their hearts are in the right place, but intellectually, the Catholics tend to be smarter, so they probably don't make as many mistakes.
It just seems logical that Randy might know more than any of us and really wants what's best for people.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 07, 2016, 08:35:38 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 07, 2016, 08:35:38 AM
Standard fare: apologetic, polemic, casuistry ... aka Sophists transferred from pagan Athens to catholic Rome.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 09:20:42 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 09:20:42 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 12:31:48 AM
You: If the authors were lying, people would have figured it out, and Christianity wouldn't exist.
Me: By that same logic, Mormonism and Islam must be true, because people would have figured them out if they were lying.
You: Uh, well they were started by real people.
And this is where you have failed to follow the chain of logic. I have not attempted to prove that Christianity is true merely because it exists. As you rightly point out, Mormonism and Islam exist, but I would not concede that they are true because they exist.
NO, I have merely asserted that Christianity exists because someone started it, and that person must have existed, also.
So, Mohammed was a real, historical person. Joseph Smith was a real historical person. Jesus was a real historical person.
THAT was the purpose of my question "Why does the Christian Church exist?"
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 09:33:59 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 09:33:59 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 06:23:37 AM
I hate to say this, but Randy is starting to make sense to me. This is especially hard for me since I've been such a dick to him. While he makes unsupported claims, the shear volume of those claims is remarkable. The law of probability tells us that it's possible that at least one of those claims stands a good chance of being true. If one is true, then it's likely that the others could also be true. In addition, Randy has cut and pasted from many notable authorities (all of whom, like Randy, have good grammar). In addition, they are good spellers too.
I appreciate the sarcasm, but there is an important kernel or two of truth in your post.
1. Yes, the volume of evidence is significant, it is reasonable, and it is compelling.
2. Yes, the notable authorities are well-educated, and some are world-class scholars.
This is in stark contrast to the material that has been offered by atheists in reply.
QuoteOverall, I can't say that the Bible is really unreasonable. Walking on water? What's unreasonable about that? A dead guy coming back to life, turning water in to wine, making the blind see? These are all good things done out of the concern for others. I dunno, they may have happened. You can't prove they didn't.
1. No, you can't say the Bible is unreasonable. There are 73 individual books in the Bible, and each must be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof.
2. No, you can't prove that they didn't happen, and you know this. Therefore, you employ mockery in an attempt to lower the perception of plausibility.
3. I can't prove that they did. However, I can offer evidence and let you determine for yourself whether that evidence is reasonable.
QuoteYou can say Catholicism is superstition, but most people are superstitious, so we shouldn't hold that against anyone. And almost everyone knows there is a god. With so many people assuming that Jesus was a real person, it really makes sense to go with the numbers.
1. Catholicism is not a superstition. It is based upon historical events.
2. With so many PhD's acknowledging that Jesus was a historical figure, it makes sense to ignore the crap you read from ignorant athesist in low-brow forums such as this.
QuoteAs to which religion worships the real god, that's a little harder to say, but when you think about it, it's probably the Catholics. They are the oldest religion of all. The Protestants came so much later that they probably can't remember things from 2000 years ago as well as the Catholics, and none of the protestants even agree with each other. Their hearts are in the right place, but intellectually, the Catholics tend to be smarter, so they probably don't make as many mistakes.
1. The age of a religion is not evidence of whether it is true.
2. Catholicism is the truest form of Christianity.
3. Protestantism tends to ignore the Early Church Fathers because their writings reveal their belief in doctrines which the Protestants have rejected due to Luther's errors.
QuoteIt just seems logical that Randy might know more than any of us and really wants what's best for people.
1. The latter portion of the sentence is true enough.
2. An atheist wrote the following to me yesterday in another forum:
QuoteI know the Rabid Atheist mindset very well.
Why do you think the most rabid ones are always arguing with you and trying to show you you are incorrect? They want you(the believer) to prove them wrong. They desperately want you to prove them wrong.
They are furious with you that you cannot do this.
All the time, you remind them of what they do not have. The only answer for them is to destroy your faith, so they do not have to be constantly reminded. They hate you because you believe and have something they do not IE Hope. They envy you.
They are aware of none of this.
He is on the path to becoming a believer. I hope you are as well. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/prayer/signofcross.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 09:42:53 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 09:42:53 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 09:33:59 AM
He is on the path to becoming a believer. I hope you are as well. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/prayer/signofcross.gif)
Oh, I do, I do. I'm seeing the light!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 10:47:34 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 10:47:34 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 12:19:18 AM
I've already debunked this bullshit reasoning of yours. The bad guy converting into a good guy just makes the story more attractive. Just like you would like to claim an atheist convert for your side, the early Christians wouldn't have had any issues at all with a tax collector turning over a new leaf to follow Jesus. And he's not even the best example of this. Paul, formerly Saul, was killing Christians before his conversion. So of course, they made his conversion story the most dramatic and miraculous of any disciple.
Let me get this straight: You think that Jews would find it heartwarming to see a Jew become a Christian? Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the animosity and contempt that the Jews had for the fledgling Church. And who is going to be the most popular figure in these stories, Blackleaf?
Paul, the most celebrated student of the greatest rabbi of his day, Gamaliel, who became a traitor by leaving Judaism and becoming a Christian? Or Matthew, who was a hated collaborator and also became a Christian? How would either of these stories play in Jerusalem?
Not well. And that's why the Criterion of Embarrassment is so powerful. Because even though this information would NOT make Christianity more palatable to the Jews, it was nonetheless recorded because it was true.
QuoteWrong again. Focus, Randy. Repeat after me: We do NOT have any documents written by Luke, John, or Peter. We have copies of copies of documents that are BELIEVED to have been written by Luke, John, and Peter.
Listen to me carefully, Blackleaf. Focus. We do NOT have any documents written by Luke, John or Peter. We have copies of copies of documents that are BELIEVED to have been written by Luke, John, and Peter.
DID YOU HEAR ME? Good, because it's what I have been saying all along in my thread on the Accuracy of the Texts.
The copies we have today are so numerous that we can easily reconstruct a reliable text even without the existence of the autographs. Further, the REASON we believe them to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc, is because 1) the documents claim to have been written by the authors whose names we know and/or 2) no other competing list of candidates has EVER been proposed are accepted.
The early Christians were just as hard-nosed and skeptical as you are, Blackleaf. They would have required proof of authorship before accepting any letter or gospel as scripture. As much as atheists want to throw around silly words like "fan-fiction" and "gullible", the plain fact is that these folks were no different than us. They would have demanded proof. Thomas refused to believe in the resurrection without being able to put his fingers into the nail wounds. A simple reading of the book of Acts will show you how hard Paul had to work at convincing the Gentiles in Antioch and Corinth and other cities of the truth of the Gospels. Some accepted and some did not. But his task was not an easy one because people in his day demanded evidence just as much as you do.
QuoteI don't care how much you'd like to think that these documents were written by who the authors say they were. We have no evidence of this, and no way to verify it. In fact, all signs point to the documents being written by someone else, long after the events written about.
This is your opinion, but it is not the opinion of scholars who have the education and credentials to speak authoritatively on the subject. So, either you know this and you're just being stubborn or you are kidding yourself about your own credentials or you are simply completely ignorant and talking out of your ass.
QuoteNot necessary, as again, people are gullible. EVERY religion takes advantage of this. Religions don't grow because their leaders provide strong evidence for their claims; they grow because what they say sounds good to them.
So, the smart religious leaders are simply lying in order to take advantage of the stupid ones.? Does that apply to smart atheists who write books to take money from gullible atheists who want to believe what they say?
QuoteNo, they weren't. They were written in the second century, after the original authors were long dead, and all of the supposed "witnesses" they spoke of could not be found. You will never find a single document written anywhere near the lifetime of Jesus.
The gospels themselves were ALL composed before the end of the first century. If you disagree, then please provide an argument explaining why my OP is incorrect.
But never? You need to keep up with what archaeology is doing. When the King James Version was produced, it was based on seven manuscripts and the oldest of these was from the 11th century. When modern translations today are produced, they are based on 5000+ manucripts, and the oldest of these is from the second century. IOW, as time goes by, we're not getting further from the originals, we're getting CLOSER!
And there is one papyrus which has been dated to the first century...but I don't want to overplay my hand. Let's wait and see on that.
QuoteAnd once again, you fail to understand the point. Even if we found indisputable original manuscripts from Jesus' disciples themselves, it wouldn't prove that their contents were true.
Focus. I agree.
Shocked? You shouldn't be...I've been saying this over and over and over. Having an accurate text is simply the first link in a chain of evidence. There are many more links to be discussed before you will be able to deliberate on my case in its entirety.
QuoteAs I said, and you didn't address, Christianity wouldn't be the first religion to grow based on a lie. Every religion does it.
So, it is your opinion that the disciples LIED about the resurrection? Because that is really the heart of Christianity, isn't it?
QuoteThis impossible barrier of eyewitness testimony or bust is a Christian invention to try to make its claims seem more believable. The problem is, if we're to just accept your assumption that people would have called bullshit without real evidence, none of the other religions in the world would exist. And yet they do, which proves you wrong.
Christianity is unique in that it hinges upon one fact: the historical event of the resurrection. It is not a belief system, a set of principles to live by or a philosophy. Either Jesus was raised from the dead or he was not.
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the resurrection is the best explanations of all of the facts that objective people agree occurred, and the case is made. Conversely, prove that belief in the resurrection is unreasonable in light of all the evidence, and Christianity is busted.
I think I can do the former. Do you believe you can do the latter?
Then, let's go.
QuoteIt's plain to see to everyone here aside from you that you've got your head firmly planted up your own ass.
Gee, if I appealed to numbers, I would be laughed at (and rightly so). But if you were to come to MY home forum, your views would be challenged beyond what you even think possible. Isn't that called "home court advantage". So, everyone here is a "fan-boy" of atheism. So what?
QuoteStrawman. But such logical fallacies are to be expected from someone so hopelessly brainwashed and incapable of rational thought.
My point was simply this: Atheists LOVE to talk about how they left Christianity once they began to think for themselves and about how stupid believers are for not leaving the faith. But when it's pointed out that some cradle atheists who are also top drawer members of the scientific community have converted to Christianity, that means nothing.
It's a double-standard that no one here likes to acknowledge.
QuoteWrong, wrong, and wrong. Eyewitness testimonies have long been understood to be unreliable. Eyewitnesses frequently get important details wrong, such as the skin color of the perpetrator. They're worth virtually nothing in a court of law. Our memories are not as reliable as we'd like to think.
Eyewitnesses give testimony in court every day. And our judicial system accepts their testimony as valid. This does not mean that eyewitnesses don't make mistakes in their testimonies and they may even get some details wrong. Maybe Matthew got some details wrong, too. But this does not invalidate the entire testimony of the eyewitnesses in court nor in the gospels.
And this drives you crazy because you know that this means the gospels must be dealt with more seriously than you have been willing to accept.
QuoteAnd...once again...YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM ANY EYEWITNESSES. Get that into your head. You're making huge assumptions based on what you were raised to believe. No one with a free mind would consider any books from the Bible to be eyewitness testimonies.
The gospels tell us that they were written by eyewitnesses or by those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Can you prove otherwise? Nope.
The gospels were written early enough to have been written by people still alive at the time. Can you prove otherwise? Nope.
The gospels were written by authors who intended to write accurate accounts of Jesus. Can you prove otherwise? Nope.
The gospels are corroborated by unintended internal consistencies. Can you prove otherwise? Nope.
The gospels are corroborated by archaeological and sociological evidence and research. Can you prove otherwise? Nope.
The gospels are corroborated by Jewish and Roman accounts. Can you prove otherwise? Nope.
In summary, the gospels were written by honest men who were eyewitnesses and intended to write accurate accounts of what they saw.
QuoteSo you can accurately guess what the man claiming to be Luke wrote in the second century. How special.
Focus. Read the OP again. Luke wrote well before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, before the deaths of Peter and Paul in AD 64-65, and before the martyrdom of James in AD 62-63. Not the second century. And we know it was Luke because of the interconnections between Luke, the book of Acts, and the epistles of Paul.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 10:50:00 AM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 10:50:00 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 04, 2016, 04:03:41 PMFucking circular logic? Good luck with that.
Sure. Someone else asked me this once, so I put some thoughts together.
We can take a look at what Jesus said, how he acted, what others said and how they responded, etc.
The Divinity of Jesus Christ Proved from Scripture
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 10:53:32 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 10:53:32 AM
Quote from: trdsf on May 07, 2016, 03:51:24 AM
One last thing: thanks for destroying your own position. If you really want to suggest that I don't have to accept the existence of the far side of the moon because I haven't seen it for myself, then I don't have to accept the existence of your god either, since I definitely haven't seen him.
Correct. You have not seen God.
However, you can accept the reliable testimony of honest men about Him. Or not. The choice is yours but the illustration is sound. You rely on others to tell you about things you have not seen in the natural realm, but you refuse (simply because you don't want to) to accept the testimony of reliable men regarding the supernatural.
This is not consistent, is it?
QuoteUnlike your god, however, I have good observational reasons to think there is a far side of the moon, good enough for me to feel comfortable saying I know (within the limits of scientific accuracy) there's a far side, and even to accept the evidence of the photography, without having to just rely on a mystical "someone said so".
Sure, but that's not the point. My point is that philosophically, you rely on the word of reliable men to tell you things you have not verified for yourself.
Why not apply that principle to the testimony of reliable men about God?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 10:55:39 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 10:50:00 AM
Fucking circular logic? Good luck with that.
Good point. My headline should have read "Jesus' Claims of Divinity Found in Scripture."
Thanks for sharpening my sword.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AM
In two other threads, I have made the case for the accuracy of the NT texts which we have today and the early dating of the gospels. By themselves, these two points do not prove the claims of Christianity with regard to the resurrection of Jesus; however, they are essential foundation stones which must be established as part of a chain of evidence that points to the historical reliability of the NT and, ultimately, to the conclusion that belief in the resurrection is reasonable.
Rather than continue one link at a time, I have decided to post the full sequence of arguments that can be offered in defense of the Christian claims that Jesus rose from the dead.
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament â€" Summation
Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.â€
Here is that evidence.
The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us (meaning we know what they wrote).
• Nearly 6,000 copies of the New Testament can be studied using textual criticism.
• The Telephone Game analogy and all attempts to claim distortion via oral tradition are bogus.
The authors wrote early (meaning it was possible that they were actual eyewitnesses).
Silence regarding the Destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul) (AD 64-65) suggest an early date.
The authors recorded eyewitness accounts (meaning they either were or had access to actual eyewitnesses).
• All of the early sources attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The synoptic gospels are not attributed to major figures such as Peter, James or Mary; instead, they are assigned to a tax-collector (Matthew), a lesser character who may not have been present (Mark), and a gentile (Luke). This is one example of how the gospels meet the Criterion of Embarrassment.
• Matthew was an apostle, and may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which were needed to make contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching and deeds.
• Luke interviewed people who were present. This may have included Mary for the nativity account.
• Mark was the companion of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
• John was an apostle.
The authors wanted to write accurate accounts (as opposed to pious fiction).
• Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.
• The disciples believed they were passing on the words of God â€" a responsibility they took seriously.
The authors wrote accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.
• Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
• Verifiable external evidence suggests that the authors had intimate knowledge of the geography, architecture, religious and political leadership, religious customs, language of the day, etc. Even the names of the people appear in the correct percentages.
• Unintentional internal corroboration provides additional evidence that the gospels are accurate.
• Accuracy regarding these details adds to the impression that the authors are credible.
The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses â€" both supportive and hostile.
• Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time the gospels and epistles were written. Anyone disagreeing with a gospel could have easily refuted an erroneous account.
• The Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was.
The authors had no ulterior motive.
What did the authors of the gospels gain from their work? The three classic motives are: power, money, and sex. Not only did Christianity reject these things in general, but the authors were persecuted and killed.
Additional Points for Discussion:
• The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
• Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
• Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
• The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone. Jesus is not a legend, and the New Testament is not a work of fiction.
TWO MORE APPROACHES
J. Warner Wallace
• The gospels were written very early
• The gospels were transmitted carefully
• The gospel information was protected and preserved
• The gospel claims about Jesus were consistent with non-Christian sources
• The gospel accounts were testable
Testing the Eye-witnesses
Were the gospels reliably preserved for us?
Where the authors present?
Were they written early enough to have been authored by true eyewitnesses?
Where they verified or corroborated in any way?
Is the testimony of the gospel writers confirmed by outside sources and evidence?
Is there credible evidence for Jesus outside the gospels?
Were they accurate?
Did the gospel writers record what they had seen and heard accurately?
Were they biased or did they have an ulterior motive (power, money, sex)?
Were the gospel writers motivated to lie about their testimony?
Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted?
Do the gospels stand up to scrutiny?
Does archaeology confirm of contradict the gospels?
Rather than continue one link at a time, I have decided to post the full sequence of arguments that can be offered in defense of the Christian claims that Jesus rose from the dead.
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament â€" Summation
Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.â€
Here is that evidence.
The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us (meaning we know what they wrote).
• Nearly 6,000 copies of the New Testament can be studied using textual criticism.
• The Telephone Game analogy and all attempts to claim distortion via oral tradition are bogus.
The authors wrote early (meaning it was possible that they were actual eyewitnesses).
Silence regarding the Destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul) (AD 64-65) suggest an early date.
The authors recorded eyewitness accounts (meaning they either were or had access to actual eyewitnesses).
• All of the early sources attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The synoptic gospels are not attributed to major figures such as Peter, James or Mary; instead, they are assigned to a tax-collector (Matthew), a lesser character who may not have been present (Mark), and a gentile (Luke). This is one example of how the gospels meet the Criterion of Embarrassment.
• Matthew was an apostle, and may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which were needed to make contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching and deeds.
• Luke interviewed people who were present. This may have included Mary for the nativity account.
• Mark was the companion of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
• John was an apostle.
The authors wanted to write accurate accounts (as opposed to pious fiction).
• Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.
• The disciples believed they were passing on the words of God â€" a responsibility they took seriously.
The authors wrote accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.
• Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
• Verifiable external evidence suggests that the authors had intimate knowledge of the geography, architecture, religious and political leadership, religious customs, language of the day, etc. Even the names of the people appear in the correct percentages.
• Unintentional internal corroboration provides additional evidence that the gospels are accurate.
• Accuracy regarding these details adds to the impression that the authors are credible.
The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses â€" both supportive and hostile.
• Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time the gospels and epistles were written. Anyone disagreeing with a gospel could have easily refuted an erroneous account.
• The Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was.
The authors had no ulterior motive.
What did the authors of the gospels gain from their work? The three classic motives are: power, money, and sex. Not only did Christianity reject these things in general, but the authors were persecuted and killed.
Additional Points for Discussion:
• The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
• Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
• Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
• The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone. Jesus is not a legend, and the New Testament is not a work of fiction.
TWO MORE APPROACHES
J. Warner Wallace
• The gospels were written very early
• The gospels were transmitted carefully
• The gospel information was protected and preserved
• The gospel claims about Jesus were consistent with non-Christian sources
• The gospel accounts were testable
Testing the Eye-witnesses
Were the gospels reliably preserved for us?
Where the authors present?
Were they written early enough to have been authored by true eyewitnesses?
Where they verified or corroborated in any way?
Is the testimony of the gospel writers confirmed by outside sources and evidence?
Is there credible evidence for Jesus outside the gospels?
Were they accurate?
Did the gospel writers record what they had seen and heard accurately?
Were they biased or did they have an ulterior motive (power, money, sex)?
Were the gospel writers motivated to lie about their testimony?
Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted?
Do the gospels stand up to scrutiny?
Does archaeology confirm of contradict the gospels?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 12:24:15 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 12:24:15 PM
"The authors had no ulterior motive."
Why do idiots report UFOs? Why to people lie about the size of the fish they caught. Why do men brag about banging women they've never met? There's no prophet to any of this.
Why do idiots report UFOs? Why to people lie about the size of the fish they caught. Why do men brag about banging women they've never met? There's no prophet to any of this.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 12:25:08 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 12:25:08 PM
QuoteCatholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.â€
So one piece of flawed evidence doesn't prove anything, but a whole bunch of flawed evidence might?
Yikes! Hardly a slam dunk, wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 12:36:45 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 12:36:45 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 12:24:15 PM
"The authors had no ulterior motive."
Why do idiots report UFOs?
Why to people lie about the size of the fish they caught. Why do men brag about banging women they've never met?
Why do you think the disciples of Jesus claimed that they had seen him alive after the crucifixion?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 12:38:46 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 12:38:46 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 12:25:08 PM
So one piece of flawed evidence doesn't prove anything, but a whole bunch of flawed evidence might?
Yikes! Hardly a slam dunk, wouldn't you say?
If you think that any one piece of the evidence is flawed, then point it out and we can discuss it.
Alternatively, you might consider that while anyone piece of evidence would be insufficient to convince you that Jesus rose from the dead, cumulatively, the evidence demonstrates that the resurrection is not only reasonable but probable.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 01:28:52 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 12:38:46 PM
If you think that any one piece of the evidence is flawed, then point it out and we can discuss it.
I'm quoting the author, who admits that one piece of evidence may be weak and then goes on to set the stage for an abundance of weakness proving the case:
QuoteCatholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.â€
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 12:38:46 PM
Alternatively, you might consider that while anyone piece of evidence would be insufficient to convince you that Jesus rose from the dead, cumulatively, the evidence demonstrates that the resurrection is not only reasonable but probable.
Only one piece of solid evidence is sufficient, and then you are home free. Following that with a barrage of weak evidence doesn't add strength to the original proof. It may even weaken the case. Simple, concise, and elegant is sufficient. You prove it once, and you don't have to do it again. An onslaught of further verbiage acts as a distraction, and is common in typical Christian arguments.
The strategy is to make a dubious claim, and then add warm fuzzies that support already instilled beliefs among the indoctrinated. The claim is never proven, but the tactic elicits a lot of positive head nodding among the sympathetic who by that time are awash in feelings of ecstasy and applauding wildly.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 01:34:55 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 01:34:55 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 12:36:45 PM
Why do you think the disciples of Jesus claimed that they had seen him alive after the crucifixion?
I don't know. Why does Batman suffer so much personal angst over whether he's doing the right thing or not? It's just part of the mythology.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:37:09 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:37:09 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 01:28:52 PM
I'm quoting the author, who admits that one piece of evidence may be weak and then goes on to set the stage for an abundance of weakness proving the case:
Then you have overlooked the significance of the second portion of his statement.
QuoteOnly one piece of solid evidence is sufficient, and then you are home free. Following that with a barrage of weak evidence doesn't add strength to the original proof. It may even weaken the case. Simple, concise, and elegant is sufficient. You prove it once, and you don't have to do it again. An onslaught of further verbiage acts as a distraction, and is common in typical Christian arguments.
Are you an attorney? A police officer? A judge? I'm not but I ask because what you are saying does not line up with the practices of our judicial system.
Detectives who investigate crimes and the district attorney's who prosecute them DO NOT go to trial with only one solid piece of evidence.
Nor have I as shown in the OP and other threads.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:41:35 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:41:35 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 01:34:55 PM
I don't know. Why does Batman suffer so much personal angst over whether he's doing the right thing or not? It's just part of the mythology.
Okay, you don't know. That's an honest admission, and I thank you for it.
Would you like to venture a guess? This may help:
There are five minimal facts that do not depend upon the inspiration of scripture and five theories about why the disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They are:
Five facts:
1. Jesus died.
2. Disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.
3. James the skeptical brother believed.
4. Paul the persecutor believed.
5. Empty tomb.
Five theories:
1. Jesus rose.
2. Jesus resuscitated.
3. Disciples lied.
4. Disciples hallucinated.
5. Church legend.
If you have another theory to explain the five facts, add it to the list.
Otherwise, which theory do you find most compelling in light of the first list of events?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 02:01:22 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 02:01:22 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:37:09 PM
Then you have overlooked the significance of the second portion of his statement:Quote“No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.â€
No, I didn't overlook it. I read the arguments which followed, and just as he already admitted, they are all individually weak.Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:37:09 PM
Are you an attorney? A police officer? A judge? I'm not but I ask because what you are saying does not line up with the practices of our judicial system.
God forbid we should base a debate over the truth of the Bible following the form of our judicial system, which renders a verdict based on the opinion of a group of uninformed laymen, who are selected before the trial even begins by lawyers trying to anticipate the sympathetic leanings of jurors to their own biases. Such a low standard of "proof" isn't acceptable here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:41:35 PM
If you have another theory to explain the five facts, add it to the list.
Otherwise, which theory do you find most compelling in light of the first list of events?
Hell, I don't even consider any of these facts. And you want me to come up with theories to explain them?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 07, 2016, 02:28:58 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 07, 2016, 02:28:58 PM
Was Jesus born and raised in Nazareth as one would conclude from reading the historically reliable accounts of John and Mark or was he born in Bethlehem where his parents lived until fleeing to Egypt after a visit from magi to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocent as told in the historically reliable account of Matthew or was Jesus born while his parents traveled from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for the census before presenting him in the temple and returning home to Nazareth as told in the historically reliable account of Luke?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:41:35 PMIt was standard practice for bodies of crucified individuals to be denied entombment
5. Empty tomb.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:24:32 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:24:32 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 02:01:22 PM
No, I didn't overlook it. I read the arguments which followed, and just as he already admitted, they are all individually weak.
Here it is again:
QuoteCatholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.â€
Where does Trent Horn suggest that they are all individually weak? He doesn't. What he acknowledges (and this is true of just about any case based upon indirect evidence) is that the combined effect of the evidence we do have may be sufficient to convince someone that God's existence is more probable than not.
If you draw from that that each point is "weak", well, that's your opinion as a a member of the jury, of course. Other people disagree.
QuoteGod forbid we should base a debate over the truth of the Bible following the form of our judicial system, which renders a verdict based on the opinion of a group of uninformed laymen, who are selected before the trial even begins by lawyers trying to anticipate the sympathetic leanings of jurors to their own biases. Such a low standard of "proof" isn't acceptable here.
Heh...you make an excellent point.
Which is why I have endeavored to provide EXPERT opinion...the kind that attorneys would call...rather than the mere opinions of uninformed laymen.
See, when uninformed laymen like reasonist or Mike assert their opinions regarding Christianity or Catholicism, their testimonies carry no weight. When scholars with PhD's in the relevant fields like Bart Ehrman admit that Jesus existed and that the gospels can be accepted as historical proof of his existence, that is EXPERT testimony.
And since Ehrman is an atheist, his testimony is even more significant BECAUSE HE IS A HOSTILE WITNESS.
So, we should listen to the big boys and ignore the lap dogs snarling and snapping around our ankles.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Hell, I don't even consider any of these facts. Any you want me to come up with theories to explain them?
If this is your position, then you should begin by establishing for yourself whether or not this is the view of mainstream NT scholarship.
(It is.)
Helpful hint: Gary Habermas has done the research, but you'll need to determine for yourself whether his scholarship is reliable. The fact that he is a Christian and a professor at Liberty University is not an automatic disqualifier, but again, this is something that you need to work out to your own satisfaction.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:47:38 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:47:38 PM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 07, 2016, 02:28:58 PM
It was standard practice for bodies of crucified individuals to be denied entombment
Habermas notes that Fact #5: "Burial in a tomb" does not enjoy the same degree of acceptance as the other four facts. Specifically, while a majority of scholars accept it, the majority is not as large as is the case for the other four facts.
So, good choice on your part. You correctly chose the weakest fact in your rebuttal. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
However, I have a few questions for you:
1. If Jesus was not buried in a tomb, why would the disciples report that he was in the gospels? This claim could have been easily dismissed by the Jewish and Roman leaders who would have known otherwise or been able to cite the same "standard procedure" that you have appealed to.
2. If Jesus was not buried in a tomb, what happened to his body? Was it thrown into an unknown grave, dug up by wild dogs and eaten? If this is the case, how would it account for facts 2, 3 and four? Paul, an enemy of the Church, would have been the skeptic MOST LIKELY to assume that the disciples were lying. How does the shallow grave theory account for his conversion?
3. Does "standard practice" mean that there could not possibly have been an exception ever? In which case, how would we go about proving that there were no exceptions?
In fact, there were exceptions as Raymond Brown noted. Concerning the Roman views of burial of the crucified, Brown wrote:
QuoteIn investigating Roman customs or laws dealing with the burial of crucified criminals, we find some guidance in DJ 48.24, which gives the clement views of Ulpian and of Julius Paulus from the period CA. AD 200. The bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be refused to their relatives (Ulpian) nor to any who seek them for burial (Paulus). Ulpian traces this attitude back to Augustus in Book 10 of Vita Sua, but he recognizes that the generous granting of bodies may have to be refused if the condemnation has been for treason (maiestas). The exception was verified a few years before Ulpian in the treatment of the martyrs of Lyons reported in Eusebius (EH 5.1.61-62): The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, "We could not bury the bodies in the earth...neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain."
If we move back from the 2d cent., what was the Roman attitude at the time of Jesus towards the bodies of crucified criminals? Despite what Ulpian tells us about Augustus, he was not always so clement. Suetonius (Augustus 13.1-2) reports, with the obvious disapproval of 2d-cent. hindsight, that Augustus refused to allow decent burial for the bodies of those who fought for Brutus: "That matter must be settled with the carrion-birds." Since Augustus would have looked on Brutus as a traitor, the parallel to the question of what would happen to those convicted of treason (maiestas) is significant. In the reign of terror that followed the fall of Sejanus (AD 31), Tacitus reports the actions of Tiberius: "People sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial" (Annals 6.29). Beyond such imperial vengeance, severity is assumed to be normal by Petronius (Satyricon 111-12), as in Nero's time he writes the story of a soldier at Ephesus who neglected his duty of preventing the bodies of dead criminals from being removed from the cross. While he was absent in the night making love to a widow, the parents came stealthily, took the body down, and buried it, causing the soldier to fear the severest punishment. Evidently it was almost proverbial that those who hung on the cross fed the crows with their bodies (Horace, Epistle 1.16.48).
Discerning Roman legal practice for a province like Judea is difficult. The law cited above (DJ) was juxta ordinem, i.e., customary law in Rome for dealing with Roman citizens. Decisions in the provinces dealing with non-citizens were most often extra ordinem, so that such a matter as the deposition of crucified bodies would have been left to the local magistrate. Before Jesus' time, in Sicily, much closer to Rome, Cicero (In Verrem 2.5.45; #119) reports that a corrupt governor made parents pay for permission to bury their children. Philo (In Flaccum 10.83-84) tells us that in Egypt, on the eve of a Roman holiday, customarily "people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites." But the prefect Flaccus (within a decade of Jesus' death) "gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross," even on the eve of a feast. Indeed, he crucified others, after maltreating them with the lash. (Raymond Edward Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 1207-1208)
Concerning the attitude of the Jews, Brown noted:
QuoteAs we have seen (pp. 532-33 above), there is solid evidence that in Jesus' era crucifixion came under the Jewish laws and customs governing hanging, and in particular under Deut 21:22-23: "If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged." The conflict between Roman and Jewish attitudes is phrased thus by S. Lieberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing corpses on the cross for many days...horrified the Jews." In the First Jewish Revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this, Josephus states, "The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset."
The crucial issue in Judaism, however, would have been the type of burial. The hanged person was accursed, especially since most often in Jewish legal practice this punishment would have been meted out to those already executed in another way, e.g., stoning. In the OT we see a tendency to refuse to the wicked honorable burial in an ancestral plot (1 Kings 13:21-22). Even a king like Jehoiakim, despite his rank, having been condemned by the Lord for wickedness, had these words spoken of him by Jeremiah (22:19): "The burial of an ass shall be given him, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." Jer 26:23 refers to a prophet condemned (unjustly) and slain by the king being thrown "into the burial place of the common people" (see also II Kings 23:6). I Enoch 98:13 excludes from prepared graves the wicked who rejoice in the death of the righteous, and Josephus (Ant. 5.1.14; #44) has Achar at nightfall given "the ignominious burial proper to the condemned" (see also 4.8.24; #264). The account of the death of Judas in Matt 27:5-8 shows that the Jews of Jesus' time would think of a common burial place for the despised, not a family tomb. (Raymond Edward Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 1209-1210.
If the Jews considered the charge of treason by the Romans to be unjust, then denying Jesus burial would have been unlikely. Brown notes:
QuoteIn a political situation where the death penalty was imposed by the Gentiles, however, the opposite could be true: An innocent or noble Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. . . According to Mark/Matt the Sanhedrin found him worth of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6; #202) would have the blasphemer stoned, hung, "and buried ignominiously and in obscurity." Mart. Of Polycarp 17:2 has Jews instigating opposition lest the body of Polycarp be given to his adherents for honorable burial. On the other hand, Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with Jewish law and so not necessarily subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial? (Raymond Edward Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 1210.)
Clearly, the Jews disliked Jesus, but they hated the Romans more. And Pilate was motivated to avoid conflict with the leaders of the Sanhedrin and further uproar in the city. So, when a leading member of the Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, asked for Jesus' body, it was granted as was Pilate's right.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 05:15:25 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 05:15:25 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:24:32 PM
Where does Trent Horn suggest that they are all individually weak?
He states that upfront: "No one piece of evidence may prove it."
If he actually had one piece of evidence that proved it, he could just state it. The whole argument would be over, and I'd be a theist.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:24:32 PM
What he acknowledges (and this is true of just about any case based upon indirect evidence) is that the combined effect of the evidence we do have may be sufficient to convince someone that God's existence is more probable than not.
"Acknowledge," as in recognizing a universal truth? Not quite. He's making a unsupported claim, and there's nothing he puts forward that proves anything. At best, he put's forth a combination of arguments, and not very substantial ones at that, which prove nothing as a whole, but obviously do please those of faith. But we are not talking about proof, as he uses the term in his first sentence. Instead, he switches from "proof" to "probability" and suggests:
"that the combined effect of the evidence we do have may be sufficient to convince someone that God's existence is more probable."
'More probable' is a long way from proof. He is talking about arguments designed to influence the opinion of those with much lower standards for determining proof (to convince someone does not establish proof). I wouldn't even try to extract a "probability" from such a thesis.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:24:32 PM
If you draw from that that each point is "weak", well, that's your opinion as a a member of the jury, of course. Other people disagree.
That each point is weak is exactly my opinion. In fact, amassing a body of weak arguments, comes nowhere near the status required of proof. It's only a convincing victory to those who equate truth to belief.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 05:42:14 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 12:36:45 PMI don't believe they did.
Why do you think the disciples of Jesus claimed that they had seen him alive after the crucifixion?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 06:01:54 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 05:15:25 PM
He states that upfront: "No one piece of evidence may prove it."
If he actually had one piece of evidence that proved it, he could just state it. The whole argument would be over, and I'd be a theist.
No question. But that's not usually how a case is made in a court of law, is it? We DON'T have a single, knock-down, argument over piece of evidence. Instead, what we have are a lot of compelling pieces of information that lead to a conclusion that is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, God DID give the apostles your kind of evidence, didn't he? He walked out of the tomb.
At least, that's what the historically accurate accounts of honest eyewitnesses tell us.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 06:04:27 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 06:04:27 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 05:42:14 PM
I don't believe they did.
The disciples did not claim that Jesus rose from the dead?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif)
Peter, James and John? Matthew? Paul? THOSE disciples didn't claim this? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 07, 2016, 06:27:37 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 07, 2016, 06:27:37 PM
We still don't like Jesus or his Gentile followers. We don't trust Jewish followers of Jesus either. - standard Jewish POV
I don't like followers in general, and leaders in particular. Qui Bono? I can think for myself.
But I don't hold it against Jesus, or any other meme.
PS - the other leaders and followers of other Jewish sects 2000 years ago, where pretty messed up also. Some Jews were way too intolerant, puritanical fundies they were, just like Hamas. And that put them at cross purposes with the Roman Empire then, and the American Empire today. Paul was smart enough to see past that ... just not so successful in bringing together an eclectic bunch of Jewish/Gentile messianics ... but I give him an A for effort and commitment. The Epistle to the Romans was pretty amazing, for its time ... he was really great heretical Jew ... it is always the heretics who are the angels or demons. The conformists get nowhere slowly. But his powers of prophecy were ... meh. Of all the ancient pre-Christian guys, I would certainly enjoy talking with him. John of Revelations, not so much ... I would freak out when he passed the bong.
I may have already talked to Paul ... there once was a woman on the Internet blogs, whose personality was like she was channeling Paul ... like John the Baptist was channeling Elijah, or Jesus was channeling Elisha. See you have to think outside the box, to observe the "it doesn't fit my notion of reality" ... in order to be really spiritual.
I don't like followers in general, and leaders in particular. Qui Bono? I can think for myself.
But I don't hold it against Jesus, or any other meme.
PS - the other leaders and followers of other Jewish sects 2000 years ago, where pretty messed up also. Some Jews were way too intolerant, puritanical fundies they were, just like Hamas. And that put them at cross purposes with the Roman Empire then, and the American Empire today. Paul was smart enough to see past that ... just not so successful in bringing together an eclectic bunch of Jewish/Gentile messianics ... but I give him an A for effort and commitment. The Epistle to the Romans was pretty amazing, for its time ... he was really great heretical Jew ... it is always the heretics who are the angels or demons. The conformists get nowhere slowly. But his powers of prophecy were ... meh. Of all the ancient pre-Christian guys, I would certainly enjoy talking with him. John of Revelations, not so much ... I would freak out when he passed the bong.
I may have already talked to Paul ... there once was a woman on the Internet blogs, whose personality was like she was channeling Paul ... like John the Baptist was channeling Elijah, or Jesus was channeling Elisha. See you have to think outside the box, to observe the "it doesn't fit my notion of reality" ... in order to be really spiritual.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 06:47:11 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 06:47:11 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 06:01:54 PM
No question. But that's not usually how a case is made in a court of law, is it? We DON'T have a single, knock-down, argument over piece of evidence.
Courts of law operate on opinion and the persuasiveness of the attorney and susceptibility of the jurors, which is why they get it wrong so many times.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 06:01:54 PM
Instead, what we have are a lot of compelling pieces of information that lead to a conclusion that is beyond a reasonable doubt.
In cases where no actual proof exists like in the question of God's existence, the reasonableness of the doubt becomes even more subjective, and varies from one person to the next, again depending on the individual's susceptibility to authority, peer pressure, indoctrination, and personal bias. What a Christian finds compelling, even undeniable, has little to do with the arguments, but more to do with their own predispositions and desires, rather than the logical aspects of the arguments themselves.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 07:32:03 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 07:32:03 PM
One question for the gang here:
If you are reading a comprehensive history of New York City, and you noticed that it ends without mentioning the attack on the World Trade Center which resulted in their complete collapse, what reason would explain the fact that this information is missing?
Oh, and the book does contain the story of the bombing of the World Trade Center...but not the attack conducted with hijacked airplanes.
Why is this missing?
If you are reading a comprehensive history of New York City, and you noticed that it ends without mentioning the attack on the World Trade Center which resulted in their complete collapse, what reason would explain the fact that this information is missing?
Oh, and the book does contain the story of the bombing of the World Trade Center...but not the attack conducted with hijacked airplanes.
Why is this missing?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 08:59:36 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 08:59:36 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 06:04:27 PMProve any of them said you claim they said. Real proof, not apologetics.
The disciples did not claim that Jesus rose from the dead?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif)
Peter, James and John? Matthew? Paul? THOSE disciples didn't claim this? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 07, 2016, 10:12:15 PM
Post by: aitm on May 07, 2016, 10:12:15 PM
Randy Carson:
Proclaims the OT is widely and mostly metaphorical,
Claims the NT is historically absolutely true
Uses the OT as proof the NT is true
Claims victory…..
can't figure out why others laugh at him.
Proclaims the OT is widely and mostly metaphorical,
Claims the NT is historically absolutely true
Uses the OT as proof the NT is true
Claims victory…..
can't figure out why others laugh at him.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 10:53:15 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 10:53:15 PM
Don't think I didn't notice you still haven't addressed my question, Randy. What's the matter, you can't think of some BS explanation? Afraid to have to admit you were wrong?
Which is more convenient, option 1 or option 2?
Which is more convenient, option 1 or option 2?
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 04, 2016, 12:34:37 PMOption 1: Do your sin in secret, don't put yourself through the emotional rollercoaster that is deconversion so you can justify it. Use religion to justify yourself instead, because God forgives and no sinner has the right to judge you.
Option 2: Give up your religion, which a considerable portion of your life has been devoted to. Give up a major source of emotional support, both the imaginary God you pray to and the congregation that gives you a sense of belonging. Give up your hope for an afterlife, and the sense that your life has a purpose. All so that you can sleep with your (insert gender of your preference here)friend.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 11:00:13 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 11:00:13 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 05:11:12 PMOdd that we have 2,000 years of contiguous fail then.
True.
They're also pretty good at sniffing them out...especially when given a LOT of time to do so.
Or is it just that believers don't want to face reality...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 12:29:05 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 12:29:05 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 07:32:03 PM
One question for the gang here:
If you are reading a comprehensive history of New York City, and you noticed that it ends without mentioning the attack on the World Trade Center which resulted in their complete collapse, what reason would explain the fact that this information is missing?
Oh, and the book does contain the story of the bombing of the World Trade Center...but not the attack conducted with hijacked airplanes.
Why is this missing?
There was no attack on New York City. Irregular demolition team hired by the government ... maybe. Kind of like the unavoidable collateral damage when the Avengers fought Loki.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 12:33:56 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 12:33:56 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 07:32:03 PM
One question for the gang here:
If you are reading a comprehensive history of New York City, and you noticed that it ends without mentioning the attack on the World Trade Center which resulted in their complete collapse, what reason would explain the fact that this information is missing?
Oh, and the book does contain the story of the bombing of the World Trade Center...but not the attack conducted with hijacked airplanes.
Why is this missing?
Because they didn't want apologists to have to make up weird hypothetical situations to try to make a point?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 08, 2016, 04:17:54 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 08, 2016, 04:17:54 AM
Forget about OT or NT, he doesn't even comprehend that Jesus Christ is -also Virgin Mary and others- was created by Nicea Councils for very political reasons trying to save Empire's ass. I am not following, I don't know if he 'discussed' the Nicae Councils.
Almost all Christians have the vision that Christianity is a religion that spread for the day first as what they know today. There is no historical perspective, understanding of religion or faith or myth. Their functions. Because they don't understand those concepts out of religion.
Have you ever met a believer of any Abrahamic religion who is aware that Apollo is a god that has been worshipped more fervently and lived longer than Christ and his cult ruled an unbelivable geography for a very long time? Or Osiris? If they could comprehend that they could get it is just a transformation of deities and there is no need for a real man. There was never a need for a real man.
:arrow: Think about it. The whole Victorious God and Heavens the divine...is just a bunch of old men sitting around a table making basic plots, from old myths and stories, so they wouldn't be slaughtered by their own soldiers and slaves. Everything they believe and worship about Jesus Christ is a political solution to the biggest crisis in one of the greatest empires of human history. Would you be willing to accept that if you were a believer? :lol:
Almost all Christians have the vision that Christianity is a religion that spread for the day first as what they know today. There is no historical perspective, understanding of religion or faith or myth. Their functions. Because they don't understand those concepts out of religion.
Have you ever met a believer of any Abrahamic religion who is aware that Apollo is a god that has been worshipped more fervently and lived longer than Christ and his cult ruled an unbelivable geography for a very long time? Or Osiris? If they could comprehend that they could get it is just a transformation of deities and there is no need for a real man. There was never a need for a real man.
:arrow: Think about it. The whole Victorious God and Heavens the divine...is just a bunch of old men sitting around a table making basic plots, from old myths and stories, so they wouldn't be slaughtered by their own soldiers and slaves. Everything they believe and worship about Jesus Christ is a political solution to the biggest crisis in one of the greatest empires of human history. Would you be willing to accept that if you were a believer? :lol:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:24:32 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:24:32 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 07, 2016, 10:53:15 PM
Don't think I didn't notice you still haven't addressed my question, Randy. What's the matter, you can't think of some BS explanation? Afraid to have to admit you were wrong?
Which is more convenient, option 1 or option 2?
I have ignored it because it is an opinion-based v. fact-based question. But since this is important to you, let me address your dilemma:
"Option 1: Do your sin in secret, don't put yourself through the emotional rollercoaster that is deconversion so you can justify it. Use religion to justify yourself instead, because God forgives and no sinner has the right to judge you."
OR
"Option 2: Give up your religion, which a considerable portion of your life has been devoted to. Give up a major source of emotional support, both the imaginary God you pray to and the congregation that gives you a sense of belonging. Give up your hope for an afterlife, and the sense that your life has a purpose. All so that you can sleep with your (insert gender of your preference here)friend."
Isn't this a false dilemma, Blackleaf? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Whatever happened to Option 3: Stop sinning?
You're not the only person to struggle with sin. We all do. But God provides the grace for us to do so. And when we fall, we go to confession and ask God to forgive us. Then, renewed by the grace of the sacrament, we try again. And we may fall again. And God forgives us again. He is not surprised nor is He disappointed. And your sin is not greater than His mercy. You can't sin beyond His ability to forgive.
We only fail when we give up our struggle against sin and embrace it.
It sounds as if you gave in to despair about ever being free from the sins which entangled you, so rather than fight against them, you chose to fight against God or the idea of a God since you now claim that He does not exist.
I suspect that this is not very satisfying for you because while you tell yourself this (and hang out in forums like this to bolster your self-assurance), in your heart you know this is a lie you're telling yourself.
Why not return to your Father who sees the sins we commit in secret and ask for His forgiveness as well as for the grace to live as you know you should? God, who desires the good for you, knows what you need even before you ask Him, and He will answer.
Perhaps in unexpected ways, but He will answer.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:28:40 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:28:40 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 11:00:13 PM
Odd that we have 2,000 years of contiguous fail then.
Or is it just that believers don't want to face reality...
Or maybe believers see things that you do not.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 07:30:47 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 07:30:47 AM
Quote from: aitm on May 07, 2016, 10:12:15 PM
Randy Carson:
Proclaims the OT is widely and mostly metaphorical,
Claims the NT is historically absolutely true
Uses the OT as proof the NT is true
Claims victory…..
can't figure out why others laugh at him.
Trying to understand theists is a perplexing problem. Of course, some of them don't have a clue. They learned the stuff starting a birth, never questioned or thought about it and just regurgitate their specific sect's doctrine like a robot, while they reject all other gods outside their tribal border.
Others, are more intelligent. I suspect the most intelligent, truly understand both the strength and weakness of faith, and they know enough not to waste their time debating the issue at all. That's why atheists develop a perception of theists being intellectually challenged. We only see the challenged ones.
Randy isn't totally intellectually challenged. Unlike most theists we see here, he knows enough to ask for evidence, and I think he might even be familiar with some common logical fallacies. It wouldn't be surprised if he pointed one out when we use one sometime. But while he might demand logic and evidence from atheists, he completely excuses himself from the harsh encumbrance of those inconveniences himself. Well, he does offer evidence, lots of it, but his evidential arguments lack internal logic, or depend on some flimsy overriding premise that is simply too ingrained to bother to question.
But such is the nature of theistic belief. I've seen it over and over. While reasoning is possible, and demanded in others, there seems to be blind spot over certain concepts that are sanctified. It's like those rare disorders where people can function, but are totally incapable of identifying someone's face, even a loved one. It's like my occasional ocular migraines where certain areas of my vision temporarily disappear. It's not like there's a little black spot covering part of my vision. The vision is simply not there; No black spot, no empty space, there's just nothing there.
This is kind of the way I imagine reasoning must be like for theists. Certain areas of reason just aren't there in the throes of their ecstasy. It's not like they stop, and think, "Oh, my. I've lost my reason." Instead, there's an untouchable blank spot that's temporarily out of reach, and like my ocular blank spot, there's just nothing there.
Debating theists is really a waste of time. The skeptic and the theist try to discuss, each using a separate set of rules or protocols, and the net effect is to cancel out real communication. It's like talking to Martians.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:56:32 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:56:32 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 12:29:05 AM
There was no attack on New York City. Irregular demolition team hired by the government ... maybe. Kind of like the unavoidable collateral damage when the Avengers fought Loki.
Either way, how would you explain silence concerning the destruction of the Towers in a history of New York City?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:57:20 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:57:20 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 12:33:56 AM
Because they didn't want apologists to have to make up weird hypothetical situations to try to make a point?
That's one.
What other reasons can you come up with?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:05:12 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:05:12 AM
Some people are just argumentative ;-)
Randy is shadow boxing with the Holy Ghost ... but the Holy Ghost will win. Casuistry isn't real debate or real logic, just as the present Coca-Cola isn't real Coke.
Randy is shadow boxing with the Holy Ghost ... but the Holy Ghost will win. Casuistry isn't real debate or real logic, just as the present Coca-Cola isn't real Coke.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:11:22 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:11:22 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:56:32 AM
Either way, how would you explain silence concerning the destruction of the Towers in a history of New York City?
Facts are rapidly converted to PR. PR is rapidly converted to legend. Legend is rapidly converted to myth. Already, the NYC tragedy, and it was a tragedy, has been converted into myth ... of course for political purposes. Political propaganda, no more than saint's hagiographies, are not histories. They are leaflets to draw in the tourists. Like the old joke of Washington Slept Here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:12:12 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:12:12 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2016, 06:47:11 PM
What a Christian finds compelling, even undeniable, has little to do with the arguments, but more to do with their own predispositions and desires, rather than the logical aspects of the arguments themselves.
And how does this apply to the person who was raised as an atheist and picks up a Bible in order to find things to poke fun at only to find himself impressed by the gospels to the point that he becomes a Christian?
Was it merely his "predispositions and desires" that led him to believe?
And what of the "predispositions and desires" of the atheist who deconverts? Should that be discounted, also, because it was not "logical"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason78 on May 08, 2016, 08:12:23 AM
Post by: Jason78 on May 08, 2016, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:41:35 PM
Okay, you don't know. That's an honest admission, and I thank you for it.
Would you like to venture a guess? This may help:
There are five minimal facts that do not depend upon the inspiration of scripture and five theories about why the disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They are:
Five facts:
1. Jesus died.
2. Disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.
3. James the skeptical brother believed.
4. Paul the persecutor believed.
5. Empty tomb.
Five theories:
1. Jesus rose.
2. Jesus resuscitated.
3. Disciples lied.
4. Disciples hallucinated.
5. Church legend.
If you have another theory to explain the five facts, add it to the list.
Otherwise, which theory do you find most compelling in light of the first list of events?
Woah there! Aren't those five facts part of the "Historical Reliability" you're attempting to show as true in your opening post? We can't assume those to be true if you're trying to show the New Testament as accurate. You'll need to provide another reliable source that corroborates the bible story of what happened regarding that tomb.
(The four gospels don't agree on what happened at the tomb, but we'll get to that later.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:13:01 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:13:01 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 08:59:36 PM
Prove any of them said you claim they said. Real proof, not apologetics.
You imply a dichotomy where none exists.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:21:40 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:21:40 AM
Quote from: aitm on May 07, 2016, 10:12:15 PM
Randy Carson:
Proclaims the OT is widely and mostly metaphorical,
Claims the NT is historically absolutely true
Uses the OT as proof the NT is true
Claims victory…..
can't figure out why others laugh at him.
I have you on ignore, but I saw what you wrote when someone else quoted you. I have decided to correct your error.
I have not proclaimed that the OT is "widely and mostly metaphorical". If you disagree, show me the post. Parts of the OT fit that description, but only tiny bits. Like Gen 1-3.
I have said that the NT is historically accurate. If you disagree, show me some compelling evidence to the contrary. Simply barking at the back door all night doesn't convince me to let you in the house.
Since the OT contains history and prophecy, there are aspects of it that apply to the NT, of course. For example, it may be argued that accounts in the NT show that Jesus fulfilled many OT prophecies.
I have not claimed victory (that happens when folks become believers), but I haven't had a "Well, he got me there" moment. Yet. (It does happen occasionally.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:35:24 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:35:24 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 07:30:47 AM
Randy isn't totally intellectually challenged. Unlike most theists we see here, he knows enough to ask for evidence, and I think he might even be familiar with some common logical fallacies. It wouldn't be surprised if he pointed one out when we use one sometime. But while he might demand logic and evidence from atheists, he completely excuses himself from the harsh encumbrance of those inconveniences himself. Well, he does offer evidence, lots of it, but his evidential arguments lack internal logic, or depend on some flimsy overriding premise that is simply too ingrained to bother to question.
Thanks for this. I think. Being only partially intellectually challenged is something, I suppose. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I'm pleased to see that you picked up on the "evidential" nature of my arguments. What? You're used to believers who just come in here, quote a few verses and tell you to "just have faith"? No, I know you need more than that to convince you.
My only objection to this portion of your post is your statement that the arguments "lack internal logic, etc.". Could you provide an example of this so that I can understand what you're saying better?
QuoteThis is kind of the way I imagine reasoning must be like for theists. Certain areas of reason just aren't there in the throes of their ecstasy. It's not like they stop, and think, "Oh, my. I've lost my reason." Instead, there's an untouchable blank spot that's temporarily out of reach, and like my ocular blank spot, there's just nothing there.
So, I have a blind spot and cannot see what you can see? Interesting. But couldn't that be the other way around, also? I can't see things from your perspective, but you can't see things from my perspective. But what if we both "see" the same evidence and simply draw different conclusions about it?
QuoteDebating theists is really a waste of time. The skeptic and the theist try to discuss, each using a separate set of rules or protocols, and the net effect is to cancel out real communication. It's like talking to Martians.
I dunno about this. It seems like it might be worth the effort to bridge that gap. Otherwise, the animosity and distrust between the two sides just continues.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 08:41:31 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 08:41:31 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:12:12 AM
And how does this apply to the person who was raised as an atheist and picks up a Bible in order to find things to poke fun at only to find himself impressed by the gospels to the point that he becomes a Christian?
I can't give a simple answer for this question, such as, "He saw the light." The human psyche is more complex than that.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:12:12 AM
Was it merely his "predispositions and desires" that led him to believe?
I believe so, some people need religion, but the explanation for why is beyond me.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:12:12 AMAnd what of the "predispositions and desires" of the atheist who deconverts? Should that be discounted, also, because it was not "logical"?
I assume you mean "atheist that deconverts from Christianity?" From a logical perspective, yes. It should be discounted. From an illogical perspective, no. Logic is independent of predispositions and desires. Things are either logical or they are not. We don't get to choose what is logical. Logic is unsympathetic and outside of our control. It's only a guide we can apply, but not our master. Theists can become atheists for illogical reasons too.
But the process of logic remains, whether it is utilized or not. The test for the logic has nothing to do with what we believe. We either believe something or we don't. It can be logical or illogical.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:49:26 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:49:26 AM
Quote from: Jason78 on May 08, 2016, 08:12:23 AM
Woah there! Aren't those five facts part of the "Historical Reliability" you're attempting to show as true in your opening post? We can't assume those to be true if you're trying to show the New Testament as accurate. You'll need to provide another reliable source that corroborates the bible story of what happened regarding that tomb.
They are. Is this a problem?
There are non-canonical reasons to believe these five facts, and even if we simply view the NT books as historical rather than inspired, the five facts are not challenged.
The point is that we can accept these minimal facts without appealing to scripture as inspired. In fact, they represent the consensus view of modern scholars.
Quote(The four gospels don't agree on what happened at the tomb, but we'll get to that later.)
Cool.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:55:25 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:55:25 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 08:41:31 AM
I believe so, some people need religion, but the explanation for why is beyond me.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that EVERYONE needs God and that some are simply more conscious of this than others.
QuoteI assume you mean "atheist that deconverts from Christianity?" From a logical perspective, yes. It should be discounted. From an illogical perspective, no. Logic is independent of predispositions and desires. Things are either logical or they are not. We don't get to choose what is logical. Logic is unsympathetic and outside of our control. It's only a guide we can apply, but not our master. Theists can become atheists for illogical reasons too.
Converting "from" one thing to another is a deconversion from that thing, isn't it?
I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly. I have come up with a list of reasons that people may have for being atheist, and it's my opinion that more people are atheists because of emotional and volitional reasons than for intellectual reasons.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason78 on May 08, 2016, 09:05:36 AM
Post by: Jason78 on May 08, 2016, 09:05:36 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:49:26 AM
They are. Is this a problem?
There are non-canonical reasons to believe these five facts, and even if we simply view the NT books as historical rather than inspired, the five facts are not challenged.
The point is that we can accept these minimal facts without appealing to scripture as inspired. In fact, they represent the consensus view of modern scholars.
Cool.
If there are non-canonical reasons, then use them. Don't except us to just accept they are true.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 09:11:23 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 09:11:23 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:11:22 AM
Facts are rapidly converted to PR. PR is rapidly converted to legend. Legend is rapidly converted to myth. Already, the NYC tragedy, and it was a tragedy, has been converted into myth ... of course for political purposes. Political propaganda, no more than saint's hagiographies, are not histories. They are leaflets to draw in the tourists. Like the old joke of Washington Slept Here.
<sigh>
A book entitled, A History of the Jews - From Abraham to the Present, contains no chapter on the Holocaust.
Why? Was it written by a denier? No...it was written by a rabbi.
So, why no mention of the shoah?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 09:16:29 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Jason78 on May 08, 2016, 09:05:36 AM
If there are non-canonical reasons, then use them. Don't except us to just accept they are true.
Okay.
Let me ask you this question, Jason, since I don't know that we've interacted before: Are you familiar with Bart Ehrman? He is an agnostic/atheist, a former Christian, and a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.
You probably are, but I don't want to make any assumptions.
If so, what is your opinion of his books and views, etc?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 09:33:21 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 09:33:21 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:35:24 AM
My only objection to this portion of your post is your statement that the arguments "lack internal logic, etc.". Could you provide an example of this so that I can understand what you're saying better?
This is where I begin to get weary. The explanation is tedious and I'm quite sure you won't get it. It would be like trying to explain logic to your blind spot.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:35:24 AMSo, I have a blind spot and cannot see what you can see? Interesting. But couldn't that be the other way around, also? I can't see things from your perspective, but you can't see things from my perspective. But what if we both "see" the same evidence and simply draw different conclusions about it?
You are almost there. We both live in the same environment. We process that environment differently. What we conclude from that input is irrelevant to the unsympathetic environment we share.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:35:24 AMI dunno about this. It seems like it might be worth the effort to bridge that gap. Otherwise, the animosity and distrust between the two sides just continues.
From my limited experience, the gap cannot be bridged. It can only be ignored. I have very close theist friends. Yes, THEIST friends; a hard core fundamentalist couple, and that's how we deal with the gap. We are at each other's disposal in times of need, and we care about each other.
I have theist acquaintances that can't deal with the gap. They want me to agree with them and they become annoying. I have no need to think the way they do. I shared their beliefs long ago, but those beliefs faded gradually, because I found those beliefs irrelevant, unsupportable, and illogical.
I also have another theist friend that maintains that his beliefs are entirely logical. I'm not going to claim he is similar to you. He is most definitely intellectually challenged in spite of the fact that he claims to have a 175 IQ, but through annoying conversations I realize it's simply a matter of definitions. His definition of logical is "whatever he believes." This is a show stopper. We speak different languages that create an unbridgeable gap. He couldn't process a claim logically if his life depended on it because he is not willing to accept that logic is more that what he believes to be true. And I'm not going to bother outlining it for him so that he might further search into it for himself. He wouldn't, and don't want to play teacher, anyway.
Randy, I'm not a debater. I don't like the activity. Keep that in mind. There was something undefinable that momentarily drew me into this conversation, and I may lose interest and drop out. Don't take it personally. Maybe I just needed some mental activity or maybe I just wanted to avoid more pressing jobs. I'll never think like you or believe like you. The probability of that happening is somewhere under 1%, closer to zero than to one.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 09:49:59 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 09:49:59 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:55:25 AM
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that EVERYONE needs God and that some are simply more conscious of this than others.
I've heard that theist meme a lot. All I can tell you is that is undeniably false. I can't speak for everyone, but I can for myself. Not everyone needs a god. But I can throw you one bone if you promise not to go running off with it half cocked. One time, I was talking to a Pantheist, who rejects the idea of divinity of all gods, while he worships the universe. Like it or not, the universe is his god (you must realize there are and always have been many gods, each with different attributes, all of which you probably reject). This Pantheist, who admits he doesn't speak for all other Pantheists, affords his god no mystic properties, intelligence, or grand plan. His explanation for identifying the universe as his god is that he needs a god. He claimed, "I have a god shaped hole in my heart." Well that's poetic and all, but there is nothing there I relate to. I can understand, but there is nothing there that's in me.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 10:09:54 AM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 10:09:54 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:13:01 AMTrue. There was no god on Earth named Jesus. So why fucking bother?
You imply a dichotomy where none exists.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason78 on May 08, 2016, 10:17:42 AM
Post by: Jason78 on May 08, 2016, 10:17:42 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 09:16:29 AM
Okay.
Let me ask you this question, Jason, since I don't know that we've interacted before: Are you familiar with Bart Ehrman? He is an agnostic/atheist, a former Christian, and a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.
You probably are, but I don't want to make any assumptions.
If so, what is your opinion of his books and views, etc?
Thanks.
If you have reasons, just state them.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:32:32 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:32:32 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 09:33:21 AM
This is where I begin to get weary. The explanation is tedious and I'm quite sure you won't get it. It would be like trying to explain logic to your blind spot.
Try me.
If the lesson is unclear, it that the fault of the student or the teacher?
QuoteRandy, I'm not a debater. I don't like the activity. Keep that in mind.
Okay, but you sure choose to spend your time in an unusual forum for someone who does not like debate. Do you come here just to laugh at believers?
QuoteThere was something undefinable that momentarily drew me into this conversation, and I may lose interest and drop out. Don't take it personally. Maybe I just needed some mental activity or maybe I just wanted to avoid more pressing jobs. I'll never think like you or believe like you. The probability of that happening is somewhere under 1%, closer to zero than to one.
I wonder how many converts have said that at one point or another in the course of human history?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 10:35:32 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 10:35:32 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:24:32 AM
I have ignored it because it is an opinion-based v. fact-based question. But since this is important to you, let me address your dilemma:
"Option 1: Do your sin in secret, don't put yourself through the emotional rollercoaster that is deconversion so you can justify it. Use religion to justify yourself instead, because God forgives and no sinner has the right to judge you."
OR
"Option 2: Give up your religion, which a considerable portion of your life has been devoted to. Give up a major source of emotional support, both the imaginary God you pray to and the congregation that gives you a sense of belonging. Give up your hope for an afterlife, and the sense that your life has a purpose. All so that you can sleep with your (insert gender of your preference here)friend."
Isn't this a false dilemma, Blackleaf? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Whatever happened to Option 3: Stop sinning?
You're not the only person to struggle with sin. We all do. But God provides the grace for us to do so. And when we fall, we go to confession and ask God to forgive us. Then, renewed by the grace of the sacrament, we try again. And we may fall again. And God forgives us again. He is not surprised nor is He disappointed. And your sin is not greater than His mercy. You can't sin beyond His ability to forgive.
We only fail when we give up our struggle against sin and embrace it.
It sounds as if you gave in to despair about ever being free from the sins which entangled you, so rather than fight against them, you chose to fight against God or the idea of a God since you now claim that He does not exist.
I suspect that this is not very satisfying for you because while you tell yourself this (and hang out in forums like this to bolster your self-assurance), in your heart you know this is a lie you're telling yourself.
Why not return to your Father who sees the sins we commit in secret and ask for His forgiveness as well as for the grace to live as you know you should? God, who desires the good for you, knows what you need even before you ask Him, and He will answer.
Perhaps in unexpected ways, but He will answer.
Oh, no you don't. I'm not letting you change the subject this time. YOU said that it was convenient for a man to become an atheist so that he can sin. Now tell me, why is it more convenient to give up your religion and all the advantages that come with it when you could just use your religion to justify yourself? Which of the two is more convenient?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:35:37 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:35:37 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 09:49:59 AM
I've heard that theist meme a lot. All I can tell you is that is undeniably false. I can't speak for everyone, but I can for myself. Not everyone needs a god. But I can throw you one bone if you promise not to go running off with it half cocked. One time, I was talking to a Pantheist, who rejects the idea of divinity of all gods, while he worships the universe. Like it or not, the universe is his god (you must realize there are and always have been many gods, each with different attributes, all of which you probably reject). This Pantheist, who admits he doesn't speak for all other Pantheists, affords his god no mystic properties, intelligence, or grand plan. His explanation for identifying the universe as his god is that he needs a god. He claimed, "I have a god shaped hole in my heart." Well that's poetic and all, but there is nothing there I relate to. I can understand, but there is nothing there that's in me.
Let's step back for a moment.
Would it be reasonable for me to assume that you want good things in life? No matter what they are or how you define them, you want "good" for yourself and others, correct?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 10:40:37 AM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 10:40:37 AM
Nothing you posted denies that burial after crucifixion was anything but extremely rare and your argument that it was granted to Jesus is indistinguishable from mere assertion
But I noticed you ignored the opening section of my post
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 04:47:38 PMPilate who so continually provoked the Jews by disrespecting their custom that he was rebuked by the emperor? Pilate who was so eager to kill Jews at the slightest provocation that it cost him his prefect? Next you are going to tell me that you actually believe that it was his custom to offer full amnesty a prisoner at passover and that he could be browbeaten by the crowd into releasing an insurrectionist
[snip]
And Pilate was motivated to avoid conflict with the leaders of the Sanhedrin and further uproar in the city.
But I noticed you ignored the opening section of my post
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:49:23 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:49:23 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 10:35:32 AM
Oh, no you don't. I'm not letting you change the subject this time. YOU said that it was convenient for a man to become an atheist so that he can sin. Now tell me, why is it more convenient to give up your religion and all the advantages that come with it when you could just use your religion to justify yourself? Which of the two is more convenient?
I have demonstrated that you are trying to force me onto the horns of a false dilemma, and I have avoided this by stepping between the horns.
You made a choice. You decided that it was easier (note I didn't say it was easy) to become an atheist (even leaving beloved stuff behind) than it was to give up the thing you desired more.
You preferred your new *whatever* to the old that you had. It was a cost-benefit analysis, and you made your choice. You have the Pearl you consider to be of greater price.
My point is that there was (and still is) a third way, and I suspect that you knew this, too.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2016, 11:00:05 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2016, 11:00:05 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:49:23 AMYou're avoiding the question because you know that if you answered honestly, it would demonstrate your present argument to be completely baseless.
I have demonstrated that you are trying to force me onto the horns of a false dilemma, and I have avoided this by stepping between the horns.
You made a choice. You decided that it was easier (note I didn't say it was easy) to become an atheist (even leaving beloved stuff behind) than it was to give up the thing you desired more.
You preferred your new *whatever* to the old that you had. It was a cost-benefit analysis, and you made your choice. You have the Pearl you consider to be of greater price.
My point is that there was (and still is) a third way, and I suspect that you knew this, too.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:03:12 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:03:12 AM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 10:40:37 AM
Nothing you posted denies that burial after crucifixion was anything but extremely rare and your argument that it was granted to Jesus is indistinguishable from mere assertion
Except for the fact that we have four independent eyewitness accounts from reliable men who had no motivation for lying about what they reported.
Now, I am conscious of the possibility that you would dispute virtually every word in that last sentence. I get that. Because you have not done enough homework to determine for yourself that it is true.
QuotePilate who so continually provoked the Jews by disrespecting their custom that he was rebuked by the emperor? Pilate who was so eager to kill Jews at the slightest provocation that it cost him his prefect? Next you are going to tell me that you actually believe that it was his custom to offer full amnesty a prisoner at passover and that he could be browbeaten by the crowd into releasing an insurrectionist
Gee, do we have any ancient documents suggesting that he might? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
See, at the end of the day, I have indirect evidence...the eyewitness accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and others. You have opinions and speculations that you REALLY want to be true because you DON'T want to acknowledge the existence of God.
Now, to be fair, I DO want the acknowledge His existence, so I have my own agenda same as you. Except I have eyewitness testimony supporting what I want. You don't.
QuoteBut I noticed you ignored the opening section of my post
If I didn't respond, then you are correct. Was there some critical point that I should have addressed?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
Still haven't proven your god, or any god, exists.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 11:14:10 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 11:14:10 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:32:32 AM
Okay, but you sure choose to spend your time in an unusual forum for someone who does not like debate. Do you come here just to laugh at believers?
You don't have to be here to debate. Some members openly admit they come here to debate, and that's fine, but it's just not all the forum is about. I would say my main draw to this place is that it occasionally gives me an insight about things normally outside my awareness, not often, but often enough that it's worth my time. In between there's lots of fun threads that serve little purpose beyond fun. In addition, there's news and links to news that I often miss. I like hearing other's perspectives on national and world events. Also, I'm an atheist in a world of theists. Before the internet, I felt isolated, like I might be the only atheist in a world that made little sense. I'm drawn here, like you are drawn to a church filled with like minded believers of Catholicism. I'm drawn by a community of atheists. It's like a wonderful breath of fresh air. I don't frequent theist forums. I get enough of that from my neighbors. I used to hang out with the community of flight simulator enthusiasts, although I just look in occasionally now. Of all the people I know among my off line friends that do flight simulator, I can think of three off the top of my head, and those seem like they don't have a clue what to do with a flight simulator program, but a global community of flight sim fans brings things alive. Communities like that don't exist for small niche interests offline, and there's more than just debate going on here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 11:14:15 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 11:14:15 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:49:23 AM
I have demonstrated that you are trying to force me onto the horns of a false dilemma, and I have avoided this by stepping between the horns.
You made a choice. You decided that it was easier (note I didn't say it was easy) to become an atheist (even leaving beloved stuff behind) than it was to give up the thing you desired more.
You preferred your new *whatever* to the old that you had. It was a cost-benefit analysis, and you made your choice. You have the Pearl you consider to be of greater price.
My point is that there was (and still is) a third way, and I suspect that you knew this, too.
It is no false dilemma. I am only asking you to justify the claim that you have already made. If you honestly think that the choice I made to give up my religion was convenient, when I would lose all of the advantages of religion, when I simply could have continued to believe and use free grace as an excuse, then like I said before, you're an idiot.
The third option is irrelevant. It is the result of your pitiful attempts to avoid admitting what you know and refuse to believe to be the truth. Either all Christians who give up their religion are masochists or Christianity, as I previously demonstrated, believe in most circumstances because it is convenient for them to believe. And if you are just going to continue to evade, continue trying to change the subject, then you arr utterly hopeless.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:25:23 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
Still haven't proven your god, or any god, exists.
Nope. Not yet.
But what I have done is to provide compelling reasons to accept that the NT was written early enough to have been written by eyewitnesses (IOW, they were there.) and that it is historically reliable (which is different from claiming it is inspired).
One step at a time.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:28:15 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:28:15 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 11:14:10 AM
You don't have to be here to debate. Some members openly admit they come here to debate, and that's fine, but it's just not all the forum is about. I would say my main draw to this place is that it occasionally gives me an insight about things normally outside my awareness, not often, but often enough that it's worth my time. In between there's lots of fun threads, that serve little purpose beyond fun. In addition, there's news and links to news that I often miss. I like hearing other's perspectives on national and world events. Also, I'm an atheist in a world of theists. Before the internet, I felt isolated, like I might be the only atheist in a world that made little sense. I'm drawn here, like you are drawn to a church filled with like minded believers of Catholicism. I'm drawn by a community of atheists. It's like a wonderful breath of fresh air. I don't frequent theist forums. I get enough of that from my neighbors. I used to hang out with the community of flight simulator enthusiasts, although I just look in occasionally now. Of all the people I know among my off line friends that do flight simulator, I can think of three off the top of my head, and those seem like they don't have a clue what to do with a flight simulator program, but a global community of flight sim fans brings things alive. Communities like that don't exist for small niche interests offline, and there's more than just debate going on here.
I'm sure the forum as a whole offers all kinds of interesting discussions and entertainment.
This particular subforum probably gets a little more heated than most given the strong feelings that a lot of folks have about the topic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:32:18 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2016, 11:00:05 AM
You're avoiding the question because you know that if you answered honestly, it would demonstrate your present argument to be completely baseless.
Have you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
The book hinges on the main character, Phaedras, being presented with a dilemma which he successfully avoids when he recognizes that it is a false dilemma.
Wikipedia lists this as a fallacy:
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) â€" two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:34:21 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:34:21 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 11:14:15 AM
It is no false dilemma. I am only asking you to justify the claim that you have already made. If you honestly think that the choice I made to give up my religion was convenient, when I would lose all of the advantages of religion, when I simply could have continued to believe and use free grace as an excuse, then like I said before, you're an idiot.
I have already said that I do NOT consider the choice to be "easy". I said it was easier to leave your faith community, etc. than it was to give up the new love that you chose to embrace instead.
QuoteThe third option is irrelevant. It is the result of your pitiful attempts to avoid admitting what you know and refuse to believe to be the truth. Either all Christians who give up their religion are masochists or Christianity, as I previously demonstrated, believe in most circumstances because it is convenient for them to believe. And if you are just going to continue to evade, continue trying to change the subject, then you arr utterly hopeless.
Was there a third choice, Blackleaf?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 11:43:19 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:34:21 AM
I have already said that I do NOT consider the choice to be "easy". I said it was easier to leave your faith community, etc. than it was to give up the new love that you chose to embrace instead.
Yes, you did say it was easy. You said that atheists exist because we want to sin. You're just trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug yourself in.
The love I chose? What are you talking about? Are you so numb you've forgotten that the example of a man choosing to leave his religion for a boy/girlfriend was your invention? I gave up Christianity for one reason: God did not answer my prayers. Either he knew what I needed for my faith to survive and chose to do nothing, or he doesn't exist.
Once again, which of the two is the easier option?
1. Use free grace as an excuse to sin however you want.
2. Give up your religion, and all of its advantages, so that you can sin all you want?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 11:47:06 AM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:28:40 AMI'm sure they do, but then I don't see holy fantasies.
Or maybe believers see things that you do not.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 11:55:58 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 11:55:58 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 09:11:23 AM
<sigh>
A book entitled, A History of the Jews - From Abraham to the Present, contains no chapter on the Holocaust.
Why? Was it written by a denier? No...it was written by a rabbi.
So, why no mention of the shoah?
When was this book written? If written after 1960, you would have to ask the author as to why (sometimes the most recent events are not covered, because they are too fresh). Otherwise one is engaged in conspiracy theory ... just like the fifth generation Christians, almost all Gentiles without knowledge of, and hostile to Jews, the ones who never met Jesus, never met an apostle of the first generation, had only congregational tradition and episcopal direction (at least in the East), had hand-copied epistles and gospels of various sorts (see Shepherd of Hermas) ... and had to rely on that and their imagination, to try to understand what type of community they were a part of, and how they fit in. Not that such people and such communities weren't historical (no miracles) or valuable in their own way (self help proletarians, not peasants). Really not any more or less valid than equivalent pagan social groupings. If I were alive and Jewish then, I would be a part of such a "chavurah" and we would be a synagogue any time we had a "minyan" quorum for official prayers/worship. Institutional Judaism only came about when Jewish people were first liberated from the ghetto around 1750 CE. Otherwise a rabbi was simply a male elder, who could read, and was noted for his piety. At that time 1750 - 1850 Jews in Europe became liberated, but as a Jewish state within a Christian state ... as Jews had long been in Muslim lands. Then there would have to be a chief rabbi or ethnarch, responsible politically for the Jewish community ... who may or may not have been a rabbi. Judah haNasi was just such an ethnarch in early Rabbinic Judaism times circa 200 CE ... when the Mishnah or Oral Torah was codified. Think of this as the core of a pre-Nicene Synagogue Fathers literature. There were both halakhah (code) and aggadah (stories) in this literature. The now Gentile Christians were doing the same things, but semi-universally, rather than ethnically. Semi-universal, because only Jews had to give up their ethnicity to join the Church, no other group had to do that.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 12:15:09 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 12:15:09 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:25:23 AMAnd the first step to provide proof that your god exists. All you've don't is argue whether a unicorn's horn spirals clockwise or counterclockwise.
Nope. Not yet.
But what I have done is to provide compelling reasons to accept that the NT was written early enough to have been written by eyewitnesses (IOW, they were there.) and that it is historically reliable (which is different from claiming it is inspired).
One step at a time.
And, of course, you won't prove your god exists, you can't do that. So your argument is based on plain old bull shit and irrelevancies.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 12:16:00 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 12:16:00 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:25:23 AMBTW, your reasons aren't compelling unless you're invested in their being compelling. Catch that tail, puppy!
Nope. Not yet.
But what I have done is to provide compelling reasons to accept that the NT was written early enough to have been written by eyewitnesses (IOW, they were there.) and that it is historically reliable (which is different from claiming it is inspired).
One step at a time.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 12:23:20 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 12:23:20 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:13:01 AM
You imply a dichotomy where none exists.
At the entrance to the Academy, Plato had placed a notice, "Let no one enter here who knows no geometry". Now that is proof as understood by the ancients, as perfected by Euclid. If you can do a geometric proof of G-d, then I will be impressed. Otherwise you are misusing words. Demonstration is more applicable, than proof. And demonstration is best if you demonstrate it yourself, not rely on anecdote. Go find a dead person, and raise them. Not even the Genii of Aladdin (in the first Robin Williams movie) thought that was a good idea. Otherwise admit to the metaphor.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 12:38:22 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 12:38:22 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:28:40 AM
Or maybe believers see things that you do not.
Perceive ... not see or hear. See or hear implies raw sensation (as provided by the sense organs) but without the brain working on the sensory data. Gestalt proves that this is impossible (to not at least involuntarily process sense data). Perception is always involved, and in educated people, it is voluntary though often habitual.
So yes, you and I can look at the same thing, and while both theists, we can and probably will perceive it differently in non-trivial ways. And both of us will perceive differently than the majority of posters here. That is the way things are. It is the ego who insists that my perception is valid, and hubris who insists that my perception is not only valid, but the only valid one. The Greeks predict terrible things to people who have hubris. Got Oedipus?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 12:41:27 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 12:41:27 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:03:12 AMYou assert that the gospels are independent reliable eyewitness accounts and that they alone should be sufficient reason to accept what they say as truth. Even if we unreasonably restrict ourselves to the 4 accounts and ignore textual criticism we are still left with blatant contradictions between your reliable eyewitnesses.
Except for the fact that we have four independent eyewitness accounts from reliable men
If I didn't respond, then you are correct. Was there some critical point that I should have addressed?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 08, 2016, 01:16:39 PM
Post by: stromboli on May 08, 2016, 01:16:39 PM
Has anybody pointed out that there is no narrative or verifiable historical account that occurred during Christ's ministry and every single point of evidence is after the fact?
Also the fact that, post tense, with a large number of texts and sources to choose from, the later compilers of the bible and the religion that preceded it, could in essence invent a religion and pick and choose what they wanted in it? It is no accident that Jesus is given aspects of previous deities; rising from the dead, performing miracles and so on borrowed from Horus, Apollo, Mithra, Romulus and so on.
The historicity/mythicism argument does not at any point prove the divinity of Jesus. It merely debates whether he is founded on a real person or a total myth. The issue is existence of a divine Jesus, not whether or not a man existed to have that mantle laid on him.
There is a large number of materials to choose from. Therefore all parts of the New Testament should in theory agree across the board, but they don't. there are differences just between the 4 Gospels. Also that the Gospels, presented first in the New Testament, were not the first written? To be a witness second hand- there are no eyewitness accounts; if there are, none that can be seen as objective.
It is debatable whether the city of Nazareth even existed during Christ's time. It is also likely that his "born of a virgin" miraculous birth is a mistranslation of Isaiah.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2008/06/why-i-deny-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/
The word translated as virgin is also the same as young woman. The whole aspect of divinity is not provable and can be seen objectively as an invention. And we are back to the borrowed myths from previous religions.
The Jews never accepted Jesus. There is not, to my awareness, any scholarly discussion that can be seen from that time period by Hebrew scholars debating the issue. In other words, acceptance or rejection of Jesus- which led to persecution, pogroms and so on- came as a result of the later formations of religions and the built in bias against Judaism for rejecting Jesus, though basically they were merely sticking to their own interpretation of the Talmud, not the Septuagint translation.
On balance, based on the uncertainty of historic accounts and the manipulation by early Christian leaders, it strikes me that making a claim of certainty is flawed, or certainly not verifiable in any provable way.
Just saying. Carry on.
Also the fact that, post tense, with a large number of texts and sources to choose from, the later compilers of the bible and the religion that preceded it, could in essence invent a religion and pick and choose what they wanted in it? It is no accident that Jesus is given aspects of previous deities; rising from the dead, performing miracles and so on borrowed from Horus, Apollo, Mithra, Romulus and so on.
The historicity/mythicism argument does not at any point prove the divinity of Jesus. It merely debates whether he is founded on a real person or a total myth. The issue is existence of a divine Jesus, not whether or not a man existed to have that mantle laid on him.
There is a large number of materials to choose from. Therefore all parts of the New Testament should in theory agree across the board, but they don't. there are differences just between the 4 Gospels. Also that the Gospels, presented first in the New Testament, were not the first written? To be a witness second hand- there are no eyewitness accounts; if there are, none that can be seen as objective.
It is debatable whether the city of Nazareth even existed during Christ's time. It is also likely that his "born of a virgin" miraculous birth is a mistranslation of Isaiah.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2008/06/why-i-deny-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/
QuoteThe earliest references are late and sparse.
Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources?
Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.
Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the virgin birth. For someone who we rely upon for much of Christian theology, it is an odd omission. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You’d think that would be important.
The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.
Why would the story be made up? Perhaps to fulfill an old prophecy of a virgin birth, which the Gospel of Matthew cites:
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
Some scholars say “virgin†was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.†That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation!
It seems likely the virgin birth was created to boost the authority of Christianity through prophecy and compete with rival gods who were born of virgins.
The word translated as virgin is also the same as young woman. The whole aspect of divinity is not provable and can be seen objectively as an invention. And we are back to the borrowed myths from previous religions.
The Jews never accepted Jesus. There is not, to my awareness, any scholarly discussion that can be seen from that time period by Hebrew scholars debating the issue. In other words, acceptance or rejection of Jesus- which led to persecution, pogroms and so on- came as a result of the later formations of religions and the built in bias against Judaism for rejecting Jesus, though basically they were merely sticking to their own interpretation of the Talmud, not the Septuagint translation.
On balance, based on the uncertainty of historic accounts and the manipulation by early Christian leaders, it strikes me that making a claim of certainty is flawed, or certainly not verifiable in any provable way.
Just saying. Carry on.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 01:55:29 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 11:55:58 AM
When was this book written? If written after 1960, you would have to ask the author as to why (sometimes the most recent events are not covered, because they are too fresh). Otherwise one is engaged in conspiracy theory ... just like the fifth generation Christians, almost all Gentiles without knowledge of, and hostile to Jews, the ones who never met Jesus, never met an apostle of the first generation, had only congregational tradition and episcopal direction (at least in the East), had hand-copied epistles and gospels of various sorts (see Shepherd of Hermas) ... and had to rely on that and their imagination, to try to understand what type of community they were a part of, and how they fit in. Not that such people and such communities weren't historical (no miracles) or valuable in their own way (self help proletarians, not peasants). Really not any more or less valid than equivalent pagan social groupings. If I were alive and Jewish then, I would be a part of such a "chavurah" and we would be a synagogue any time we had a "minyan" quorum for official prayers/worship. Institutional Judaism only came about when Jewish people were first liberated from the ghetto around 1750 CE. Otherwise a rabbi was simply a male elder, who could read, and was noted for his piety. At that time 1750 - 1850 Jews in Europe became liberated, but as a Jewish state within a Christian state ... as Jews had long been in Muslim lands. Then there would have to be a chief rabbi or ethnarch, responsible politically for the Jewish community ... who may or may not have been a rabbi. Judah haNasi was just such an ethnarch in early Rabbinic Judaism times circa 200 CE ... when the Mishnah or Oral Torah was codified. Think of this as the core of a pre-Nicene Synagogue Fathers literature. There were both halakhah (code) and aggadah (stories) in this literature. The now Gentile Christians were doing the same things, but semi-universally, rather than ethnically. Semi-universal, because only Jews had to give up their ethnicity to join the Church, no other group had to do that.
It was written before the Holocaust occurred.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 02:02:22 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 02:02:22 PM
It's fun to remove "Jesus" from the Mary story.
Teenage girl gets pregnant and blames a supernatural rape.
Her husband believes this.
(http://rationalia.com/z/fantasyworld.gif)
Teenage girl gets pregnant and blames a supernatural rape.
Her husband believes this.
(http://rationalia.com/z/fantasyworld.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on May 08, 2016, 02:10:00 PM
Post by: trdsf on May 08, 2016, 02:10:00 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 10:53:32 AM
Correct. You have not seen God.
However, you can accept the reliable testimony of honest men about Him. Or not. The choice is yours but the illustration is sound. You rely on others to tell you about things you have not seen in the natural realm, but you refuse (simply because you don't want to) to accept the testimony of reliable men regarding the supernatural.
This is not consistent, is it?
You miss the point entirely, unless you're trying to claim that you have actually seen a god and you expect me to take your word for it.
It's perfectly consistent; you're the one who's insisting on conflating anectodal testimony with repeatable observations. They are two different things.
Also, that's a hell of a leap to think that the supernatural belongs anywhere near the same level as the natural and physical. The fact is, every supernatural claim ever scientifically studied has either had a perfectly rational explanation, or has been demonstrated to be a fraud of some kind (another rational explanation).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mere eyewitness testimony does not rise to the level of evidence, certainly not in a scientific sense.
I am perfectly justified in rejecting claims of the supernatural in the same way that I am perfectly justified in rejecting the luminiferous aether theory of light propogation in space, or phlogiston theory. It is not supported by the evidence.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 10:53:32 AM
Sure, but that's not the point. My point is that philosophically, you rely on the word of reliable men to tell you things you have not verified for yourself.
Why not apply that principle to the testimony of reliable men about God?
Because they're not reliable. How do you get my taking the word of others, for the points that I demonstrated I was able to research for myself independent of others' claims?
I rely on common sense, mathematics, observation, and the fact that in research:
a) it is the job of every researcher to prove each other wrong, and
b) a researcher who makes stuff up or fudges their figures very rapidly is not a researcher anymore
Science is a self-correcting process. You don't get to just say "Hey, I discovered a new element!" You have to explain what you did, how you did it, what you observed, everything -- and then others have to verify that that's true. Verification is not "Oh, okay, I think I believe you". Verification is repeating the experiment and seeing if that's what actually happens.
Sir Peter Higgs theorized the Higgs boson fifty years ago. It was accepted provisionally by the physics community for a number of reasons: it explained a number of phenomena, it was a mathematically consistent idea, and it didn't contradict existing observations. By the time the Higgs was actually discovered at CERN, the confidence level in the existence of the particle was very high -- but they still needed to verify it was there. In fact, they had two different hunts going simultaneously so that each was a check on the other. It would have done no good to spot it once and say "That's it!" and shut everything down and go home.
That's not how it works.
All you're saying is, this two thousand year old guy is god and this book says so. And when you're asked how you know that book is true, you just repeat the assertion that it is.
That's not evidence. That's blind, unreasoning faith.
You probably consider that a compliment.
I consider it a sad indictment of your utter waste of the intellectual facilities that you are heir to after three and a half billion years of natural selection and evolution, a denial of everything that makes us human.
The tl;dr version is: your word is just not good enough, and you do not understand what constitutes evidence..
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:16:21 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:16:21 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 11:43:19 AM
Yes, you did say it was easy. You said that atheists exist because we want to sin. You're just trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug yourself in.
The love I chose? What are you talking about? Are you so numb you've forgotten that the example of a man choosing to leave his religion for a boy/girlfriend was your invention? I gave up Christianity for one reason: God did not answer my prayers. Either he knew what I needed for my faith to survive and chose to do nothing, or he doesn't exist.
Once again, which of the two is the easier option?
1. Use free grace as an excuse to sin however you want.
Cheap grace. Bonhoeffer.
But worded this way, the solution becomes even more obvious, because God's mercy does not give us the excuse to sin as we please, does it?
Sin on Friday night, confession on Saturday, mass on Sunday. Rinse. Repeat.
It doesn't work like that.
Quote2. Give up your religion, and all of its advantages, so that you can sin all you want?
Which did you choose? No. 2. Why? Because it was easier.
So, you have determined to sin either way. You're NOT going to give that up. So, you can either pretend to be forgiven (when you know you're not) or you can simply leave the Church to avoid being a hypocrite.
The latter would be more honest and therefore, probably easier in the long run.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:17:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:17:28 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 11:47:06 AM
I'm sure they do, but then I don't see holy fantasies.
Then you have something in common after all.
Neither do they.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:21:50 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:21:50 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 12:15:09 PM
And the first step to provide proof that your god exists. All you've don't is argue whether a unicorn's horn spirals clockwise or counterclockwise.
And, of course, you won't prove your god exists, you can't do that. So your argument is based on plain old bull shit and irrelevancies.
I can't offer any significant evidence until it's clear that you understand that what I show you IS credible evidence from reliable sources.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:23:11 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 12:16:00 PM
BTW, your reasons aren't compelling unless you're invested in their being compelling. Catch that tail, puppy!
That doesn't follow.
You can hear an argument for the existence of multi-verses and find it compelling without having any vested interest in the outcome whatsoever.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:25:27 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 12:41:27 PM
You assert that the gospels are independent reliable eyewitness accounts and that they alone should be sufficient reason to accept what they say as truth. Even if we unreasonably restrict ourselves to the 4 accounts and ignore textual criticism we are still left with blatant contradictions between your reliable eyewitnesses.
I think there are differences but no contradictions.
But hey, I learn something new every day. What are you seeing that I'm not seeing?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:29:35 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:29:35 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 08, 2016, 01:16:39 PM
Has anybody pointed out that there is no narrative or verifiable historical account that occurred during Christ's ministry and every single point of evidence is after the fact?
Also the fact that, post tense, with a large number of texts and sources to choose from, the later compilers of the bible and the religion that preceded it, could in essence invent a religion and pick and choose what they wanted in it? It is no accident that Jesus is given aspects of previous deities; rising from the dead, performing miracles and so on borrowed from Horus, Apollo, Mithra, Romulus and so on.
The historicity/mythicism argument does not at any point prove the divinity of Jesus. It merely debates whether he is founded on a real person or a total myth. The issue is existence of a divine Jesus, not whether or not a man existed to have that mantle laid on him.
There is a large number of materials to choose from. Therefore all parts of the New Testament should in theory agree across the board, but they don't. there are differences just between the 4 Gospels. Also that the Gospels, presented first in the New Testament, were not the first written? To be a witness second hand- there are no eyewitness accounts; if there are, none that can be seen as objective.
It is debatable whether the city of Nazareth even existed during Christ's time. It is also likely that his "born of a virgin" miraculous birth is a mistranslation of Isaiah.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2008/06/why-i-deny-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/
The word translated as virgin is also the same as young woman. The whole aspect of divinity is not provable and can be seen objectively as an invention. And we are back to the borrowed myths from previous religions.
The Jews never accepted Jesus. There is not, to my awareness, any scholarly discussion that can be seen from that time period by Hebrew scholars debating the issue. In other words, acceptance or rejection of Jesus- which led to persecution, pogroms and so on- came as a result of the later formations of religions and the built in bias against Judaism for rejecting Jesus, though basically they were merely sticking to their own interpretation of the Talmud, not the Septuagint translation.
On balance, based on the uncertainty of historic accounts and the manipulation by early Christian leaders, it strikes me that making a claim of certainty is flawed, or certainly not verifiable in any provable way.
Just saying. Carry on.
Actually, you've kind of stumbled into another strength of the Christian manuscripts. Because we have so many to work with and because they are dated relatively early, we have a sufficient sample size from which we can reconstruct an accurate text.
I posted this in another thread, but you have not read it there, apparently. So again:
Consider the following message: Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION. DOLLARS. Notice that even with the error in the text, 100% of the message comes through. Consider also this message with two lines and two errors.
• Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
• YO# HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
Here we are even more sure of the message with two errors in it. In fact, the more errors like this, the more sure one is of the message since every new line brings a confirmation of every letter except one. As noted earlier, there are about 5700 New Testament manuscripts in existence which provide hundreds, in some cases even thousands, of confirmations of every line in the NT.
As a matter of fact, there can be a high percent of divergence in letters and yet a 100% identity of message. Consider the following lines:
1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
2. THOU HAST WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS
3. Y’ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000
Notice that of the 27 letters and numbers in line two only 7 in line three are the same. That is little more than 25% identity of letters and numbers, yet the message is 100% the same. They differ in form, but they are identical in content. The same is true of all the basic teachings of the NT.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 02:54:07 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 02:54:07 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:23:11 PMYeah, but you're invested in irrational.
That doesn't follow.
You can hear an argument for the existence of multi-verses and find it compelling without having any vested interest in the outcome whatsoever.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:55:33 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:55:33 PM
Quote from: trdsf on May 08, 2016, 02:10:00 PM
You miss the point entirely, unless you're trying to claim that you have actually seen a god and you expect me to take your word for it.
Forget about me. I'm just another liar for Jesus, and I'll say anything to argue my point. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
You need indirect evidence that cannot change and that can be tested for consistence. Fortunately, you have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
QuoteIt's perfectly consistent; you're the one who's insisting on conflating anectodal testimony with repeatable observations. They are two different things.
Sure. And I know this. We are not talking about empirical evidence from a laboratory. No historian is. However, in a court of law, there are only two categories of evidence: direct and indirect, and these are given equal weight in court. Like any cold-case investigation, Christianity can be evaluated on the basis of its indirect evidence.
QuoteAlso, that's a hell of a leap to think that the supernatural belongs anywhere near the same level as the natural and physical. The fact is, every supernatural claim ever scientifically studied has either had a perfectly rational explanation, or has been demonstrated to be a fraud of some kind (another rational explanation).
Except the Shroud of Turin.
QuoteExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mere eyewitness testimony does not rise to the level of evidence, certainly not in a scientific sense.
Extraordinary claims require sufficient, compelling evidence. Nothing more. If you believe the gospel writers were telling the truth, then you accept their claims as reasonable. It's really just that simple.
QuoteI am perfectly justified in rejecting claims of the supernatural in the same way that I am perfectly justified in rejecting the luminiferous aether theory of light propogation in space, or phlogiston theory. It is not supported by the evidence.
What evidence for the supernatural have you examined?
QuoteBecause they're not reliable.
Why not? What gives you reason to believe that you cannot accept the testimony of the gospel writers when you are perfectly willing to accept the testimony of other authors about subjects you cannot possible investigate personally?
QuoteI rely on common sense, mathematics, observation, and the fact that in research:
a) it is the job of every researcher to prove each other wrong, and
b) a researcher who makes stuff up or fudges their figures very rapidly is not a researcher anymore
You mean like how the Early Church Fathers tested the false apostles and false gospels by "Phillip" and "Mary Magdalene" and "Thomas" and determined that they were not to be listened to anymore? I agree!
Thank you for this keen insight into the human capacity to judge wisely. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_clapping.gif)
QuoteScience is a self-correcting process. You don't get to just say "Hey, I discovered a new element!" You have to explain what you did, how you did it, what you observed, everything -- and then others have to verify that that's true. Verification is not "Oh, okay, I think I believe you". Verification is repeating the experiment and seeing if that's what actually happens.
The Early Church had a similar self-correcting process. If someone walked in and said, "Hey, Mary was not perpetually virgin", someone who knew the orthodox view shot him down. Like Jerome destroyed Helvidius. Or Athanasius took down Arius.
QuoteAll you're saying is, this two thousand year old guy is god and this book says so. And when you're asked how you know that book is true, you just repeat the assertion that it is.
That's not evidence. That's blind, unreasoning faith.
Not exactly. Perhaps you missed it.
What I'm saying is:
1. Hey, here's an old book making some startling claims.
2. It appears that the authors were in a position to write as eyewitnesses.
3. It appears they intended to write accurate accounts of what they saw.
4. It appears that they did write accurately about the names, places, seasons, geography, language, political leaders and other facts that have been verified.
5. It appears that they encouraged their readers to ask those who were still alive whether what they wrote was accurate.
6. It appears that none of them recanted their story.
7. It appears that their disciples also recorded the message that they had heard from these authors orally.
8. It appears that the story does not change from one generation to the next and remains consistent over time.
9. It appears that Jewish and Roman authors make references to some of the major players and details mentioned in the gospels.
etc, etc.
So, no, I'm not simply begging the question. I'm presenting evidence...because I CAN.
QuoteI consider it a sad indictment of your utter waste of the intellectual facilities that you are heir to after three and a half billion years of natural selection and evolution, a denial of everything that makes us human.
I consider it a tragedy that you are created in the image and likeness of the God who put natural selection and evolution into motion with a word, but you deny His existence.
QuoteThe tl;dr version is: your word is just not good enough, and you do not understand what constitutes evidence..
There are two categories of evidence: direct and indirect. Like a lot cold-cases which result in a conviction in court, I can prove my case on the basis of indirect evidence alone.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 08, 2016, 03:05:02 PM
Post by: aitm on May 08, 2016, 03:05:02 PM
Genesis 1:6 tells us the sky is water. At that point the rest becomes religion for retards, idiots, ugly women, child molesters and those who seriously need a father figure. The rest of us see stupidity right off the bat.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 04:23:35 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 04:23:35 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 06, 2016, 06:55:26 PM
Jebus Fucking Christ, I DON'T FUCKING HAVE TO. There's a little fucking thing called scientific fucking consensus which says, big fucking surprise, MAGIC IS NOT REAL, you fucktard!
There is also a little thing called scholarly consensus among historians and NT scholars which says (no big surprise), "Jesus was a real person." Only modern-day idiots deny this.
Atheist Bart Ehrman even accepts four of the five minimal facts I posted:
On the Minimal Facts
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate†(Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, pgs, 261-262).
2. Very shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them.
“Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his crucifixion? I don’t doubt at all that some disciples claimed this. We don’t have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don’t think he is making it up. And he knew are least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event (Galatians 1:18-19).†(ibid, 282).
3. Within a few years after Jesus death, Paul converted after a personal experience that he interpreted as a post resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.
“There is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus’ real but glorified body raised from the dead.†(ibid, 301).
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, became a believer.
"Even more telling is the much noted fact that Paul claims that he met with, and therefore personally knew, Jesus’ own brother James. It is true that Paul calls him the “brother of the Lord,†not “the brother of Jesus.†But that means very little, since Paul typically calls Jesus the Lord and rarely uses the name Jesus (without adding “Christ,†or other titles). And so, In the letter to the Galatians Paul states as clearly as possible that he knew Jesus’ brother. Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this? The fact that Paul knew Jesus’ closest disciple and his own brother throws a real monkey wrench into the mythicist view that Jesus never lived." (Ehrman's blog post, http://ehrmanblog.org/brothers-jesus-mythicists-members/, quoting his book, Did Jesus Exist?)
+++
So, although Ehrman denies that Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses, he accepts that Paul knew some apostles and that they did believe that Jesus rose. Paul's testimony provides another example of the multiple attestation of the gospels.
Further, Ehrman is an atheist who acknowledges these three facts of history. This is called enemy attestation, and it is significant.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 04:39:13 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 04:39:13 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:25:27 PM
What are you seeing that I'm not seeing?
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 07, 2016, 02:28:58 PM
Was Jesus born and raised in Nazareth as one would conclude from reading the historically reliable accounts of John and Mark or was he born in Bethlehem where his parents lived until fleeing to Egypt after a visit from magi to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocent as told in the historically reliable account of Matthew or was Jesus born while his parents traveled from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for the census before presenting him in the temple and returning home to Nazareth as told in the historically reliable account of Luke?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 06:15:10 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 06:15:10 PM
I'll never think like you or believe like you. The probability of that happening is somewhere under 1%, closer to zero than to one.
Probably many on both sides of the issue, although I doubt that the overall frequency is that high, because people that have given it much thought have pretty much figured themselves out. I spent many years hanging on to my slowly diminishing Christianity. I was in my 50s when I finally admitted to myself that I was an atheist, and had been long before I came to terms with it.
Before that I was continually seeking information that would prove there was a god, but to no avail. I studied philosophy of religion, read the attempts at proofs from the philosophical heavy weights, learned about logic, and studied the sciences. So far, you have offered nothing that compares, not even with likes of your cut and pastes.
I only looked for one thing, proof and subsequent knowledge of a god. All of your efforts at proving the reality of even an ordinary man named Jesus were and still are trivial and unimportant to me. Sure I did believe those things at one time. But I'm convinced that if there is a god, he's certainly not Christian, and the chances that he's Catholic are less than that. I believe that all religions are man made fabrications. It's not like I haven't made an honest attempt to understand these things, so your implication that I might convert is just wishful thinking, as if I were an ignorant dullard going through life without having pondered the unknowable, along with a lot of other wonders.
To compound your struggle to convert others, I'm more content as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. Life makes more sense, where before it was a struggle trying to fit the square peg of religion in the round hole of my experience.
I'm an agnostic. I don't believe anyone, much less you or your current heroes, can prove his religious beliefs to anyone else. You might convert, but you can never prove. While you may turn someone's belief to yours, you get a pat on the back, but proving such a thing is beyond you. At best, you can create an illusion of proof. I'm an atheist because I don't share your belief. I'm an agnostic, because I believe there is no proof. I don't believe in any of the hundreds of gods you reject. So think about how it feels for you to not believe in all those gods. That's how I feel about all of them too, plus just one more.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:32:32 AM
I wonder how many converts have said that at one point or another in the course of human history?
Probably many on both sides of the issue, although I doubt that the overall frequency is that high, because people that have given it much thought have pretty much figured themselves out. I spent many years hanging on to my slowly diminishing Christianity. I was in my 50s when I finally admitted to myself that I was an atheist, and had been long before I came to terms with it.
Before that I was continually seeking information that would prove there was a god, but to no avail. I studied philosophy of religion, read the attempts at proofs from the philosophical heavy weights, learned about logic, and studied the sciences. So far, you have offered nothing that compares, not even with likes of your cut and pastes.
I only looked for one thing, proof and subsequent knowledge of a god. All of your efforts at proving the reality of even an ordinary man named Jesus were and still are trivial and unimportant to me. Sure I did believe those things at one time. But I'm convinced that if there is a god, he's certainly not Christian, and the chances that he's Catholic are less than that. I believe that all religions are man made fabrications. It's not like I haven't made an honest attempt to understand these things, so your implication that I might convert is just wishful thinking, as if I were an ignorant dullard going through life without having pondered the unknowable, along with a lot of other wonders.
To compound your struggle to convert others, I'm more content as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. Life makes more sense, where before it was a struggle trying to fit the square peg of religion in the round hole of my experience.
I'm an agnostic. I don't believe anyone, much less you or your current heroes, can prove his religious beliefs to anyone else. You might convert, but you can never prove. While you may turn someone's belief to yours, you get a pat on the back, but proving such a thing is beyond you. At best, you can create an illusion of proof. I'm an atheist because I don't share your belief. I'm an agnostic, because I believe there is no proof. I don't believe in any of the hundreds of gods you reject. So think about how it feels for you to not believe in all those gods. That's how I feel about all of them too, plus just one more.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 06:22:23 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 06:22:23 PM
And they went to Joseph's home town so he could register the kid there, making him in the line of David. But why would that stand up if Joseph wasn't the father?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:10:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:10:44 PM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 07, 2016, 02:28:58 PM
Was Jesus born and raised in Nazareth as one would conclude from reading the historically reliable accounts of John and Mark or was he born in Bethlehem where his parents lived until fleeing to Egypt after a visit from magi to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocent as told in the historically reliable account of Matthew or was Jesus born while his parents traveled from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for the census before presenting him in the temple and returning home to Nazareth as told in the historically reliable account of Luke?
Here are the relevant passages in context:
Matthew 2:1-2
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.â€
Luke 2:1-7
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
John 7
42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?â€
As you can see, all three authors tell us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:13:36 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:13:36 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 06:22:23 PM
And they went to Joseph's home town so he could register the kid there, making him in the line of David. But why would that stand up if Joseph wasn't the father?
Joseph and Mary were both of the line of David.
Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, so he would be registered in the town of his adoptive father.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:18:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:18:44 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2016, 06:15:10 PM
I'll never think like you or believe like you. The probability of that happening is somewhere under 1%, closer to zero than to one.
Probably many on both sides of the issue, although I doubt that the overall frequency is that high, because people that have given it much thought have pretty much figured themselves out. I spent many years hanging on to my slowly diminishing Christianity. I was in my 50s when I finally admitted to myself that I was an atheist, and had been long before I came to terms with it.
Before that I was continually seeking information that would prove there was a god, but to no avail. I studied philosophy of religion, read the attempts at proofs from the philosophical heavy weights, learned about logic, and studied the sciences. So far, you have offered nothing that compares, not even with likes of your cut and pastes.
I only looked for one thing, proof and subsequent knowledge of a god. All of your efforts at proving the reality of even an ordinary man named Jesus were and still are trivial and unimportant to me. Sure I did believe those things at one time. But I'm convinced that if there is a god, he's certainly not Christian, and the chances that he's Catholic are less than that. I believe that all religions are man made fabrications. It's not like I haven't made an honest attempt to understand these things, so your implication that I might convert is just wishful thinking, as if I were an ignorant dullard going through life without having pondered the unknowable, along with a lot of other wonders.
To compound your struggle to convert others, I'm more content as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. Life makes more sense, where before it was a struggle trying to fit the square peg of religion in the round hole of my experience.
I'm an agnostic. I don't believe anyone, much less you or your current heroes, can prove his religious beliefs to anyone else. You might convert, but you can never prove. While you may turn someone's belief to yours, you get a pat on the back, but proving such a thing is beyond you. At best, you can create an illusion of proof. I'm an atheist because I don't share your belief. I'm an agnostic, because I believe there is no proof. I don't believe in any of the hundreds of gods you reject. So think about how it feels for you to not believe in all those gods. That's how I feel about all of them too, plus just one more.
You say you studied the "heavyweights"...who specifically from the Christian camp?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 08:05:13 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 08:05:13 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:13:36 PMLineage passed through the male side, until they needed to cover this fucking flaw in the story, then, like all the other bullshit, they made up lies to try to patch the story together.
Joseph and Mary were both of the line of David.
Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, so he would be registered in the town of his adoptive father.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 08:11:36 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 08:11:36 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:17:28 PMFloating Virgin Marys don't count when you on the run, I see.
Then you have something in common after all.
Neither do they.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:30:59 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:30:59 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 08:05:13 PM
Lineage passed through the male side, until they needed to cover this fucking flaw in the story, then, like all the other bullshit, they made up lies to try to patch the story together.
FWIW, Jewishness is determined on the Mother's side. Not relevant, but whatever.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:31:45 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:31:45 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 08:05:13 PM
Lineage passed through the male side, until they needed to cover this fucking flaw in the story, then, like all the other bullshit, they made up lies to try to patch the story together.
If Jesus' real dad hadn't been a $&%^ ... he would have showed up at Rome, announced the real Jupiter was Jewish, and lit up all seven hills.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:32:29 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:32:29 PM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 08:11:36 PM
Floating Virgin Marys don't count when you on the run, I see.
Oh, I've spent quite a bit of time reading about Fatima, Lourdes, and the Shroud of Turin...all the big stuff.
Mary's appearances were not mass hallucinations.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:43:45 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:43:45 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:32:29 PM
Oh, I've spent quite a bit of time reading about Fatima, Lourdes, and the Shroud of Turin...all the big stuff.
Mary's appearances were not mass hallucinations.
I think some of the theophanies are real, but they are not necessarily Catholic ... just seen by Catholics and interpreted in Catholic terms (duh). Like NDE. But then I accept that weird things happen, being a little familiar with the paranormal. Scientifically, anything miraculous in the usual religious terms ... are hallucinating or lying. So you could call them mass lying aka collusion to lie about what they saw. But that would be a conspiracy theory ;-)
I am less charitable to the Shroud of Turin or the Veil of Veronica. But relics are OK for other people, just not me. And as visions go, I would prefer not to have them, and I have not.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:14:39 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:31:45 PMYep, the goat herders' campfire tales kinda got out of control.
If Jesus' real dad hadn't been a $&%^ ... he would have showed up at Rome, announced the real Jupiter was Jewish, and lit up all seven hills.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 09:20:41 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 09:20:41 PM
Are you this dishonest in real life or only when hiding behind a pseudonym?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:10:44 PMStill don't care to address Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem and Nazareth at the same time? Or fleeing to Egypt while simultaneously returning home to Nazareth with a stop over in Jerusalem?
Here are the relevant passages in context:
Matthew 2:1-2
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.â€
Luke 2:1-7
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:10:44 PM*sigh* Why didn't you put that verse in context, he asked knowingly?
John 7
42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?â€
Quote40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.â€People objected to Jesus being the Messiah because he was from Galilee not Bethlehem, an objection which John does not refute.
41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.â€
Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?†43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:22:47 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:22:47 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:32:29 PMBald assertion. I think you're just trolling.
Oh, I've spent quite a bit of time reading about Fatima, Lourdes, and the Shroud of Turin...all the big stuff.
Mary's appearances were not mass hallucinations.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:23:35 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:23:35 PM
Somebody tell me why there's no artificial limbs in the pile of crutches at Lourdes?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 10:12:34 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 10:12:34 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:30:59 PM
FWIW, Jewishness is determined on the Mother's side. Not relevant, but whatever.
That is part of the heresy of the rabbis. After so many Jewish women were raped by the Gentiles, we spit in the face of the Gentiles, by accepting our half-breed infants that resulted, and raised them as Jews, not as Romans. It is common even in ethnic cleansing today, to rape all the women ... so as to destroy virgins, and to destroy the blood line of your victims. Our Gentile ancestors did that to my Jewish ancestors too.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: leo on May 08, 2016, 10:33:56 PM
Post by: leo on May 08, 2016, 10:33:56 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:30:59 PMJewishness is determined by the mother side but tribal affiliation is determined by the father side. caphiche ? A very important detail indeed. Jesus doesn't have a human father according to the story. So saying Jesus descended from David is nonsense. This detail is enough to invalidate the Jesus Messiah claims. Tribal affiliation in Judaism can't be pass through adoption. The Matthew and Luke genealogies not only are nonsense , both contradict each other.
FWIW, Jewishness is determined on the Mother's side. Not relevant, but whatever.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on May 09, 2016, 07:11:19 AM
Post by: trdsf on May 09, 2016, 07:11:19 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:55:33 PM
Extraordinary claims require sufficient, compelling evidence. Nothing more. If you believe the gospel writers were telling the truth, then you accept their claims as reasonable. It's really just that simple.
And here's where your "evidence" all falls down. You've pre-decided that you're going to believe the "evidence" rather than actually examine it.
You still have never addressed the fact (there's that word again, but unlike you I use it correctly) that the four gospels contradict each other on simple matters of observation. They do not agree on the sequence of events of the nativity, of Jeshua bar-Joseph's ministry, of the events surrounding the crucifixion, and of the events after. They cannot all be accurate. Not physically possible.
That's not an opinion that they contradict, that's a direct observation.
You cannot call them evidence when they do not agree on events -- at a minimum, only one of them can be correct. And you have no way of telling. And if three are incorrect, there is no reason to suppose the fourth one isn't wrong too. Unless, like you, you've pre-decided what the result is and are impervious to actual logic.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:55:33 PMFunny thing is, there isn't that much evidence to begin with. I have, however, worked with Zener cards with multiple subjects. When I was a practicing Wiccan, I worked with Tarot cards. I never did do astrology -- too much an astronomer to accept that as even plausible, even when I was a Wiccan. I have attempted to document ghostly activity in graveyards. So I have actually examined quite a bit.
What evidence for the supernatural have you examined?
Like your posts here, they're bullshit.
I'm done. You have no interest in listening. You refuse to answer direct questions. You deliberately misrepresent the nature of evidence. I shall be in other, worthwhile threads; have fun playing with yourself.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:38:38 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:38:38 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:22:47 PM
Bald assertion. I think you're just trolling.
Have you read many books on Fatima and Lourdes?
And may I point out that the Church condemns more alleged apparitions that it approves?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:41:58 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:41:58 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:23:35 PM
Somebody tell me why there's no artificial limbs in the pile of crutches at Lourdes?
This is a good question. Does that bother you somehow?
If some receives their hearing or sight or has cancer disappear, that's no big deal because they were probably faking all along, right?
If memory serves, there have been documented cases of organs that regenerated.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:44:05 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:44:05 AM
Well, I have given the OP a quick review, and if there are no further objections to the idea that we do an accurate texts of the NT books, we'll move on.
Last call.
Last call.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 08:25:39 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 08:25:39 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:44:05 AM
Well, I have given the OP a quick review, and if there are no further objections to the idea that we do an accurate texts of the NT books, we'll move on.
Now we all agree that the New Testament is accurate. We can move on to some of the more outlandish doctrines of Catholicism.
I'm hoping we can skip the virgin birth. Everyone believes that, anyway. Let's skip the rest of the boring stuff too. I vote for exorcism. That should be a lively topic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 09:47:19 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 09:47:19 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:14:39 PM
Yep, the goat herders' campfire tales kinda got out of control.
If this is your belief, then what you're saying is that the apostles knew that their prank had gotten out of control, but rather than simply drop it, they continued preaching it without recanting until their deaths.
IOW, they were lying, they knew they were lying, and the whole thing was a conspiracy.
Is that your position?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 09, 2016, 10:16:14 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 09, 2016, 10:16:14 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:16:21 PMCheap grace. Bonhoeffer.
But worded this way, the solution becomes even more obvious, because God's mercy does not give us the excuse to sin as we please, does it?
Sin on Friday night, confession on Saturday, mass on Sunday. Rinse. Repeat.
It doesn't work like that.
Oh, yes it does. Millions of American Christians do just that. It doesn't matter if it's the "correct" way of living. What matters is that it was an option, and one that many of Christians choose out of convenience.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:16:21 PMWhich did you choose? No. 2. Why? Because it was easier.
So, you have determined to sin either way. You're NOT going to give that up. So, you can either pretend to be forgiven (when you know you're not) or you can simply leave the Church to avoid being a hypocrite.
The latter would be more honest and therefore, probably easier in the long run.
It's official. You're an idiot. According to you, because I choose option 2, it MUST be the easier one! Why, because I did it! Simple. And why do you choose to be a Christian? Well, by your logic, people must always do what's easier, so you're a Christian by convenience. Oh...
Apparently, it's easier in the long run to be ostracized by your family, to lose your support system of fellow believers, and to give up what has been the most important thing to you for years than it is to live with cognitive dissonance. Yeah, sure. Goodbye.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 10:26:22 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 10:26:22 AM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 08, 2016, 09:20:41 PM
Are you this dishonest in real life or only when hiding behind a pseudonym?
I do not use a pseudonym because I am not ashamed of what I write. I have nothing to hide.
QuoteStill don't care to address Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem and Nazareth at the same time?
So, you're dropping the "where was Jesus born?" bit. Good. Now, Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth, but the ancestral home of Joseph's tribe, Judah, was Bethlehem, the city of David. So, in order to register for the census, Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, and this is where Jesus was born. After their escape to Egypt to avoid Herod's murderous plot, Matthew records:
QuoteMatthew 2:19-23
19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.â€
21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
This is why Jesus is known as "Jesus of Nazareth".
Luke tells us:
QuoteLuke 2
2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
Joseph left Nazareth WITH Mary and went to Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary were both from Nazareth.
Now, please show me from scripture why you believe that Joseph and Mary were living in Nazareth and Bethlehem at the same time?
QuoteOr fleeing to Egypt while simultaneously returning home to Nazareth with a stop over in Jerusalem?
One gospel records the flight to Egypt and ends that period by noting that the Holy Family went to live in Nazareth. Another omits the flight to Egypt (this is called compression), and simply places Jesus in Nazareth. This is not a contradiction. People skip over details in the stories they tell every day. They say, "To make a long story short...", and they skip over parts of the story that are less important to the ending.
Quote*sigh* Why didn't you put that verse in context, he asked knowingly?
Happy to oblige.
QuoteLuke 2:21-24, 39
21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lordâ€), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.â€
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
Luke's sequence: Nazareth > Bethlehem (birth) > Jerusalem (presentation) > Nazareth (Luke omits the flight to Egypt.)
Matthew's sequence: Nazareth > Bethlehem (birth) > Egypt > Nazareth (Matthew omits the presentation in Jerusalem.)
So, in context, there is no contradiction. Of course, if you disagree, then please quote the passages in context which you think are relevant.
QuotePeople objected to Jesus being the Messiah because he was from Galilee not Bethlehem, an objection which John does not refute.
Where is Nazareth (he asks knowingly)?
QuoteMatthew 2:21-23
21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth.
QuoteLuke 2:39
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
Nazareth is in Galilee.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. Finally, Jesus moved to Capernaum, and scripture refers to this as his "hometown".
QuoteMatthew 4:12
13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum
Leaving where? Nazareth.
I thought you were going to pose a contradiction from the NT? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Hope this helps.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 10:51:58 AM
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:25:53 PMI'm seriously doubting your interpretation of what "history" teaches us, which you have given very good reason to do.
Irenaeus wrote the passage I gave you around AD 180. Who was Irenaeus? Well, he was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John the Apostle.
1. John
2. Polycarp
3. Irenaeus
Now, here's an analogy:
1. Your Grandfather
2. Your Dad
3. You
Your dad says, "Listen carefully, widdershins, because I want to tell you something very important that I learned from your grandfather." Would you REALLY have such a hard time believing what your dad told you? Would you assume that your Grandfather was mistaken, that he lied or that your dad simply misunderstood the message?
Now, off the top of my head let me name a few presidents:
Obama
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Reagan
Carter
Nixon (resigned in second term)
Johnson
Kennedy (assassinated in 1963 in Dallas)
Eisenhower
Truman
Roosevelt (four terms, died in office)
Hoover (at the start of the depression)
Now, those are all I can name in order, because beyond this, I haven't made any effort to memorize the list. But I can name others in no particular order:
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln, and that's about it without more time and effort. 19 out of 44. FROM MEMORY.
Are you seriously doubting the ability of Irenaeus or Augustine to correctly identify the Bishops of Rome - especially if they took the time to refer to books and letters they might have had on hand?
SERIOUSLY?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 10:55:41 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 10:55:41 AM
Quote from: trdsf on May 09, 2016, 07:11:19 AM
And here's where your "evidence" all falls down. You've pre-decided that you're going to believe the "evidence" rather than actually examine it.
How do you know this is what I have done? How do you know that J. Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel, former atheists, did this? You don't.
And how do I know that you have not "pre-decided" that the evidence must be explained away because you have "pre-decided" that miracles don't happen.
QuoteYou still have never addressed the fact (there's that word again, but unlike you I use it correctly) that the four gospels contradict each other on simple matters of observation. They do not agree on the sequence of events of the nativity, of Jeshua bar-Joseph's ministry, of the events surrounding the crucifixion, and of the events after. They cannot all be accurate. Not physically possible.
That's not an opinion that they contradict, that's a direct observation.
As I just demonstrated in another thread to another atheist who challenged me on the sequence of events recorded a the nativity, there is no contradiction in the accounts.
Matthew omits the presentation in the Temple, but includes the Flight to Egypt. Luke records the Presentation but omits the Flight to Egypt. So, is this a contradiction? No, it is a difference. And it is reasonable to conclude that both events occurred. They are not mutually exclusive.
I could demonstrate the same for the resurrection accounts. There are no contradictions only differences that can be reconciled. If you think differently, give me your favorite example from the NT, and I'll be happy to take a look.
QuoteYou cannot call them evidence when they do not agree on events -- at a minimum, only one of them can be correct. And you have no way of telling. And if three are incorrect, there is no reason to suppose the fourth one isn't wrong too. Unless, like you, you've pre-decided what the result is and are impervious to actual logic.
This is not only illogical, but it is not the practice of our court system. Differences are not only expected but important in eyewitness testimony. Why? The absence of differences suggests that the witnesses colluded or rehearsed their stories.
Some atheists claim that the Catholic Church eliminated all the gospels that didn't agree with the approved message and that the four gospels are really just one version of the story and thus it cannot be believed. Others, like you, claim that because there are differences - incorrectly called contradictions - it cannot be believed.
Well, which is it? Are differences a good thing or a bad thing? You atheists can't have it both ways.
J. Warner Wallace discusses this in depth here:
Why We Should Expect Witnesses to Disagree
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/why-we-should-expect-witnesses-to-disagree/
QuoteI'm done. You have no interest in listening. You refuse to answer direct questions. You deliberately misrepresent the nature of evidence. I shall be in other, worthwhile threads; have fun playing with yourself.
As shown above, I listened carefully to your objection. I answered your direct questions. I have given you definitions of evidence from an expert who works with evidence professionally in the California law enforcement and judicial system. There are two major types of evidence: Direct and Indirect. There is a lot of indirect evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
What's REALLY happening is that you're frustrated that I'm not folding like other Christians who have come to the forum in the past.
You cannot withstand MY arguments and refutations of yours because you have pre-decided what you believe about God without being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. You're just taking your bat and ball and going home.
See ya! (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:45:22 PMExplain it, explain it away, there is no difference. You did only what I already said you could easily do.
I don't need to explain it away, I can explain it.
God Said To Make Them
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18â€"20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18â€"19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17â€"18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8â€"9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
Do Catholics Worship Statues?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp (http://docatholicsworshipstatues?%3Cbr/%3Ehttp://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 07:48:37 PM
You simply misunderstand the passage.
Matthew 6:7-8: Vain Repetition
Many non-Catholics believe that praying the rosary violates Jesus’ teaching about “vain repetition†found in His Sermon on the Mount:
“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.†(Matthew 6:7-8)
Immediately after saying this, He went on to teach the crowd the following prayer:
Matthew 6:9-13
This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'â€
Jesus didn't say, "You might want to say something like the following"...he said, "When you pray, say" and He gave us precise words that we should pray daily for our daily bread, and these words have been repeated for 2,000 years. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.
Matthew 26:43-44
43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.
Jesus prayed a third time saying the same things he had said previously. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.
Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."
The creatures keep saying the same thing over and over and over again - day and night. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.
Again, you're only doing what I already said you could do. I didn't actually expect you to do it. I don't expect you to defend your faith, as I know full well you can )at least well enough to keep you complacent). Catholics comprise both some of the smartest (you are one of these) and dumbest (I once had a pregnant, unmarried, teenage girl tell me that she got pregnant because, being Catholic, she was unable to use birth control. The fact that she was also, by those same rules, unable to have sex in the first place eluded her) of the religious people I've known.
Now, don't go getting a big head. I don't think you're particularly smart as a person (smart people tend to accept even facts which do not agree with them as not doing so makes one "intentionally ignorant"), but smart for a Christian, anyway. I've known a few actual intelligent, thoughtful religious people...at least until it comes to religion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:09:54 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 08:25:39 AM
Now we all agree that the New Testament is accurate. We can move on to some of the more outlandish doctrines of Catholicism.
If you wish to discuss a doctrine of Catholicism, start a thread. I'll be there.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:11:25 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:11:25 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 09, 2016, 10:16:14 AM
Oh, yes it does. Millions of American Christians do just that. It doesn't matter if it's the "correct" way of living. What matters is that it was an option, and one that many of Christians choose out of convenience.
It's official. You're an idiot. According to you, because I choose option 2, it MUST be the easier one! Why, because I did it! Simple. And why do you choose to be a Christian? Well, by your logic, people must always do what's easier, so you're a Christian by convenience. Oh...
Apparently, it's easier in the long run to be ostracized by your family, to lose your support system of fellow believers, and to give up what has been the most important thing to you for years than it is to live with cognitive dissonance. Yeah, sure. Goodbye.
Another quitter. Well, just remember to keep telling yourself that you won this exchange.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:16:03 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:16:03 AM
Quote from: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 10:51:58 AM
I'm seriously doubting your interpretation of what "history" teaches us, which you have given very good reason to do.
I'm seriously doubting your desire to think objectively about Church history. Which, as an atheist who wants to deny God's existence, you very much want to avoid.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
Explain it, explain it away, there is no difference. You did only what I already said you could easily do.
Right. It was easy. So easy, in fact, that it ought to dissuade you from making false accusations in the future. The problem is, that although you clearly know the Catholic response, you ignore it because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe about Catholicism.
This is pure prejudice.
QuoteAgain, you're only doing what I already said you could do. I didn't actually expect you to do it. I don't expect you to defend your faith, as I know full well you can )at least well enough to keep you complacent). Catholics comprise both some of the smartest (you are one of these) and dumbest (I once had a pregnant, unmarried, teenage girl tell me that she got pregnant because, being Catholic, she was unable to use birth control. The fact that she was also, by those same rules, unable to have sex in the first place eluded her) of the religious people I've known.
It is sad that many people (not just Catholics) don't realize that one choice they have is to simply NOT sin. Not have sex. Duh.
QuoteNow, don't go getting a big head. I don't think you're particularly smart as a person (smart people tend to accept even facts which do not agree with them as not doing so makes one "intentionally ignorant"), but smart for a Christian, anyway. I've known a few actual intelligent, thoughtful religious people...at least until it comes to religion.
So, I'm not particularly smart, but I'm knowledgeable about fairy tales and magic.
Uh...thanks. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 11:45:24 AM
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 11:45:24 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:14:33 PMThis is the point where Catholics have most seriously deluded themselves, in my opinion. You think it's not an idol because you pretend not to worship it? And do you really think you're not worshiping Mary when you're praying to her to take your prayer to Jesus to take your prayer to the big guy? And that is, by the way, the DUMBEST notion ever. You have an all powerful god at your disposal who knows your every need and desire, but you don't want to bother him. He has so much to do already. So you talk to the mother of his child and ask HER to talk to him for you, a conversation, by the way, which he hears anyway being all-knowing and all.
You are ignorant, Mike. Catholics don't worships statues anymore than you make love to a photograph of your wife in your wallet.
Your photograph and our statues are visual aids. Nothing more.
We don't worship relics, either. But I have a feeling you aren't interested in learning actual Catholic doctrine, so we can wrap this up.
And if you REALLY don't think Catholics worship idols, just take a look at your history. Even recent history will do. Go visit any holy relic. Do you know where you'll find it? Under lock and key. It wasn't always this way. Why is it now? Well, for one reason there's a wooden cup somewhere under lock and key which is heavily damaged. They used to let the public drink out of it, but they found that people hoping for healings or miracles were biting bits of the cup off and swallowing them. They were hoping that by ingesting bits of this holy relic they would be healed. Think about that. Did they REALLY expect God to better hear their prayers if they fucked up his favorite cup? No. What they really expected was that by taking a piece of this holy relic inside themselves they would, in essence, be eating divinity; that divinity would become a part of them, flowing through their veins. And how would it get there? Not by the power of prayers to dead people. No, it was through the power of biting off a piece of an idol they worshiped and making it a part of themselves.
You can deliver all the excuses you want, but they all ring hollow. If you think your religion does not practice idol worship you are just deluded. Catholics flock to idols they call "holy relics" and, if given the chance, will destroy that idol in its worship, hoping to get some miracle directly from the tangible object of their worship. I realize that as a Catholic you see this differently, but back in reality there simply is no other explanation for why a populace would destroy a holy relic to take pieces of it with them except that they value the object itself as a source of divinity even more than any god they might anger in the destruction and desecration of that object. The Catholic religion is so deeply steeped in idolatry that even the dead are made into idols, and I'm not just talking about the fucked-up corpse-hoarding. I'm talking about the very mental images of past popes, saints, Mary, etc. You've made statues of Mary to help you visualize her and you very much worship, not the statue itself, but the mental image of Mary. It has gotten to the point where Catholics can no longer wait the prescribed amount of time for the deceased to be idolized, demanding that repeated recent fast-tracking of popular figures such as Pope John Paul and Mother Theresa. So important to the Catholic religion are these mental idols that the rules must be set aside to make them "official" idols of the church.
And that leads me to the nail in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned, for the idol worship. There are more "miracles" associated with saints and popes than there ever were where God, alone, got the credit. From the Catholic church and ONLY the Catholic church (with the minor exception of a few cults here and there...not a joke, I'm being serious) religious people attribute miracles ONLY to God. With the Catholic church, however, it is FAR more common to attribute miracles to some saint or pope. How many people has John Paul healed? How many people have seen the Virgin Mary?
Now, I'm sure you can explain away all of this. All learned Catholics have bothered to learn how to disguise their ignorance as "knowledge" and how to reject any reality which doesn't equal, "I win!" But reality is reality, just the same.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 12:02:19 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 12:02:19 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:22:55 AMYes, Randy, I'm the one who has a preconceived notion of the world and refuses to see reality for what it is, that magic is real, there is a giant fairy in space that made everything and he FUCKING HATES IT when I touch my weewee. It's all so clear now.
Right. It was easy. So easy, in fact, that it ought to dissuade you from making false accusations in the future. The problem is, that although you clearly know the Catholic response, you ignore it because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe about Catholicism.
This is pure prejudice.
Now, to what "false accusations" are you referring? The idol worship thing in my original response? I have actually ONLY JUST clearly laid out quite compelling evidence to show MASSIVE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED idolatry in Catholicism.
If you want to disagree with me, fine. But don't call me a liar. If you think I disrespect your beliefs in magical fairies and zombies now, you haven't seen anything yet. You call me a liar again and I'll show you what disrespect looks like. Keep in mind, you're the one who believes in magical fairies creating everything and taking an intimate interest in our very lives...until they didn't anymore which, oddly, happened right around the same time the world started getting civilized with displays of these magics becoming less and less frequent as people got smarter and smarter and science started taking root, these wondrous displays of magic now relegated to tiny little shitholes throughout the world which, conveniently, would be dirt-poor pathetic little villages if random displays of magic didn't bring morons hoping to see some fucking magic to convince them that they actually believe what they think they believe. You change the wording any way you like. Call it "miracles" instead of "magic". NONE of that shit is "false" in any way and, no matter how you say it, it sounds fucking stupid.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:22:55 AMThe Catholic church's stance against homosexuality is really confusing to me given their patriarchal deities awkwardly intense interest in penises and obvious disdain for anyone with a vagina, relegating them to, essentially, second-class citizenship. No dick? God has no interest in seeing you standing in front of the church, hearing what you have to say, whatever, just fuck off. Have a baby? Ewe! Unclean! Dirty vagina! Gross! Unclean, one week...wait, was does the BABY have a vagina TOO? EWE! Unclean, TWO weeks!
It is sad that many people (not just Catholics) don't realize that one choice they have is to simply NOT sin. Not have sex. Duh.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:22:55 AMLol, not as "knowledgeable" as you might think. You don't have "knowledge". You've learned propaganda. You reject "knowledge" if it doesn't agree with you.
So, I'm not particularly smart, but I'm knowledgeable about fairy tales and magic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 09, 2016, 12:24:39 PM
Post by: aitm on May 09, 2016, 12:24:39 PM
Claims the babble is accurate,
Uses babble as proof,
Claims babble is accurate...
hmmm circle jerk much? LOL
Uses babble as proof,
Claims babble is accurate...
hmmm circle jerk much? LOL
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 12:30:45 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 12:30:45 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:09:54 AM
If you wish to discuss a doctrine of Catholicism, start a thread. I'll be there.
The words you refer to were the words I was anticipating from you. I don't want to discuss Catholicism. I said I wanted to discuss exorcism, but there I was being sarcastic. I really don't care about that either.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 09, 2016, 12:40:59 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 09, 2016, 12:40:59 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 10:26:22 AMLook, you little fuck wit, I'm all out of patience with your willful ignorance. The verse that needed context, which I provided and you did not, was John 7 which you presented as evidence for Jesus being born in Bethlehem when it is in fact someone objecting that he was not.
Happy to oblige.
Mark says nothing about Jesus being from Bethlehem.
John presents someone saying Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and does not refute the claim.
Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem (until Jesus in perhaps as old as 2), fleeing to Egypt and only going to Nazareth after.
Luke starts with them in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem then going back to Nazareth by way of Jerusalem.
If you treat these four accounts as independent eye witnesses--which you have repeatedly said that they are--they clearly disagree. Mark say nothing about a Bethlehem birth while John only mentions it as a denial. Matthew says nothing about a census or living in Nazareth before Jesus' birth. Luke says nothing about Egypt or the slaughter of the innocents--a shit job for someone "investigated everything from the beginning". You can close your eyes and pretend the contradictions don't exist, but it does not make it so.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 09, 2016, 12:43:37 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 09, 2016, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 12:02:19 PM
Lol, not as "knowledgeable" as you might think. You don't have "knowledge". You've learned propaganda. You reject "knowledge" if it doesn't agree with you.
Interestingly the pious call themselves 'people of faith', not people of knowledge. Knowledge means having reviewed and accepted factual claims that have been tested and proven to be true. If any scientific theory is not disproved by experimentation and calculation, by testing and re-testing, the theory is accepted as fact. Religion does not have such a mechanism. Claims are thrown around without a chance of testing or disproving them. Religious claims by nature have to be accepted as fact without the benefit of proof. That's exactly why it is called 'faith'! The ridiculous attempts by the pious to sell the supernatural as fact has been tried for thousands of years, until recently via coercion and torture. That's why they were so "successful". Now it is indoctrination of the most vulnerable members of society, children, that keeps the illusion going.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 12:55:24 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 11:11:25 AM
just remember to keep telling yourself that you won this exchange.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif)
No one wins a debate about the existence of God. Such a debate may inspire believers, but the answer is unobtainable, and the debate becomes meaningless. Any debate about issues that depend on an unobtainable premise (a god) are mental masturbation. This doesn't mean there is no god. It doesn't mean that the Bible is accurate. It's just mental masturbation, however good the masturbation might feel.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 09, 2016, 01:01:11 PM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 09, 2016, 01:01:11 PM
Randy is about as likely to see the problems with praying to idols as a Calvinist is to see the issues with pre-destination and free will existing simultaneously.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
There were other Infancy Gospels that were popular for a time. So the revised Synoptics had to mention the infancy, childhood and presence in Egypt, to compete with the Isis/Horus narrative.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Flanker1Six on May 09, 2016, 01:33:11 PM
Post by: Flanker1Six on May 09, 2016, 01:33:11 PM
While there are undoubtedly some historically accurate bits (been verified via archaeological evidence outside of the sales brochure; aka Bible) in both the testaments......................so what.
There are no direct credible witnesses to any of these ancient events alive today to testify to their authenticity.
There is little credible non christian documentary evidence to establish the validity of new testament claims.
There is no credible physical evidence of many-most new testament claims i.e. unbroken chain residency records establishing Jesus parents (whatever their real names were) lived at 5150 Hillel Street, Nazareth, PL from CE -5 to CE 1 etc
christianity is a belief system; aka faith based on beliefs not founded on any reality. My late brother was a near life long schizophrenic who during many periods maintained he was an alien; receiving instructions from "the other aliens" in another galaxy via several pieces of the household furniture. He could go on at length about a great variety of subjects that if the rest of us were only smart enough to listen to him; our lives would be much better. One Doctor asked my brother why none of the rest of us were ever getting these vitally important life changing alien coms? My brother became righteously indignant, and replied he was the only one who had the special alien ability to receive them. HAH! Gotcha! To all outside observation; he genuinely believed that silly shit. To this date no one has stepped up to try and convert any others to his beliefs. Go figure.
That is a belief system not that different from any superstition.....................oh say christianity., islam, and any of that other stupid shit. They all have their own circular internal logic that can not be "reasoned" with as it is not reasonable, but a "belief".
Throw in the fact the bible is only half christian, and half coopted from another superstition (interestingly both groups believe they're special because of their beliefs); has been edited by "god only knows" how many people over the centuries to say whatever their interpretation of what the previous version/s said........................and there you have it...........................a sales brochure. Of course it's true/happened...................says so raht here!
A few years ago; whilst in Jerusalem (the one in Israel) I took a guided tour of the Old City, which concentrated on the sites, acts, and final days of good 'ol Jesus (tour guide was jewish). While we were following the seven stations of the cross.................one of them was "the spot" in an alleyway where Jesus became so physically debilitated (what with the beatings, scourgings, trials, mockery, and all) he stumbled and fell under the weight of the cross. Our tour guide pointed out the very spot on the alley way wall (next to a door way) where Jesus placed his out flung hand to steady himself. Fortunately for us on the tour......................there had been a half spherical glob of fresh cement on that wall for Jesus to leave his "actual" hand print for us to gaze in wonder at some 2000 years later! I "SWEAR BEFORE YEE ALL", it was so convincing and inspirational.....................I almost re-signed up for the whole program right then and there. :kiddingme: I actually burst out laughing, and said something rather unchristianly (pretty much frosting off the other more enraptured tour members) expressing a slight note of disbelief that there just happened to be a glob of wet cement on the wall 2000 years ago for Jesus to steady himself in? The tour guide smiled, shrugged her shoulders, and says, "Aahhh; it's part of the tour", then turned and walked on to the next station of the cross. LOL!
aitm said it very succinctly. I'm with him/her.
The historical reliability of the new testament? You're best off getting such an assessment from a trained multi discipline historical researcher who is most definitely not a christian.
There are no direct credible witnesses to any of these ancient events alive today to testify to their authenticity.
There is little credible non christian documentary evidence to establish the validity of new testament claims.
There is no credible physical evidence of many-most new testament claims i.e. unbroken chain residency records establishing Jesus parents (whatever their real names were) lived at 5150 Hillel Street, Nazareth, PL from CE -5 to CE 1 etc
christianity is a belief system; aka faith based on beliefs not founded on any reality. My late brother was a near life long schizophrenic who during many periods maintained he was an alien; receiving instructions from "the other aliens" in another galaxy via several pieces of the household furniture. He could go on at length about a great variety of subjects that if the rest of us were only smart enough to listen to him; our lives would be much better. One Doctor asked my brother why none of the rest of us were ever getting these vitally important life changing alien coms? My brother became righteously indignant, and replied he was the only one who had the special alien ability to receive them. HAH! Gotcha! To all outside observation; he genuinely believed that silly shit. To this date no one has stepped up to try and convert any others to his beliefs. Go figure.
That is a belief system not that different from any superstition.....................oh say christianity., islam, and any of that other stupid shit. They all have their own circular internal logic that can not be "reasoned" with as it is not reasonable, but a "belief".
Throw in the fact the bible is only half christian, and half coopted from another superstition (interestingly both groups believe they're special because of their beliefs); has been edited by "god only knows" how many people over the centuries to say whatever their interpretation of what the previous version/s said........................and there you have it...........................a sales brochure. Of course it's true/happened...................says so raht here!
A few years ago; whilst in Jerusalem (the one in Israel) I took a guided tour of the Old City, which concentrated on the sites, acts, and final days of good 'ol Jesus (tour guide was jewish). While we were following the seven stations of the cross.................one of them was "the spot" in an alleyway where Jesus became so physically debilitated (what with the beatings, scourgings, trials, mockery, and all) he stumbled and fell under the weight of the cross. Our tour guide pointed out the very spot on the alley way wall (next to a door way) where Jesus placed his out flung hand to steady himself. Fortunately for us on the tour......................there had been a half spherical glob of fresh cement on that wall for Jesus to leave his "actual" hand print for us to gaze in wonder at some 2000 years later! I "SWEAR BEFORE YEE ALL", it was so convincing and inspirational.....................I almost re-signed up for the whole program right then and there. :kiddingme: I actually burst out laughing, and said something rather unchristianly (pretty much frosting off the other more enraptured tour members) expressing a slight note of disbelief that there just happened to be a glob of wet cement on the wall 2000 years ago for Jesus to steady himself in? The tour guide smiled, shrugged her shoulders, and says, "Aahhh; it's part of the tour", then turned and walked on to the next station of the cross. LOL!
aitm said it very succinctly. I'm with him/her.
The historical reliability of the new testament? You're best off getting such an assessment from a trained multi discipline historical researcher who is most definitely not a christian.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 03:08:45 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 03:08:45 PM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 09, 2016, 12:40:59 PMYou know, I just realized that the term "eyewitness account" is getting the fuck abused out of it here by our dear friend, Randy. He is claiming that these are, in fact, eyewitness accounts and, therefore, the writings of these people are nothing more or less than what they actually witnessed. Really? ALL of what they wrote? They were with Jesus throughout his ENTIRE life? They knew him as a baby and continued hanging with him until his death? ALL of what is written in the gospels is a "eyewitness" statements? It occurs to me which is why it is ALL correct? The actual absurdity of this claim just hit me. AT BEST they are accounts from eyewitnesses from a SMALL PART of the life of Jesus and they are filling in the blanks with what they are told (and they're not even that because it is KNOWN FACT that the gospels weren't written until well after the death of Jesus).
If you treat these four accounts as independent eye witnesses--which you have repeatedly said that they are--they clearly disagree. Mark say nothing about a Bethlehem birth while John only mentions it as a denial. Matthew says nothing about a census or living in Nazareth before Jesus' birth. Luke says nothing about Egypt or the slaughter of the innocents--a shit job for someone "investigated everything from the beginning". You can close your eyes and pretend the contradictions don't exist, but it does not make it so.
Aside from that the Bible is FILLED with magic. Do you know what other "historical documents" talk about magic hoodoo? None. It's hard to believe that there are NO other types of documents out there talking about magic. Wait, THERE ARE! They talk of Zeus and Osiris, resurrections and eternal life, people flying up into the sky and great feats of magical power. But ALL of them which don't have religions based around them which survive today are considered "myth". If the world was once so filled with magic then where did all the magic go? Did Jesus say, "You can move mountains with just a little faith! No, really! All right, you got me! I was fucking with you. You can't really do that. But it would be cool if you could, right?" Did God say to Moses, "Dude, there's water over there. It's about two miles out, just over the hill."? Did idol worshipers die when the golden cow buckled under its own weight and fell on them?
He loves this "eyewitness account" shit, thinking he's really onto something. Yet he knows full well that in a "court of law", which he also loves, an "eyewitness" claiming that, "Magic did it!" would be immediately dismissed. They say if you talk to God, you're praying. If God talks to you, you're crazy. WHY do they say that? God talked to LOTS of people in the Bible. But nobody expects him to today. EVEN IF I were a Catholic and agreed with everything Randy said he would STILL think something was wrong with me if I claimed to have had a conversation with God. Now, I could claim to have seen Pope John Paul or one of the other dead idols Catholics worship. All except Jesus, of course. Why is that? Magic was all over the damned place at the founding of the church, but suddenly magic from God dried up. In fact, let's look at the history of magic in Christianity.
In the beginning, there was BIG magic. There was creation, global destruction, mass murder of magical proportions, even sticks into snakes. And God wasn't even the only one who could make magic. Pharaoh had magicians with similar tricks to Moses. Even the small stuff there is pretty impressive.
Then we move onto the New Testament. There were healings, minor transformations, food production. Still kind of impressive. Certainly a lot easier to fake than fire raining down from the sky or people being turned into pillars of salt. God was no one-trick-pony back in the old days! But he kind of went that way in the New Testament. Gone was ALL the creation AND destruction magic, replaced with "helpy" magic.
Then we move past the New Testament. And we have...um...dead people revealing themselves in dreams and, occasionally, public squares, but only in places and at times when there JUST HAPPENS to be nobody around to document it properly. Statues crying. Wooptie-do, Basil. Bodies mysteriously not decaying...after being embalmed... Um...I got nothing.
And today, right now, what do we have? Squat. You could visit some piss-ant little town turned tourist trap and hope to see the Virgin Mary appear, but she mysteriously only does that when tourism drops so much that all investigative teams have, FOR CERTAIN, left the area. Oooh, my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate was healed! Before they prayed for him he had something you couldn't check for and after they prayed for him it was gone! Now there's an "eyewitness account" for you!
So, where did all the magic go? What is the simplest, most reasonable explanation for it's disappearance? People have gotten less stupid over the centuries. There was no magic. Ever. It's not gone, people 2,000+ years ago were just a lot stupider and more gullible than people today. And THAT is why you can still convince them God is real, but good like trying to convince them you met him.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 04:28:21 PM
Post by: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 04:28:21 PM
Much of the Bible text is quite like common fictional writing. Jesus goes into the desert (alone), meets up with Satan (that makes two), and somehow the event is written down in detail by someone else. How did the author observe these events? How were the private conversations recorded?
Gollum, in scenes all by himself, talks with himself. The conversations are written down verbatim in Lord of the Rings. Who observed these conversations? Who wrote them down?
The simple answer is that both situations were "observed" by and written by an author of fiction. In the later case it was JRR Tolkien. In the former no one knows.
Gollum, in scenes all by himself, talks with himself. The conversations are written down verbatim in Lord of the Rings. Who observed these conversations? Who wrote them down?
The simple answer is that both situations were "observed" by and written by an author of fiction. In the later case it was JRR Tolkien. In the former no one knows.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 09, 2016, 04:48:36 PM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 09, 2016, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 09:47:19 AMI always love seeing "...then what you're saying is...", because it gives me a chance to spot yet another strawman argument.
If this is your belief, then what you're saying is that the apostles knew that their prank had gotten out of control, but rather than simply drop it, they continued preaching it without recanting until their deaths.
IOW, they were lying, they knew they were lying, and the whole thing was a conspiracy.
Is that your position?
You are so weak.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 05:03:55 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 05:03:55 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 04:28:21 PM
both situations were "observed" by and written by an author of fiction. In the later case it was JRR Tolkien. In the former...
Satan?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 09, 2016, 11:45:24 AM
This is the point where Catholics have most seriously deluded themselves, in my opinion. You think it's not an idol because you pretend not to worship it? And do you really think you're not worshiping Mary when you're praying to her to take your prayer to Jesus to take your prayer to the big guy? And that is, by the way, the DUMBEST notion ever. You have an all powerful god at your disposal who knows your every need and desire, but you don't want to bother him. He has so much to do already. So you talk to the mother of his child and ask HER to talk to him for you, a conversation, by the way, which he hears anyway being all-knowing and all.
You clearly have no understanding of the Communion of the Saints. Scripture says that the prayer of a "righteous man availeth much". And who was ever more righteous than Mary who never sinned? So, we ask the saints in heaven to pray for us because they are already in God's presence, and their prayers are powerful and effective.
Now, can I pray to God? Sure. I can, should and do. But I grow tired, my mind is distracted, and I fall asleep. Not so with the saints. They can pray without ceasing.
Finally, Jesus said, "Whatever two of you agree to ask in my name...". Well, I'm one person and the saint I ask for assistance is the second. We agree to ask in His name.
Is any of this sinking in? I hope so, because it is rock-solid based on scripture and simple logic.
QuoteAnd if you REALLY don't think Catholics worship idols, just take a look at your history. Even recent history will do. Go visit any holy relic.
I don't have to go anywhere. I have two in my home. But continue.
QuoteDo you know where you'll find it? Under lock and key. It wasn't always this way. Why is it now?
Because someone might steal it? Or some sick, atheist might try to desecrate it?
QuoteWell, for one reason there's a wooden cup somewhere under lock and key which is heavily damaged. They used to let the public drink out of it, but they found that people hoping for healings or miracles were biting bits of the cup off and swallowing them. They were hoping that by ingesting bits of this holy relic they would be healed. Think about that. Did they REALLY expect God to better hear their prayers if they fucked up his favorite cup? No. What they really expected was that by taking a piece of this holy relic inside themselves they would, in essence, be eating divinity; that divinity would become a part of them, flowing through their veins. And how would it get there? Not by the power of prayers to dead people. No, it was through the power of biting off a piece of an idol they worshiped and making it a part of themselves.
I've been in a lot of churches in a lot of countries. I've never seen such a cup and I've never even heard such a tale. A Google search of this concept came up empty.
QuoteYou can deliver all the excuses you want, but they all ring hollow. If you think your religion does not practice idol worship you are just deluded. Catholics flock to idols they call "holy relics" and, if given the chance, will destroy that idol in its worship, hoping to get some miracle directly from the tangible object of their worship. I realize that as a Catholic you see this differently, but back in reality there simply is no other explanation for why a populace would destroy a holy relic to take pieces of it with them except that they value the object itself as a source of divinity even more than any god they might anger in the destruction and desecration of that object. The Catholic religion is so deeply steeped in idolatry that even the dead are made into idols, and I'm not just talking about the fucked-up corpse-hoarding. I'm talking about the very mental images of past popes, saints, Mary, etc. You've made statues of Mary to help you visualize her and you very much worship, not the statue itself, but the mental image of Mary. It has gotten to the point where Catholics can no longer wait the prescribed amount of time for the deceased to be idolized, demanding that repeated recent fast-tracking of popular figures such as Pope John Paul and Mother Theresa. So important to the Catholic religion are these mental idols that the rules must be set aside to make them "official" idols of the church.
Catholics do not worship Mary; we honor and venerate her. But then, scripture says:
QuoteLuke 1:46-49
46 And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for meâ€"
holy is his name.
So, all generations will call her blessed. And there's more.
Jesus was a good Jew who obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly, and a key component of the Law is known as the Ten Commandments. The first commandment that deals with our relationships with others states, “Honor your Father and Mother.â€
As a dutiful Jewish son who obeyed the law perfectly, Jesus fulfilled this commandment by honoring His Mother. The Hebrew word for “honor†actually means “glorifyâ€. So, Jesus bestows glory on his mother, Mary.
At the annunciation, the angel of the Lord called Mary “full of graceâ€. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God declares that “from now on all generations will call [Mary] blessedâ€. Consequently, we honor Jesus’ mother in our own generation.
The Catholic Church was not the first to honor and glorify Mary - Jesus was. We simply obey the word of God which calls us to "be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly beloved children." (Ephesians 5:1)
QuoteAnd that leads me to the nail in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned, for the idol worship. There are more "miracles" associated with saints and popes than there ever were where God, alone, got the credit. From the Catholic church and ONLY the Catholic church (with the minor exception of a few cults here and there...not a joke, I'm being serious) religious people attribute miracles ONLY to God. With the Catholic church, however, it is FAR more common to attribute miracles to some saint or pope. How many people has John Paul healed? How many people have seen the Virgin Mary?
I could provide you with some documentation on the healings performed by John Paul II if you like.
But I think I need to direct you to scripture again.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life:
Quote2 Kings 13:20-21
So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.
This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). Even more interesting is the evidence of "second-class" relics of Paul:
QuoteActs 19:11-12
"And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them"
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are?
In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.
QuoteNow, I'm sure you can explain away all of this. All learned Catholics have bothered to learn how to disguise their ignorance as "knowledge" and how to reject any reality which doesn't equal, "I win!" But reality is reality, just the same.
There you go again...saying I will "explain it away". Well, I have explained Catholic doctrine, belief and devotion and I have given you scriptural support for our faith.
So, yeah, I have explained away your errors. They have vanished like a fart in the wind.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:12:54 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:12:54 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 09, 2016, 01:01:11 PM
Randy is about as likely to see the problems with praying to idols as a Calvinist is to see the issues with pre-destination and free will existing simultaneously.
Please show me my error in the following (you can ask widdershins for help - he claims expertise in all things Catholic):
Praying to Saints and the Communion of Saints Proved from Scripture
1. Every Christian is a member of the Body of Christ
“Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.†(Romans 12:4-5)
“The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one bodyâ€"whether Jews or Greeks, slave or freeâ€"and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.†(1 Corinthians 12:12-13)
2. We are joined with Christ through baptism
“having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.†(Colossians 2:12)
“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.†(Romans 6:4)
“for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.†(Galatians 3:27)
3. All Christians are connected through the Body of Christ
“If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.â€(1 Corinthians 12:26)
“If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you†(2 Corinthians 2:5)
4. Physical death does not separate us from the Body of Christ
“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.†(Romans 8:38-39)
5. There is only one Body of Christ in Heaven and on Earth
“by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.†(Ephesians 2:15-16)
“There is one body and one Spiritâ€"just as you were called to one hope when you were calledâ€"one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.†(Ephesians 4:4-5)
6. The Church is the Body of Christ
“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.†(Ephesians 1:22-23)
“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy†(Colossians 1:18)
7. Just as we can pray for one another, we can suffer for one another because we are all connected in Christ.
“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. (Colossians 1:24)
8. If you can ask a member of the Body of Christ on earth to pray for you, then you can also ask someone who is a member of that same Body of Christ in heaven to do the same for they are not “dead†at all.
“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." (Luke 20:38)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 09, 2016, 05:31:46 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 09, 2016, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 09, 2016, 05:03:55 PMYou got the letters correct, but the proper name is Santa. He always knows if you are naughty or nice. And he records everything you say--even if it is to a burning bush.
Satan?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:32:55 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:32:55 PM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 09, 2016, 12:40:59 PM
Look, you little fuck wit, I'm all out of patience with your willful ignorance. The verse that needed context, which I provided and you did not, was John 7 which you presented as evidence for Jesus being born in Bethlehem when it is in fact someone objecting that he was not.
Mark says nothing about Jesus being from Bethlehem.
John presents someone saying Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and does not refute the claim.
Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem (until Jesus in perhaps as old as 2), fleeing to Egypt and only going to Nazareth after.
Luke starts with them in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem then going back to Nazareth by way of Jerusalem.
If you treat these four accounts as independent eye witnesses--which you have repeatedly said that they are--they clearly disagree. Mark say nothing about a Bethlehem birth while John only mentions it as a denial. Matthew says nothing about a census or living in Nazareth before Jesus' birth. Luke says nothing about Egypt or the slaughter of the innocents--a shit job for someone "investigated everything from the beginning". You can close your eyes and pretend the contradictions don't exist, but it does not make it so.
QuoteJohn 7:40-44
40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.â€
41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.â€
Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?†43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.
I have already shown how Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that he was of the line of David. So, Jesus did come from Bethlehem then to Nazareth, then Capernaum.
I know this is disappointing to see it explained in black and white to lose face in front of all your forum homers, but there it is.
Jesus is from Bethlehem and from Nazareth and from Capernaum at various times in his life.
And there is no contradiction in the gospels on this account.
Randy 2, Atheist O
Would you like to play again?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:33:38 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:33:38 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
There were other Infancy Gospels that were popular for a time. So the revised Synoptics had to mention the infancy, childhood and presence in Egypt, to compete with the Isis/Horus narrative.
Rubbish.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:55:25 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:55:25 PM
Quote from: Flanker1Six on May 09, 2016, 01:33:11 PM
While there are undoubtedly some historically accurate bits (been verified via archaeological evidence outside of the sales brochure; aka Bible) in both the testaments......................so what.
Welcome to the discussion, Flanker1Six. First time we've chatted, eh?
I appreciate your recognition of these historically accurate bits...though this will not make you very popular among the unthinking mythicists in this forum. But you ask, so what? Well, if the gospels can be demonstrated to be historically reliable and if the writers themselves can be judged to be honest men who wanted to convey accurate accounts, then we ought to listen more closely to what they tell us giving them the benefit of the doubt because they have earned our trust by being truthful in those things we can and have verified archaeologically and otherwise.
QuoteThere are no direct credible witnesses to any of these ancient events alive today to testify to their authenticity.
Agreed. This is like investigating a cold-case murder after all the witnesses have died. All we have is indirect evidence.
QuoteThere is little credible non christian documentary evidence to establish the validity of new testament claims.
I disagree and I started a whole thread on this topic. Athesists like Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill disagree with you also.
QuoteThere is no credible physical evidence of many-most new testament claims i.e. unbroken chain residency records establishing Jesus parents (whatever their real names were) lived at 5150 Hillel Street, Nazareth, PL from CE -5 to CE 1 etc
You have me there. All I have are three independent eyewitness accounts dating from the mid-late first century that say that they lived there.
Quotechristianity is a belief system; aka faith based on beliefs not founded on any reality.
Incorrect. Unlike other religions such as Buddhism, Chrisitianity is NOT a belief system. It is rooted in a historical event, the resurrection of Jesus. If that did not occur, then whatever else we may believe about Jesus or his teachings is meaningless. Conversely, no one cares what happened to Buddha; followers are focused on his teachings. This is the difference.
QuoteMy late brother was a near life long schizophrenic who during many periods maintained he was an alien; receiving instructions from "the other aliens" in another galaxy via several pieces of the household furniture. He could go on at length about a great variety of subjects that if the rest of us were only smart enough to listen to him; our lives would be much better. One Doctor asked my brother why none of the rest of us were ever getting these vitally important life changing alien coms? My brother became righteously indignant, and replied he was the only one who had the special alien ability to receive them. HAH! Gotcha! To all outside observation; he genuinely believed that silly shit. To this date no one has stepped up to try and convert any others to his beliefs. Go figure.
That is a belief system not that different from any superstition.....................oh say christianity., islam, and any of that other stupid shit. They all have their own circular internal logic that can not be "reasoned" with as it is not reasonable, but a "belief".
I am sorry to hear that you brother struggled with this. Let me ask one question as an aside: Based on your knowledge of your brother's condition as well as your understanding of what Jesus taught as found in the gospels, do you think Jesus spoke as a lunatic might speak? Just curious, and thanks.
QuoteThrow in the fact the bible is only half christian, and half coopted from another superstition (interestingly both groups believe they're special because of their beliefs); has been edited by "god only knows" how many people over the centuries to say whatever their interpretation of what the previous version/s said........................and there you have it...........................a sales brochure. Of course it's true/happened...................says so raht here!
I have not appealed to scripture as inspired - merely as reliable as you yourself noted in the first part of your post. If you think there are flaws in the arguments for the reliability presented in the OP, please show them to me. Again, thanks.
QuoteA few years ago; whilst in Jerusalem (the one in Israel) I took a guided tour of the Old City, which concentrated on the sites, acts, and final days of good 'ol Jesus (tour guide was jewish). While we were following the seven stations of the cross.................one of them was "the spot" in an alleyway where Jesus became so physically debilitated (what with the beatings, scourgings, trials, mockery, and all) he stumbled and fell under the weight of the cross. Our tour guide pointed out the very spot on the alley way wall (next to a door way) where Jesus placed his out flung hand to steady himself. Fortunately for us on the tour......................there had been a half spherical glob of fresh cement on that wall for Jesus to leave his "actual" hand print for us to gaze in wonder at some 2000 years later! I "SWEAR BEFORE YEE ALL", it was so convincing and inspirational.....................I almost re-signed up for the whole program right then and there. I actually burst out laughing, and said something rather unchristianly (pretty much frosting off the other more enraptured tour members) expressing a slight note of disbelief that there just happened to be a glob of wet cement on the wall 2000 years ago for Jesus to steady himself in? The tour guide smiled, shrugged her shoulders, and says, "Aahhh; it's part of the tour", then turned and walked on to the next station of the cross. LOL!
There are three points to make here.
1. The early church knew where things like this occurred: where he was born, where he died, etc. Knowing the locations where Jesus fell is not beyond the pale.
2. If the hand print was merely a marker to show where Jesus fell, then, okay, that's useful to some degree...but not if false claims are being made about it.
3. If the tour guide seriously suggested that the hand print was made by Jesus, then she's a charlatan. Catholics are pretty big on the stations of the cross (there are 14 not 7, btw), so if a genuine hand print was thought to exist, we would know about it.
QuoteThe historical reliability of the new testament? You're best off getting such an assessment from a trained multi discipline historical researcher who is most definitely not a christian.
I can go one better. I have an atheist, Bart Ehrman, a serious NT scholar who acknowledges that Jesus really existed and that the gospels provide reliable information about him.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 09, 2016, 08:46:55 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 09, 2016, 08:46:55 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:32:55 PMNot using the book of John, because it and Mark don't say that. That you had to change from one so-called independent reliable eye witness account to another to find a different answer is the point. If you take each independent reliable eye witness account and line they up they have glaring contradictions. That you have to cut and past pieces from each leaving be hind chunks of each narrative in order to form a coherent narrative is exactly the point.
I have already shown how Jesus was born in Bethlehem
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 10:03:09 PM
Post by: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 10:03:09 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:32:55 PM
I have already shown how Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that he was of the line of David. So, Jesus did come from Bethlehem then to Nazareth, then Capernaum.
I know this is disappointing to see it explained in black and white to lose face in front of all your forum homers, but there it is.
Jesus is from Bethlehem and from Nazareth and from Capernaum at various times in his life.
And there is no contradiction in the gospels on this account.
Randy 2, Atheist O
Would you like to play again?
You lie to yourself, and to others.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 10:12:41 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 10:12:41 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 04:28:21 PM
Much of the Bible text is quite like common fictional writing. Jesus goes into the desert (alone), meets up with Satan (that makes two), and somehow the event is written down in detail by someone else. How did the author observe these events? How were the private conversations recorded?
Gollum, in scenes all by himself, talks with himself. The conversations are written down verbatim in Lord of the Rings. Who observed these conversations? Who wrote them down?
The simple answer is that both situations were "observed" by and written by an author of fiction. In the later case it was JRR Tolkien. In the former no one knows.
The Narrator in both cases, often a narrator who is "off scene". Of course with the Judean Desert temptation (and people then knew that demons lived in the desert, not in Herod's or Caesar's palace) that would be G-d of course, and G-d wrote the NT, the apostles and writers were mere puppets of an all powerful G-d (not).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 10:24:36 PM
Post by: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 10:24:36 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 10:12:41 PM
The Narrator in both cases, often a narrator who is "off scene". Of course with the Judean Desert temptation (and people then knew that demons lived in the desert, not in Herod's or Caesar's palace) that would be G-d of course, and G-d wrote the NT, the apostles and writers were mere puppets of an all powerful G-d (not).
How convenient. Just not in any way they can demonstrate, hence new fiction from lazy cowards.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 10:37:06 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 10:37:06 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 10:24:36 PM
How convenient. Just not in any way they can demonstrate, hence new fiction from lazy cowards.
They have had a lot of centuries to practice this same shuck and jive.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 11:10:13 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 11:10:13 PM
I wish the Church were the body of Christ, but in my personal experience it is the body of Constantine. And for me, Christ is a sectarian claim, and thus too limited to be real. G-d includes all or none.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 11:12:46 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 11:12:46 PM
The whole point of playing a game, is to cheat, or use your authority to guarantee your win. The card deck is marked, and if that isn't enough, follow the leader is added on as a new rule. Winning is everything ... to losers.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 11:50:27 AM
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 10:55:41 AMYOUR arguments are little more than, "I am right! This is FACT! I win!" You're just pissed that one more person refused to play your childish games any more. And that's what this is for you. It's a childish game of "Prove me wrong" where you want us blindfolded so we can't see you knocking the goalpost over altogether. We don't have to prove you wrong. YOU have to prove you right. Cast a fucking spell and prove magic is real already or fuck off.
You cannot withstand MY arguments and refutations of yours because you have pre-decided what you believe about God without being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. You're just taking your bat and ball and going home.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:30:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 11:50:27 AM
YOUR arguments are little more than, "I am right! This is FACT! I win!" You're just pissed that one more person refused to play your childish games any more. And that's what this is for you. It's a childish game of "Prove me wrong" where you want us blindfolded so we can't see you knocking the goalpost over altogether. We don't have to prove you wrong. YOU have to prove you right. Cast a fucking spell and prove magic is real already or fuck off.
I know you want to believe that.
It's important for you to deny that Christians have evidence for the resurrection which is, in turn, evidence for the existence of God.
So, this is VITAL to you.
However, I have provided a significant amount of indirect evidence in the OP's of my posts, and you have impeached none of it.
Consequently, you have a certain amount of dissonance resulting from: 1) the gospels are historically reliable but 2) they claim that Jesus performed miracles.
How will you reconcile those two things?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:33:29 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 09, 2016, 08:46:55 PM
Not using the book of John, because it and Mark don't say that. That you had to change from one so-called independent reliable eye witness account to another to find a different answer is the point. If you take each independent reliable eye witness account and line they up they have glaring contradictions. That you have to cut and past pieces from each leaving be hind chunks of each narrative in order to form a coherent narrative is exactly the point.
There are no contradictions between the gospel accounts. There are differences in the information provided, but this information does not contradict.
I am from North Carolina, but I was born in Peoria, Illinois. So, if one person calls me Randy from Peoria and another refers to me as Randy of North Carolina, these two accounts say different things but they are not contradictory.
John and Mark say different things, but these things do not contradict.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:38:24 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:38:24 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 10:03:09 PM
You lie to yourself, and to others.
Prove it.
Otherwise, you are lying.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:40:35 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:40:35 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 09, 2016, 10:37:06 PM
They have had a lot of centuries to practice this same shuck and jive.
And unbelievers have had two millennia to disprove it.
I see you are still unable to do so.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:00:03 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:00:03 PM
Who Wrote the Gospels?
While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.
So, who wrote the gospels? Were they written by the men whose names we traditionally associate with these works within a lifetime of Jesus? Or were they written by “schools†which formed the gospels on the basis of their own traditions many decades later?
Evangelical author Dr. Craig Blomberg answers these questions in unambiguous terms:
Blomberg goes on to say: “There are no known competitors for these three gospels. Apparently, it was just not in dispute.â€
Dr. Mary Healy, associate professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agrees.
Both Blomberg and Healy offer questions which must be answered by those who deny the traditional authorship of the gospels including:
1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark†or “The Gospel According to Luke�
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? Or why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true?
The latter question is particularly interesting today because of the popularity of “gospels†that were not included in the canon of inspired scripture. These fanciful accounts of Jesus, which were written centuries later, were commonly ascribed to more prominent members of the Early Church; thus, we have gospels according to Peter, James, Mary and Thomas among others.
Apart from these logical considerations, is there any evidence that the gospels were, in fact, written by their namesakes? The answer is yes, and here we turn to the historical writings of three ancient authors, Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.
Papias (d. ca. AD 100)
Little is known of the life of Papias. He may have been a hearer of the Apostle John and a companion of Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Eusebius tells us that Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch. His writings are typically dated from about AD 95-125. In his preface, Papias states:
Having conducted his research, Papias writes the following concerning Mark:
Note that Papias states that Mark wrote accurately but not "in exact order". In other words, Papias says that Mark's gospel was somewhat disorderly. This may explain why Luke later wrote in the preface of his own gospel:
Luke acknowledges that others have written before him (that would include Mark), but while Mark's account was "disorderly", he intends for his own account to be "orderly." Thus, Luke references Papias' remarks about Mark's gospel.
Of Matthew, Papias writes:
Irenaeus (AD 130-200)
Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons and a former disciple of Polycarp. In a brief passage, Irenaeus corroborates Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew:
Origen (AD 185-254)
From the foregoing arguments and ancient testimonies, we can conclude that the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that these accounts were based on either direct or indirect eye-witness testimony.
+++
For those keeping score at home, I have now address four key points in the chain of evidence for the resurrection:
1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.
Still to come:
Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?
While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.
So, who wrote the gospels? Were they written by the men whose names we traditionally associate with these works within a lifetime of Jesus? Or were they written by “schools†which formed the gospels on the basis of their own traditions many decades later?
Evangelical author Dr. Craig Blomberg answers these questions in unambiguous terms:
Quote“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul’s ‘beloved physician,’ wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.â€
Blomberg goes on to say: “There are no known competitors for these three gospels. Apparently, it was just not in dispute.â€
Dr. Mary Healy, associate professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agrees.
Quote“[Authorship of the gospels] is a very important question. It’s something that the Church has held consistently since the beginning is that the gospels are of apostolic origin which means that they were written either by apostles or by apostolic men â€" meaning men who were closely associated with them â€" and that’s the basis on which we have a firm confidence that the gospels really do reliably tell us who Jesus Christ was, and what he did and what he taught.â€
Both Blomberg and Healy offer questions which must be answered by those who deny the traditional authorship of the gospels including:
1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark†or “The Gospel According to Luke�
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? Or why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true?
The latter question is particularly interesting today because of the popularity of “gospels†that were not included in the canon of inspired scripture. These fanciful accounts of Jesus, which were written centuries later, were commonly ascribed to more prominent members of the Early Church; thus, we have gospels according to Peter, James, Mary and Thomas among others.
Apart from these logical considerations, is there any evidence that the gospels were, in fact, written by their namesakes? The answer is yes, and here we turn to the historical writings of three ancient authors, Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.
Papias (d. ca. AD 100)
Little is known of the life of Papias. He may have been a hearer of the Apostle John and a companion of Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Eusebius tells us that Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch. His writings are typically dated from about AD 95-125. In his preface, Papias states:
QuoteI shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the eldersâ€"what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.
Having conducted his research, Papias writes the following concerning Mark:
QuoteAnd the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.
Note that Papias states that Mark wrote accurately but not "in exact order". In other words, Papias says that Mark's gospel was somewhat disorderly. This may explain why Luke later wrote in the preface of his own gospel:
QuoteLuke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke acknowledges that others have written before him (that would include Mark), but while Mark's account was "disorderly", he intends for his own account to be "orderly." Thus, Luke references Papias' remarks about Mark's gospel.
Of Matthew, Papias writes:
QuoteMatthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.
Irenaeus (AD 130-200)
Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons and a former disciple of Polycarp. In a brief passage, Irenaeus corroborates Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew:
Quote"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." (Adversus Haereses 3.3.4)
Origen (AD 185-254)
Quote"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language." (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4)
From the foregoing arguments and ancient testimonies, we can conclude that the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that these accounts were based on either direct or indirect eye-witness testimony.
+++
For those keeping score at home, I have now address four key points in the chain of evidence for the resurrection:
1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.
Still to come:
Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMYou can try all you want to explain it away, but your beliefs are not backed Bionically. The Bible states that the dead are aware of nothing. Even if they weren't, why would dying give them magical powers? Why would they suddenly gain the magical ability to hear prayers? Or the magical power to discern between the MILLIONS of prayers directed at them at any given time? Why would dying give them powers traditionally assigned only to God?
You clearly have no understanding of the Communion of the Saints. Scripture says that the prayer of a "righteous man availeth much". And who was ever more righteous than Mary who never sinned? So, we ask the saints in heaven to pray for us because they are already in God's presence, and their prayers are powerful and effective.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMSo your all powerful, all knowing God can't make a decision until he's had time to mull it over? Why? What is time to him? What outcome could he have to consider that he hasn't known since before creation? What decision has he made that can be undone by begging for hours, days, months? Is his will so fickle that, if you pray long enough, he'll think, "You know what? Maybe my plan isn't the best one after all."? The notion that an all-powerful, all-knowing being with a "plan" could be swayed given enough time is ludicrous.
Now, can I pray to God? Sure. I can, should and do. But I grow tired, my mind is distracted, and I fall asleep. Not so with the saints. They can pray without ceasing.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMYeah, you wouldn't know "simple logic" if it molested you after choir practice. It is "rock-solid" why? Well, because you say it's so, of course. Wait. Didn't you mean, '...it is ROCK-SOLID..."? I thought you had to capitalize it to force it to be reality. Apparently you have only to claim it. I'll update my copy of "Arguing According to Randy" with the new rules under the section, "Why you lost, a guide to understanding how you're wrong before you've even stated your case."
Finally, Jesus said, "Whatever two of you agree to ask in my name...". Well, I'm one person and the saint I ask for assistance is the second. We agree to ask in His name.
Is any of this sinking in? I hope so, because it is rock-solid based on scripture and simple logic.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMDo they have commercials for Catholic relics? I imagine they would be something along the lines of the old "Pay-per-view instead of renting a disc" commercials.
I don't have to go anywhere. I have two in my home. But continue.
"Who has time to go out and worship idols? You have to get dressed, get in the car, drive to the nearest idol AND THEN you have to do it all again in reverse! Yuck! Who has time for that? Well now you don't have to! That's right, you can have your very own idol right in the comfort of your own home! Be the envy of your neighborhood when you invite your friends over to show off your own, personal idol where you and your friends can kneel down and worship it for hours at a time!"
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMLol, why the fuck would I go anywhere near the creepy body parts you freaks collect? And I suppose because you've never heard of the Nanteos Cup that means I just made the whole thing up? I thought you were an intelligent, informed Catholic. Why is it this lowly, stupid atheist knows the history of the Nanteos Cup, but you have never heard such a thing? More importantly, why is it you simply assume that I am a threat to your holy relics, which I care nothing about, and are blissfully unaware that it is actually CHRISTIANS who are the biggest danger to the integrity of these relics? Oh wise and learned Catholic, please teach me the wisdom of your ways by telling me which knowledge I must forget to become as wise and learned as you!
Because someone might steal it? Or some sick, atheist might try to desecrate it?
I've been in a lot of churches in a lot of countries. I've never seen such a cup and I've never even heard such a tale. A Google search of this concept came up empty.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMActually no, it isn't. That isn't one of the "Ten Commandments". It at least wasn't one of the Ten written on the stone tablets. Read Exodus 34. It is the ONLY place in the Bible where both the "stone tablets" are mentioned and the phrase "Ten Commandments" is used. It is the ONLY place in the Bible which specifically states what was written on the stone tablets, in this case the replacement tablets which Moses had to chisel. I think we can all agree that it's safe to assume that Moses was instructed to put the same "Ten Commandments" on the new tablets which were on the old tablets. That being the case, the ten you know, they're not the ten from the tablets. They are not THE Ten Commandments. Essentially they're only ten OTHER commandments.
Catholics do not worship Mary; we honor and venerate her. But then, scripture says:
So, all generations will call her blessed. And there's more.
Jesus was a good Jew who obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly, and a key component of the Law is known as the Ten Commandments. The first commandment that deals with our relationships with others states, “Honor your Father and Mother.â€
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMApparently "honor" means "pray to"? I've been doing it wrong for MLK all these years? Boy, is my face red!
As a dutiful Jewish son who obeyed the law perfectly, Jesus fulfilled this commandment by honoring His Mother. The Hebrew word for “honor†actually means “glorifyâ€. So, Jesus bestows glory on his mother, Mary.
At the annunciation, the angel of the Lord called Mary “full of graceâ€. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God declares that “from now on all generations will call [Mary] blessedâ€. Consequently, we honor Jesus’ mother in our own generation.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMYeah, but BEFORE she was dead. Not exactly the same thing.
The Catholic Church was not the first to honor and glorify Mary - Jesus was. We simply obey the word of God which calls us to "be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly beloved children." (Ephesians 5:1)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMOh, I am actually familiar. I am also familiar with the lack of medical backing for the claims, and the fact that the symptoms later returned.
I could provide you with some documentation on the healings performed by John Paul II if you like.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMNo, you really don't. The scriptures are so vague and contradictory you can use them to justify any position. I could use them to justify slavery and polygamy right now, no problem.
But I think I need to direct you to scripture again.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMWell, if your standard for "Biblical proof" of a belief is ONE EXAMPLE then I can prove a LOT of things you don't want to hear.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life:
This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMWait, LIVING people can be relics too? You fuckers can turn ANYTHING into an idol! Hey, I have petrified shit from the donkey that carried Mary on the way to pay their taxes when Jesus was born! Now, it may LOOK like just ordinary shit, but that's because, through the miracle of idolatry, it just hasn't decayed! Send me your info and I'll give you a price!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). Even more interesting is the evidence of "second-class" relics of Paul:
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMSince you asked, there are PLENTY of examples of relics and the examples given above ain't two. A "relic" is an object surviving from "an earlier time". Living Jesus was not a relic. Peter's shadow wasn't even an object. Well, maybe in Neverland, but this isn't the story of Peter Pan.
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMA shadow is a "physical thing"? Where is Peter's shadow now? Do you have it in a jar in your bedroom? A little something to worship in the middle of the night when you need a quick fix, maybe?
In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.
"Do you hate getting out of bed to worship idols? Sure. We all do..."
So quick question, Einstein. Why can't these idols, plentiful as they are, do these things today? Why is it that the only magic they can muster is magic that can't be objectively observed?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 05:07:30 PMMy errors, huh? Because I'm the uninformed one here. I'm the one that has never heard of the Nanteos Cup and simply not skilled enough (or tried hard not) to find information about it. You know, I couldn't remember what it was called at first. I had to Google it. Unlike you, however, I spent the 3 minutes (yes, that IS literal) it took to refine my search until I came up with what I was looking for.
There you go again...saying I will "explain it away". Well, I have explained Catholic doctrine, belief and devotion and I have given you scriptural support for our faith.
So, yeah, I have explained away your errors. They have vanished like a fart in the wind.
Proclaiming it's true doesn't make it true. Quoting the Bible to explain away WHY your idolatry is okay does not make it not idolatry. Quoting the Bible to show WHY your repetitive prayers, which have become SO repetitive to you over the years that you could do them while thinking heavily about the game last night, are exactly how you are supposed to pray doesn't make them not so repetitive that you can do them on autopilot. It also doesn't negate the fact that it actually takes more thought to keep track of how many times you've said a Hail Mary than it does to actually SAY the Hail Mary. It doesn't change the fact that you can say these prayers on autopilot, the very essence of "repetitive", and you're more likely to lose count than you are to screw up.
You really are full of pride and arrogance. Not to mention outright stupidity, albeit a willful stupidity. I can quote the Bible all day long to show why you're wrong just like you can quote it all day long to show why I'm wrong. Why is that? Because it's meaningless "babble" which can say anything you want it to, which should answer your question about why people here are misspelling "Bible".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:12:48 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
You can try all you want to explain it away, but your beliefs are not backed Bionically. The Bible states that the dead are aware of nothing.
“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." (Luke 20:38)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:18:01 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
Actually no, it isn't. That isn't one of the "Ten Commandments". It at least wasn't one of the Ten written on the stone tablets. Read Exodus 34.
The Ten Commandments are contained in Exodus 20.
Exodus 20:1-17
20 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.â€
(http://4the10.net/images/HeartofTenCommandments.png)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:20:59 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:20:59 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
Yeah, but BEFORE she was dead. Not exactly the same thing.
Mary is not dead now. None of the saints are.
Mark 12:27
"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!â€
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 02:21:55 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 02:21:55 PM
ANOTHER thread for this? Come on.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:24:57 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:24:57 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
No, you really don't. The scriptures are so vague and contradictory you can use them to justify any position. I could use them to justify slavery and polygamy right now, no problem.
So, why do you try to use the scriptures to justify your false idea that Catholics worship statues and dead saints? Or that honoring your father and mother are NOT one of the 10 commandments?
Could you at least TRY to be consistent?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:00:03 PMThis is not true. This is not indisputable. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Eyewitness accounts which include observations of magic are never taken at face value. I very much dispute this. It is very much not indisputable. It is, in fact, very disputed.
Who Wrote the Gospels?
While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.
It's also a loaded statement, a sly attempt to manipulate the argument. The term "eyewitness account" only applies to witnesses of actual events. You are trying to prove that the statements in the New Testament are real by getting us to, before the argument begins, accept that the accounts in the New Testament are real and build your argument from a position of "I win!" Not going to happen.
Rewrite this. Replace "eyewitness accounts" with something which DOES NOT start the argument with the assertion that you've won the argument before you've even given it. Form a proper argument and I'll read the rest.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:33:56 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:33:56 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
You really are full of pride and arrogance. Not to mention outright stupidity, albeit a willful stupidity. I can quote the Bible all day long to show why you're wrong just like you can quote it all day long to show why I'm wrong. Why is that? Because it's meaningless "babble" which can say anything you want it to, which should answer your question about why people here are misspelling "Bible".
You have been badly misinformed about basic Christian doctrine and the contents of scripture, and I suspect it will be quite some time before you are able to approach the scriptures or a book of basic Christian theology calmly enough to evaluate it objectively.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 10, 2016, 02:39:32 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 10, 2016, 02:39:32 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 02:21:55 PMHe'll keep playing with you as long as you reply. I am amazed how many intelligent posters here keep giving this idiot some attention.
ANOTHER thread for this? Come on.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 02:49:52 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:20:59 PM
Mary is not dead now. None of the saints are.
Mark 12:27
"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!â€
Oh, really? Can we go visit them, then? Have a little talk with Mary over a cup of coffee and talk about her son?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 02:55:43 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 02:55:43 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:18:01 PMYeah, I didn't see any mention of any "stone tablets" in any of that. Did you? Did I miss it? Which part was it, exactly, where it said that THE "Ten Commandments" were written on "stone tablets"? I'm not seeing it there. Obviously I must be missing something. I mean, if it didn't say that why would you have included a handy little picture of the Ten Commandments written on stone tablets? That cute little computer generated picture is certainly proof that you're right. I just can't find it in the actual BIBLE. In fact, I don't even see a reference there to "Ten Commandments". To the untrained eye, that looks like a TOTAL fail on your part. But I'm certain I must be mistaken. So, please, do show me in the scripture were the Bible SAYS that the "Ten Commandments" were written on the "stone tablets" and lists those commandments.
The Ten Commandments are contained in Exodus 20.
Exodus 20:1-17
20 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.â€
(http://4the10.net/images/HeartofTenCommandments.png)
Try Exodus 34. :smile:
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:20:59 PMOh, so Mother Theresa isn't dead right now? No grave with her body in it? And you don't have creepy body parts from saints laying around your various churches? There could not, after all, be a "dead body" if the person is not "dead".
Mary is not dead now. None of the saints are.
Mark 12:27
"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!â€
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:24:57 PMI am being consistent. Exodus 34 shows the Ten Commandments written on the stone tablets. I have told you, it is the ONLY place in the ENTIRE Bible which uses BOTH phrases, "Ten Commandments" and "stone tablets" and it lists "NOT those ten". I've told you where to find it. And how do you respond? You quote a list of the ten you BELIEVE are THE "Ten Commandments", a list which does not actually name them the "Ten Commandments", nor does it mention writing them on a "stone tablet", much less doing both, which is done only in Exodus 34.
So, why do you try to use the scriptures to justify your false idea that Catholics worship statues and dead saints? Or that honoring your father and mother are NOT one of the 10 commandments?
Could you at least TRY to be consistent?
So, show me where, in the Bible, it specifically states the Ten Commandments (by that name) and the act of or commandment to put them on "stone tablets" (specifically). Hey, try Exodus 34 :smile:
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:33:56 PMSays the man who doesn't even know the Ten Commandments written on the stone tablets carried in the Ark of the Covenant. This is very basic stuff. I mean, the contents of the Ark of the Covenant, in as much as they are known, is pretty basic, important stuff for a good Christian to know. It tells us what was important to God. It tells us what he valued above all else.
You have been badly misinformed about basic Christian doctrine and the contents of scripture, and I suspect it will be quite some time before you are able to approach the scriptures or a book of basic Christian theology calmly enough to evaluate it objectively.
So, show me the Ten Commandments again. But I don't want just any old ten commandments. I want THE Ten Commandments. The ones God, himself, called the Ten Commandments in the Bible. The ones which the Bible says were so important that they were inscribed on two stone tablets which were to be carried in the Ark of the Covenant. Show me THOSE Ten Commandments. Try Exodus 34! :smile:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:05:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:05:53 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
This is not true. This is not indisputable. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Eyewitness accounts which include observations of magic are never taken at face value. I very much dispute this. It is very much not indisputable. It is, in fact, very disputed.
It's also a loaded statement, a sly attempt to manipulate the argument. The term "eyewitness account" only applies to witnesses of actual events. You are trying to prove that the statements in the New Testament are real by getting us to, before the argument begins, accept that the accounts in the New Testament are real and build your argument from a position of "I win!" Not going to happen.
Rewrite this. Replace "eyewitness accounts" with something which DOES NOT start the argument with the assertion that you've won the argument before you've even given it. Form a proper argument and I'll read the rest.
If it can be proved that an account was written by an eyewitness, this is indisputably better than saying, "We have no clue who wrote this."
As any district attorney.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:08:11 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:08:11 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 02:21:55 PM
ANOTHER thread for this? Come on.
This is my first thread covering WHO wrote the gospels, and I have presented more information on this topic here than I have posted elsewhere.
Enjoy!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:11:55 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:11:55 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 02:49:52 PM
Oh, really? Can we go visit them, then? Have a little talk with Mary over a cup of coffee and talk about her son?
You may get that opportunity, God willing.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:17:27 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:17:27 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 02:55:43 PM
So, show me the Ten Commandments again. But I don't want just any old ten commandments. I want THE Ten Commandments. The ones God, himself, called the Ten Commandments in the Bible. The ones which the Bible says were so important that they were inscribed on two stone tablets which were to be carried in the Ark of the Covenant. Show me THOSE Ten Commandments. Try Exodus 34! :smile:
Exodus 34
34 The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke
God promises to write the words which were written on the tablets before Exodus 34:1...not in the verses which follow after Exodus 34:1.
What commandments were on the first set of stone tablets, widdershins? What verses contain them?
(Hint: see my previous post or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 03:29:26 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMTextual criticism cannot tell you what the original form of a manuscript was. Only a date-able, exant manuscript can do that.
The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us (meaning we know what they wrote).
• Nearly 6,000 copies of the New Testament can be studied using textual criticism.
QuoteUnsubstantiated claim. We have no original documents to compare to. It's not actually a far stretch to suppose that the gospels did spend a bit of time in an oral tradition, because most people in the ancient world were illiterate.
• The Telephone Game analogy and all attempts to claim distortion via oral tradition are bogus.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMYou've floated this reasoning before, and it is no more convincing now as it was then.
The authors wrote early (meaning it was possible that they were actual eyewitnesses).
Silence regarding the Destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul) (AD 64-65) suggest an early date.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMThe Criterion of Embarrassment is a non-starter. So what if the people who wrote the synoptics weren't the major players in it? It's even useful to have the actual writers be secondary characters, because it intoduces a layer of separation between you and the characters you write about, so any flubbing can be excused. In effect, the Criterion of Embarrassment negates itself because having being written by the head characters themselves introduces opportunity for MORE embarrassment â€" like having a Jesus describing things while he's dead.
The authors recorded eyewitness accounts (meaning they either were or had access to actual eyewitnesses).
• All of the early sources attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The synoptic gospels are not attributed to major figures such as Peter, James or Mary; instead, they are assigned to a tax-collector (Matthew), a lesser character who may not have been present (Mark), and a gentile (Luke). This is one example of how the gospels meet the Criterion of Embarrassment.
And if Jesus, Peter, James and Mary never existed at all, it really should be no surprise that we have nothing in their own words, but only in the words of others.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMEvidence? Was there even a Matthew to make these records? After all, modern scholarship states that none of the gospels were written by the people they're named after. Not John, not James, not Luke, and not Matthew.
• Matthew was an apostle, and may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which were needed to make contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching and deeds.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMPure conjecture, to say the least. Modern interviews have accounts attributed to particular people. This gives you a paper trail to follow in case you want to do some fact-checking. Without them, you could make any old shit up and there's no way for outsiders to tell if they were derived from an actual account or just some fiction.
• Luke interviewed people who were present. This may have included Mary for the nativity account.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMWe don't even know if any of the apostles existed as such, let alone were companions of each other.
• Mark was the companion of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
• John was an apostle.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMFalse dichotomy fallacy. The authors were writing pious 'truth', but that doesn't imply that they were going for historical truth as well. For a more recent example, George Washington and the cherry tree story is absolutely historical fiction (it didn't happen), yet it quite clearly communicates a character truth of George Washington (he was a dilligent, honorable man throughout his life). It's historical fiction, yet it communicates a truth about Washington.
The authors wanted to write accurate accounts (as opposed to pious fiction).
In fact, the notion of a historical truth is a very modern phenomenon. You really don't see a respect for it past a few centuries ago. Ancient peoples really had no use for the 'truth' as we would know it today. In fact, the Buddhists consider the 'real world' a veil over the truth of Enlightenment, and had a similar disregard for historicity. To them, the world is an illusion, so what does it matter whether that illusion went one way or another in the past, or even the present?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMThe communication of 'the truth' and the 'words of God' does not imply that a historical truth is the one being communicated. In fact, I dare say that these bible stories are meant to be read as parable and not as historical truth.
• Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.
• The disciples believed they were passing on the words of God â€" a responsibility they took seriously.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMEvery one of these "accounts" are later and use the bible as their source.
The authors wrote accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.
• Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMYou'd kind of expect people living in the region to be able to describe the geology, architecture, etc of the region, and oral tradition can preserve a lot of detail in that respect. This is why Homer's accounts of Troy and of Bronze Age warrior Greeks were quite accurate, and he himself was living in a completely oral society centuries afterward. But even then, we don't trust Homer when he says that the Trojan war was ultimately the fault of Paris choosing Aphrodite over Hera and Athena as the fairest.
• Verifiable external evidence suggests that the authors had intimate knowledge of the geography, architecture, religious and political leadership, religious customs, language of the day, etc. Even the names of the people appear in the correct percentages.
Furthermore, we know that Luke's account of the census (2:3-4) "3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David," is incorrect, because cencuses were never, EVER conducted in such a manner. There is literally nothing that can be gained by moving to the town of your house's origin to be counted rather than just staying put and stating your house when the bean counters came along. Because even during a census, normal life has to continue â€" the Roman Empire didn't simply stop to be counted when a census was commanded.
If the bible is to be taken seriously on its spiritual details because of its accuracy of verifiable details, then the Illiad (being similarly right on verifiable details as the bible) should be taken at least as seriously on spiritual matters of the existence of the Olympian gods.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMI dispute whether this 'internal corroboration' was "unintentional" as you claim. How do you propose showing that the 'corroboration' between the gospels is really separate accounts and not just straight up retellings of an earlier, received story?
• Unintentional internal corroboration provides additional evidence that the gospels are accurate.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMOr their work has been redacted to correct earlier inaccuracies.
• Accuracy regarding these details adds to the impression that the authors are credible.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMYou cannot prove this. Not only have you failed to show that the gospels were written as early as claimed (thus giving witnesses a fighting chance to be alive at that time), since the 'accounts' are unsourced, why would anyone believe that those decryers were witnesses at all? Its their disbelieving word against your holy 'accounts'.
The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses â€" both supportive and hostile.
• Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time the gospels and epistles were written. Anyone disagreeing with a gospel could have easily refuted an erroneous account.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMSo what if they did?
• The Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMPower, money, and sex are the classic motives, but not an exhaustive set of motives. Religious exhultation is also on the table. Also, this does not guarantee at all the veracity of the claims. You can be sincere, but still wrong.
The authors had no ulterior motive.
What did the authors of the gospels gain from their work? The three classic motives are: power, money, and sex. Not only did Christianity reject these things in general, but the authors were persecuted and killed.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMIrrelevant. Even if we assume the existence of these diciples and that they suffered and died for their belief, it only speaks to their conviction in that belief and not to its truth. You can certainly be willing to die for a lie if you don't know its a lie.
Additional Points for Discussion:
• The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
Second, what makes you think that it is the historical truth they suffered and died for, and not the pious truth? In fact, when faced with torture and death, historical truth has in practice proven to be the more fragile of the two â€" people will lie about a point of reality to make the pain stop much more easily than they would to betray their fundamental beliefs. This point is not any sort of evidence in the bible's favor.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMEquivocation of the term "skeptic" â€" the kind of skeptic that James and Saul were is not the same as the kind of "skeptics" we are. Did James and Saul have the same skeptical apparatus as we do, informed by psychology and science? Of course not. The fact that these "skeptics" were convinced is irrelevant, assuming they existed in the first place.
• Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMWhich ones?
• Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMActually, there were several sects centered around Jesus, including Marcionism and the Gnostics. This hardly shows that there was a single founder.
• The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AMWhatever, sport.
Jesus is not a legend, and the New Testament is not a work of fiction.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 04:16:01 PM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 04:16:01 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:11:55 PM
You may get that opportunity, God willing.
You mean after I...die?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 04:24:25 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 04:24:25 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 03:29:26 PM
Textual criticism cannot tell you what the original form of a manuscript was. Only a date-able, exant manuscript can do that.
"Original form"? Can you be more specific about what you mean here?
QuoteUnsubstantiated claim. We have no original documents to compare to. It's not actually a far stretch to suppose that the gospels did spend a bit of time in an oral tradition, because most people in the ancient world were illiterate.
Some time, yes, but not so much that the accuracy of the transcribed message is in doubt. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 can be dated to within 3-5 years of the resurrection.
QuoteYou've floated this reasoning before, and it is no more convincing now as it was then.
Many people obviously disagree. A history of New York should contain an account of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001...unless they had not occurred, yet.
QuoteThe Criterion of Embarrassment is a non-starter. So what if the people who wrote the synoptics weren't the major players in it? It's even useful to have the actual writers be secondary characters, because it intoduces a layer of separation between you and the characters you write about, so any flubbing can be excused. In effect, the Criterion of Embarrassment negates itself because having being written by the head characters themselves introduces opportunity for MORE embarrassment â€" like having a Jesus describing things while he's dead.
This is bad logic. Someone attempting to foist a lie on another group of people needs to spin it as positively as possible. Naming a gospel after a hated tax collector would NOT be a good marketing strategy. Further, if you examine the gMark carefully, you will see that Mark goes out of his way to AVOID saying anything negative about Peter from whom he got the material. So, one author avoids the criterion of embarrassment while the others do not. IOW, Christianity enjoys the luxury of having it both ways. Finally, Matthew, Mark and Luke were NOT major players...only John was. The gospel writers did not shrink back from telling the truth about what they saw and heard even when it portrayed them or the major characters in a negative light. This is a sign that they were being honest about what they wrote.
QuoteAnd if Jesus, Peter, James and Mary never existed at all, it really should be no surprise that we have nothing in their own words, but only in the words of others.
Evidence? Was there even a Matthew to make these records? After all, modern scholarship states that none of the gospels were written by the people they're named after. Not John, not James, not Luke, and not Matthew.
Josephus mentions Jesus AND his brother, James. There are other Roman historians who reference the events which are at the heart of the Christian message. You know who they are.
QuotePure conjecture, to say the least. Modern interviews have accounts attributed to particular people. This gives you a paper trail to follow in case you want to do some fact-checking. Without them, you could make any old shit up and there's no way for outsiders to tell if they were derived from an actual account or just some fiction.
We don't even know if any of the apostles existed as such, let alone were companions of each other.
We don't, eh?
Philemon 1:24
And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.
In this one verse, Paul mentions both Mark and Luke.
QuoteFalse dichotomy fallacy. The authors were writing pious 'truth', but that doesn't imply that they were going for historical truth as well. For a more recent example, George Washington and the cherry tree story is absolutely historical fiction (it didn't happen), yet it quite clearly communicates a character truth of George Washington (he was a dilligent, honorable man throughout his life). It's historical fiction, yet it communicates a truth about Washington.
That doesn't help you much. The gospel writers sought to tell us "pious truths" about Jesus, also. Can we finally settle the question of whether Jesus really existed historically once and for all, then?
However, Luke, John and Peter are all clear about their intentions as well as their status as eyewitnesses.
QuoteIn fact, the notion of a historical truth is a very modern phenomenon. You really don't see a respect for it past a few centuries ago. Ancient peoples really had no use for the 'truth' as we would know it today. In fact, the Buddhists consider the 'real world' a veil over the truth of Enlightenment, and had a similar disregard for historicity. To them, the world is an illusion, so what does it matter whether that illusion went one way or another in the past, or even the present?
The authors were not Buddhists and they were clear enough about wanting to provide "the certainty of the things you have been taught." (cf. Luke 1:4)
QuoteThe communication of 'the truth' and the 'words of God' does not imply that a historical truth is the one being communicated. In fact, I dare say that these bible stories are meant to be read as parable and not as historical truth.
Scholars disagree with you here.
QuoteEvery one of these "accounts" are later and use the bible as their source.
Oh? When did Josephus write? Or Tacitus?
QuoteYou'd kind of expect people living in the region to be able to describe the geology, architecture, etc of the region, and oral tradition can preserve a lot of detail in that respect. This is why Homer's accounts of Troy and of Bronze Age warrior Greeks were quite accurate, and he himself was living in a completely oral society centuries afterward. But even then, we don't trust Homer when he says that the Trojan war was ultimately the fault of Paris choosing Aphrodite over Hera and Athena as the fairest.
Thank you. This places the authors in a position to know these things accurately and not much later.
QuoteFurthermore, we know that Luke's account of the census (2:3-4) "3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David," is incorrect, because cencuses were never, EVER conducted in such a manner. There is literally nothing that can be gained by moving to the town of your house's origin to be counted rather than just staying put and stating your house when the bean counters came along. Because even during a census, normal life has to continue â€" the Roman Empire didn't simply stop to be counted when a census was commanded.
Speculation on your part.
QuoteIf the bible is to be taken seriously on its spiritual details because of its accuracy of verifiable details, then the Illiad (being similarly right on verifiable details as the bible) should be taken at least as seriously on spiritual matters of the existence of the Olympian gods.
Fair enough. Study the Iliad and determine whether its spiritual claims seem reasonable to you. Do the same for the NT.
QuoteI dispute whether this 'internal corroboration' was "unintentional" as you claim. How do you propose showing that the 'corroboration' between the gospels is really separate accounts and not just straight up retellings of an earlier, received story?
So, the authors colluded? Or are you admitting that there is multiple attestation of the resurrection narrative?
And here we see the other claim made by atheists: it was really one story repeated four times. Normally, skeptics argue against the gospels because of the differences (mistakenly termed "contradictions"), but you appear to be arguing that it was really just one story retold multiple times.
Well, atheists, which is it?
QuoteOr their work has been redacted to correct earlier inaccuracies.
Great. Do you have manuscripts containing the earlier errors intact?
QuoteYou cannot prove this. Not only have you failed to show that the gospels were written as early as claimed (thus giving witnesses a fighting chance to be alive at that time), since the 'accounts' are unsourced, why would anyone believe that those decryers were witnesses at all? Its their disbelieving word against your holy 'accounts'.
I have shown that the gospels had to have been written prior to AD 70. And, btw, almost everyone agrees that John was written by the apostle ca. AD 95. Second, Paul invites his readers to consult with eyewitnesses who were still alive in his epistles...epistles in which he quotes passages from Luke's gospel. So, Luke's gospel must have existed during the living memory of the people Paul was referring to. My OP on the early dating covers this and more.
QuoteSo what if they did?
That's enemy attestation that the tomb was empty. Which eliminates a couple of key arguments against the resurrection: The Swoon Theory and the Shallow Grave Theory.
The Jews could have produced a body and killed Christianity in its infancy. Except that the couldn't because there was no body in the tomb to produce.
QuotePower, money, and sex are the classic motives, but not an exhaustive set of motives. Religious exhultation is also on the table. Also, this does not guarantee at all the veracity of the claims. You can be sincere, but still wrong.
As a police detective what the list of motives for any crime. You'll get the three I gave. But your addition fails to explain the conversion of Paul, because he was already the golden boy of the Pharisees, the group in power in Jerusalem. Why give up his position only to join the hated band of believers and become persecuted himself?
Yes, you can be sincere and wrong. But answer this for me: the disciples were transformed by what they believed to be physical appearances of Jesus. They touched his wounds. They saw him eat a piece of fish. He cooked breakfast for them. How do they get it wrong that badly if those things never happened?
Irrelevant. Even if we assume the existence of these diciples and that they suffered and died for their belief, it only speaks to their conviction in that belief and not to its truth. You can certainly be willing to die for a lie if you don't know its a lie.
QuoteSecond, what makes you think that it is the historical truth they suffered and died for, and not the pious truth? In fact, when faced with torture and death, historical truth has in practice proven to be the more fragile of the two â€" people will lie about a point of reality to make the pain stop much more easily than they would to betray their fundamental beliefs. This point is not any sort of evidence in the bible's favor.
People willingly die for their beliefs; no one dies for a fraternity prank gotten out of hand. The disciples KNEW - they did not believe - whether Jesus had actually risen physically and appeared to them. But if it was all a lie...if there was no resurrection, wouldn't the easiest way to make the pain and suffering of torture and imprisonment be to simply recant? Not one ever did.
QuoteEquivocation of the term "skeptic" â€" the kind of skeptic that James and Saul were is not the same as the kind of "skeptics" we are. Did James and Saul have the same skeptical apparatus as we do, informed by psychology and science? Of course not. The fact that these "skeptics" were convinced is irrelevant, assuming they existed in the first place.
Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus, so that's one strike against you. Second, Saul was not merely an indifferent skeptic. He was zealously persecuting the church, arresting believers, etc. But I see, you modern-day skeptics are so much superior to skeptics in the past because science. Heh...yeah, those clods had no idea that people who died on a cross couldn't rise from the dead. Fools.
QuoteWhich ones?
Temple sacrifices ended in AD 70, for one. Families were divided between believers and non-believers. Neighborhoods and villages were divided.
QuoteActually, there were several sects centered around Jesus, including Marcionism and the Gnostics. This hardly shows that there was a single founder.
Those are heresies and even they were centered on Jesus.
QuoteWhatever, sport.
Yep.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 04:46:34 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 04:46:34 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 04:16:01 PM
You mean after I...die?
Physically, yes. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Your soul is eternal.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 05:11:55 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 05:11:55 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:17:27 PMWikipedia is not the Bible. Wikipedia has what a majority of people believe. It's usually pretty accurate, but the page for my home town used to say we had an "up and coming economy", which has not been true my entire life. Wikipedia is neither the Bible nor an authority. It's a great place for general information, and it is "peer reviewed", in a sense, but in the case of Wikipedia the "peers" are everyone, everywhere.
Exodus 34
34 The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke
God promises to write the words which were written on the tablets before Exodus 34:1...not in the verses which follow after Exodus 34:1.
What commandments were on the first set of stone tablets, widdershins? What verses contain them?
(Hint: see my previous post or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)
I am not ceding the point that you have in any way "proved" what the original tablets said based on a Wikipedia page says. I am willing, however, to end this conversation so as not to detract from the more civil conversation we are having elsewhere.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 06:15:17 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 06:15:17 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 05:11:55 PM
Wikipedia is not the Bible. Wikipedia has what a majority of people believe. It's usually pretty accurate, but the page for my home town used to say we had an "up and coming economy", which has not been true my entire life. Wikipedia is neither the Bible nor an authority. It's a great place for general information, and it is "peer reviewed", in a sense, but in the case of Wikipedia the "peers" are everyone, everywhere.
I am not ceding the point that you have in any way "proved" what the original tablets said based on a Wikipedia page says. I am willing, however, to end this conversation so as not to detract from the more civil conversation we are having elsewhere.
Deal. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 06:21:00 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 06, 2016, 08:23:58 PM
Pagans have been known to kill Catholic priests, also. But yeah, we won the battle for the hearts and minds of the people the world over.
Damn...we must have a good story to tell.
Yeah - the greatest story ever sold!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 06:27:25 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 06:27:25 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2016, 09:52:10 PMAnd some us just like playing with the kittens...
Because even though we have an "ignore" button, no one is really interested in using it. The only place I've ever seen actually use it is a guitar forum my father used to frequent... ten years ago. :lol:
Despite the fact that perfectly good discussion forums like /r/DebateReligion (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/) are entirely dedicated to this discussion, atheist forums will often get used as religious debate platforms. Self-styled missionaries like Randy want to convince us that we're wrong, so they seek us out and badger us. Since many of the atheists on this site are here precisely because they hate dealing with this BS in real life, seeing folks like Randy barging in and preaching like he owns the place angers them to the point where they feel as though they must respond.
Or maybe people just like being assholes, I don't fucking know.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/38/12/36/381236dad5f8a67410be363779919c16.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 06:30:40 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 06:30:40 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2016, 09:52:10 PM
Because even though we have an "ignore" button, no one is really interested in using it. The only place I've ever seen actually use it is a guitar forum my father used to frequent... ten years ago. :lol:
Despite the fact that perfectly good discussion forums like /r/DebateReligion (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/) are entirely dedicated to this discussion, atheist forums will often get used as religious debate platforms. Self-styled missionaries like Randy want to convince us that we're wrong, so they seek us out and badger us. Since many of the atheists on this site are here precisely because they hate dealing with this BS in real life, seeing folks like Randy barging in and preaching like he owns the place angers them to the point where they feel as though they must respond.
Or maybe people just like being assholes, I don't fucking know.
I'm restricting my posting to the Christianity subforum.
What were you EXPECTING to discuss when you clicked on the link to "Christianity"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 10, 2016, 07:29:10 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 10, 2016, 07:29:10 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 10, 2016, 05:11:55 PMHere ya go widdershins--the 10 commandments:
Wikipedia is not the Bible. Wikipedia has what a majority of people believe. It's usually pretty accurate, but the page for my home town used to say we had an "up and coming economy", which has not been true my entire life. Wikipedia is neither the Bible nor an authority. It's a great place for general information, and it is "peer reviewed", in a sense, but in the case of Wikipedia the "peers" are everyone, everywhere.
The Bible is full of commandments given by its god Yahweh but there is only one group of commandments that he specifically gives the title "The Ten Commandments" to and they are not what most Christians think they are. If you ask almost anyone to list The Ten Commandments they will try to recite a partial list found at Exodus 20:1-17 and repeated at Deuteronomy 5:6-21. However if one reads the Bible those commandments are never referred to as "The Ten Commandments" and according to Exodus they are not even on the stone tablets. They are just select commandments from a collection which Moses recited verbally to the people in Exodus.
Where are the actual Ten Commandments?
In Exodus 24:12 Moses gets stone tablets.
In Exodus 32:19 Moses breaks the stone tablets before anyone else has a chance to read them.
In Exodus 34:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."
In Exodus 34:10-26 Yahweh says he is making a covenant with Moses then cites the commandments of the covenant.
In Exodus 34:27-28 Yahweh tells Moses to write down the commandments he just cited. The Bible says Moses wrote on the tablets (even though Yahweh said he was going to write on them) the words of the covenant then calls the covenant "The Ten Commandments."
The Ten Commandments (according to the Bible)
1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.
The name "The Ten Commandments" is only used once in the Bible and it is used for the covenant listed in Exodus 34:10-2 and according to Exodus it is this set of commandments which are on the stone tablets within the Arc of the Covenant. However, the book of Deuteronomy which was written after the book of Exodus tells us that a different list of commandments are written on the stone tablets. Deuteronomy 5:6-21 lists the more commonly known commandments as being written on the stone tablets despite what Exodus clearly tells us.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:31:11 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:31:11 PM
Really, you should quit while you are ahead. And quit right away if you are behind.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
You don't even have to produce G-d or Jesus ... just produce Paul in the flesh ... for cross-examination by a psychiatrist. Then I will believe you.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:37:42 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:37:42 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 10, 2016, 07:29:10 PM
Here ya go widdershins--the 10 commandments:
The Bible is full of commandments given by its god Yahweh but there is only one group of commandments that he specifically gives the title "The Ten Commandments" to and they are not what most Christians think they are. If you ask almost anyone to list The Ten Commandments they will try to recite a partial list found at Exodus 20:1-17 and repeated at Deuteronomy 5:6-21. However if one reads the Bible those commandments are never referred to as "The Ten Commandments" and according to Exodus they are not even on the stone tablets. They are just select commandments from a collection which Moses recited verbally to the people in Exodus.
Where are the actual Ten Commandments?
In Exodus 24:12 Moses gets stone tablets.
In Exodus 32:19 Moses breaks the stone tablets before anyone else has a chance to read them.
In Exodus 34:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."
In Exodus 34:10-26 Yahweh says he is making a covenant with Moses then cites the commandments of the covenant.
In Exodus 34:27-28 Yahweh tells Moses to write down the commandments he just cited. The Bible says Moses wrote on the tablets (even though Yahweh said he was going to write on them) the words of the covenant then calls the covenant "The Ten Commandments."
The Ten Commandments (according to the Bible)
1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.
The name "The Ten Commandments" is only used once in the Bible and it is used for the covenant listed in Exodus 34:10-2 and according to Exodus it is this set of commandments which are on the stone tablets within the Arc of the Covenant. However, the book of Deuteronomy which was written after the book of Exodus tells us that a different list of commandments are written on the stone tablets. Deuteronomy 5:6-21 lists the more commonly known commandments as being written on the stone tablets despite what Exodus clearly tells us.
There are 613 commandments, as any educated Jew can tell you. And Catholics violate most of them.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 07:39:19 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:55:33 PM
2. It appears that the authors were in a position to write as eyewitnesses.
Pardon me if this has been covered, but can you even tell us who were the authors of the books of the NT?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:39:33 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:39:33 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 02:12:48 PM
“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." (Luke 20:38)
That is the icky part ... unlimited zombies.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:40:27 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:40:27 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 07:39:19 PM
Pardon me if this has been covered, but can you even tell us who were the authors of the books of the NT?
He can quote the opinion of a synod about it ... but I don't accept his synods.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:55:33 PM
4. It appears that they did write accurately about the names, places, seasons, geography, language, political leaders and other facts that have been verified.
The NT writers (whomever they may have been) made a lot of errors, of a vriety of types:
Historical Errors in the Gospels (http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:50:08 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:50:08 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
The NT writers (whomever they may have been) made a lot of errors, of a vriety of types:
Historical Errors in the Gospels (http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm)
Oh look, Jerusalem actually existed in the 1st century CE, before the damn Romans destroyed it ... QED, so Jesus must be G-d.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 10, 2016, 08:41:11 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 10, 2016, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:37:42 PMAnd no christian even attempts to follow them, even though they are supposed to be in full effect--at least according to the fictional jesus.
There are 613 commandments, as any educated Jew can tell you. And Catholics violate most of them.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 04:24:25 PMThe proto-form. As first written.
"Original form"? Can you be more specific about what you mean here?
QuoteHow? What is the credible means of dating 1 Cor 15:1-8, and the credible means of dating the resurrection to that 3-5 years before that?
Some time, yes, but not so much that the accuracy of the transcribed message is in doubt. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 can be dated to within 3-5 years of the resurrection.
QuoteUnless the book were New York: A History 1900-2000. Even if it were written in 2016, it's not going to have an account of the 2001 attacks on the WTC, because that's beyond the scope of the book. Similarly, the gospels come to a natural end shortly after the resurrection (if it gets that far), so why should the destruction of the temple be of any consequence to the narrative of Jesus?
Many people obviously disagree. A history of New York should contain an account of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001...unless they had not occurred, yet.
Furthermore, your dating assumes that the NT is meant to be a comprehensive history of the region. Nothing in the NT indicates that it is such, rather than being a book of spiritual matters. The date of Jesus's birth is never recorded, even though there are plenty of calenders to choose from that might give you some idea when it happened. Similarly for other important events in Jesus's life. In short, it's not even a comprehensive history of Jesus's life, let alone Nazareth and Jerusalem.
As such, the destruction of the temple is not something that would be documented in the bible because it need not be documented in the bible. The only import it would have is that Jesus predicted it, and would be common knowledge that it was unimportant to record in the bible.
If the bible mentioned the temple destruction, then it may be evidence that that part of the bible was written after 70 AD. But not mentioning it, nah. That doesn't show much of anything.
QuoteActually, it is, for the purposes of the narrative. A hated tax collector redeemed by telling the story of Jesus, etc. is perfect dramatic fodder. I say this as an avid book reader.
This is bad logic. Someone attempting to foist a lie on another group of people needs to spin it as positively as possible. Naming a gospel after a hated tax collector would NOT be a good marketing strategy.
QuoteExcept the particular way you are employing the criterion of embarrassment has fuck-all to do with saying negative things about Peter, but rather who's committing the story to paper.
Further, if you examine the gMark carefully, you will see that Mark goes out of his way to AVOID saying anything negative about Peter from whom he got the material. So, one author avoids the criterion of embarrassment while the others do not. IOW, Christianity enjoys the luxury of having it both ways.
QuoteLet's put a finer point on that: They were sincere about what they wrote. That doesn't make what the wrote the truth.
Finally, Matthew, Mark and Luke were NOT major players...only John was. The gospel writers did not shrink back from telling the truth about what they saw and heard even when it portrayed them or the major characters in a negative light. This is a sign that they were being honest about what they wrote.
The criterion of embarrassment has never been convincing to me because people write and say stupid shit all the time, even when they should know better. And even when they're lying. It also runs against the observation and frequent employment by various shysters that people will believe a lie if it is big enough and told with sincerity, because of course you couldn't possibly be lying if you are telling such an embarrassing tale.
Finally, even if what the authors originally wrote (if they wrote it at all), that doesn't mean that any of the people making copies of their work held themselves to the same standards. It's very easy and very tempting to add little embelishments along the way, especially if the original work is kind of boring without the whizz-bang Christology of the later Church, to make Jesus seem that much greater.
QuoteJosephus mentiones a pair of figures referred to as Jesus and his brother, James. The text is as follows:
Josephus mentions Jesus AND his brother, James.
Quote
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Huh. That doesn't sound like the bible story. Where did these political maneuverings come from? When did Jesus ever get promoted to high priest? When had his brother James ever been in the running for that job? And furthermore, why is it Jesus, son of Damneus?
Yeah, Josephus is talking about the same Jesus. Not.
I think it's clear that, while the figures Jesus and his brother James were floating around the Christian sects, their backstory (as told by the gospels) hadn't been fully formed yet.
QuoteHumor me.
There are other Roman historians who reference the events which are at the heart of the Christian message. You know who they are.
QuoteSee, above demonstrates one of your big problems. You're using the bible to prove the veracity of the bible. That's not going to work. The veracity of the bible is the point under dispute. You are using a disputed source to establish a disputed source.
We don't, eh?
Philemon 1:24
And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.
In this one verse, Paul mentions both Mark and Luke.
The other thing that I don't really find convincing about this passage: Who are these Aristarchus and Demas fellows? They are mentioned in the same breath as Mark and Luke. Are they also apostles? If so, what happened to them and why aren't they listed in the usual twelve? If not, why are they being put on the same level as Mark and Luke? Are these even the same Mark and Luke you're thinking of, and how are you so sure of that? And how are you sure that's not a later redaction?
QuoteThe "pious truths" about Jesus doesn't require Jesus to be a real person. The gnostics didn't think he was, but rather he was thought of as an eminance. It's like how Captain America doesn't need to be a real, living, breathing human in order to inspire pride in America and being a good person. It's the story of Captain America that inspires people to greatness. Similarly, it's the story of Jesus that inspires people to their spirituality. The flesh is unimportant â€"unless you're a catholic, where the flesh of Jesus is imporant... important to consume... them durn canny-balls! :mrgreen:
That doesn't help you much. The gospel writers sought to tell us "pious truths" about Jesus, also. Can we finally settle the question of whether Jesus really existed historically once and for all, then?
QuoteWell, yeah. As characters in the story, they would need to be.
However, Luke, John and Peter are all clear about their intentions as well as their status as eyewitnesses.
QuoteThe point of mentioning Buddhism is that if you consider the historical truth unimportant, then historical truth is not going to make it reliably into your narrative. Also, Luke was clear about providing "the certainty of the things you have been taught." Not 'seen,' not 'witnessed,' taught. What have they been taught? The spiritual stuff. It's also the thing they've been enjoined to pass on.
The authors were not Buddhists and they were clear enough about wanting to provide "the certainty of the things you have been taught." (cf. Luke 1:4)
And Buddhism also is convinced of "the certainty of the things [they] have been taught" as well. The parallel is perfect.
Quote:lol:
Scholars disagree with you here.
Yes, I'm sure your cherry-picked authors agree with you, 100%. Yessir.
<split for length>
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:34 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:34 PM
<continued>
Again, the figures of Jesus and the Christ may have been in the Christian mythos for longer than any book of the bible, as empty shells to be filled in later by the gospels.
And what we have above is a perfect example of why I don't consider the criterion of embarrassment to be be even a weak argument: people say stupid shit all the time. They don't think what they're saying is stupid shit, but it's still stupid shit. This is stupid shit.
Your above question is loaded. It assumes dogmatically that the gospels were written at about the same time. There is nothing that shows this to be true, and textual criticism shows the opposite. Mark was clearly written first, and the two Matthew and James borrowed heavily from Mark, as well as including a new source (Q) and their own material. There is no collusion necessary, but they are also not multiple attestations. They are not independent accounts.
This is also why your analysis of textual changes are bogus (as featured elsewhere on this forum), because it assumes that your pattern of descent is a tree â€"that authors draw from only a single, previous source and no otherâ€" when any schoolchild knows that you can use multiple sources for your work.
This is another problem you have. Why do you assume that the Lukian passages in our modern manuscripts of Paul's epistles were part of his original? If the majority dating of the bible and Paul himself is to be believed, then the inclusion of Luke's passages in Paul is certainly a redaction, because Paul would have died (AD 67) before the first gospel (Mark) was even written (AD 70).
Do you see the problem you have here?
The Jews either discounted the possibility entirely (hell, I would), and your point is simply irrelevant, or the resurrection was a fabrication. Or Jesus wasn't the big enemy to the Jews you thought he was. Pick your poison.
Is it really that difficult to believe that the bible isn't the book of historical truth you think it is, rather than believe that a single body defied all natural law and precident and rose from the dead?
Of course, being a founder of a new religion, there may be a little of column A going on as well.
And of course, this is assuming that these people even existed in the first place. You don't need to plant false memories or beliefs into a fictional person; they believe and know whatever you say they believe or know.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 04:24:25 PMYou mean the account of Josephus that doesn't match the biblical Jesus? Or Tacitus who does not mention Jesus at all, except by reference to his title?
Oh? When did Josephus write? Or Tacitus?
Again, the figures of Jesus and the Christ may have been in the Christian mythos for longer than any book of the bible, as empty shells to be filled in later by the gospels.
QuoteExcept that they place Nazareth in a time and place that it couldn't possibly exist if the accounts originated when you say they originated. Oops.
Thank you. This places the authors in a position to know these things accurately and not much later.
Quote"Speculation" based on the fact that no empire or kingdom in the history of the world has ever carried out a census in the way described in the bible. It's far more likely a complete fabrication by whoever wove that tale, in an attempt to get Jesus born into the right house and right place. Sure, the census itself might have happened, but there is no way in hell it happened that way. Why would the Roman Empire break standard operating procedure for a census and impose this ridiculous requirement? Why would Judea break standard operating procedure for a census to impose this ridiculous requirement? There's no reason. Any kingdom or empire that tried would fuck itself over as commerce, farming and other vital activities are disrupted while the head-counters worked. It would be completely unique, and would take a big-M miracle to keep Judea from going casters-up in the duration. No. It never happened.
Speculation on your part.
And what we have above is a perfect example of why I don't consider the criterion of embarrassment to be be even a weak argument: people say stupid shit all the time. They don't think what they're saying is stupid shit, but it's still stupid shit. This is stupid shit.
QuoteThey're both stupid. Your turn.
Fair enough. Study the Iliad and determine whether its spiritual claims seem reasonable to you. Do the same for the NT.
QuoteHave you ever heard of the Q source hypothesis? It describes how Matthew and Luke may have drawn from not only Mark for Jesus's sayings, but also from a hypothetical source, Q, in addition to adding their own material.
So, the authors colluded? Or are you admitting that there is multiple attestation of the resurrection narrative?
Your above question is loaded. It assumes dogmatically that the gospels were written at about the same time. There is nothing that shows this to be true, and textual criticism shows the opposite. Mark was clearly written first, and the two Matthew and James borrowed heavily from Mark, as well as including a new source (Q) and their own material. There is no collusion necessary, but they are also not multiple attestations. They are not independent accounts.
This is also why your analysis of textual changes are bogus (as featured elsewhere on this forum), because it assumes that your pattern of descent is a tree â€"that authors draw from only a single, previous source and no otherâ€" when any schoolchild knows that you can use multiple sources for your work.
Quote:lol: Cute. You try to bludgeon a complex and nuanced situation into this black-and-white, either/or situation. These kinds of arguments only work when the two choices are genuinely exclusive and exhaustive. In this case, they are not. It is both the case that it is just one story told multiple times, and those retellings are different in ways that cannot possibly all be true if they depicted a real event or scenario (the contradictions). That story retold multiple times is just that: A STORY. It doesn't refer to a real event at all.
And here we see the other claim made by atheists: it was really one story repeated four times. Normally, skeptics argue against the gospels because of the differences (mistakenly termed "contradictions"), but you appear to be arguing that it was really just one story retold multiple times.
Well, atheists, which is it?
QuoteI don't, but can you really dismiss the possiblity? Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination from... you know... a single person being in two places at the same time? From that same person rising from the fucking dead?
Great. Do you have manuscripts containing the earlier errors intact?
QuoteNonsense. I've already explained why your temple dating doesn't hold water. Even if I were to believe the majority opinion of biblical schollars, they put the writing of Mark (the earliest) at AD 70. Not "prior to" AD 70 â€" AT AD 70. That would put the most recent events of the gospels 40 years before that or more. That gives you a big problem for your eyewitness claim â€" it would make Mark a really old fucker by any definition at the time, writing about events at least 40 years in his past... assuming he wrote them at all.
I have shown that the gospels had to have been written prior to AD 70.
QuoteJohn could have been written as late as 110 AD. Also, isn't AD 95 getting a little late to be eyewitness testimony? That's about sixty years after the fact when the life expectancy of your average person was less than fifty. Add to that that John would need to be of age and pretty well established himself (~20 yo), it would put him well into his eighties. We also know the flakiness of episodic memory.
And, btw, almost everyone agrees that John was written by the apostle ca. AD 95.
QuoteWe don't really know when Paul was alive, let alone when he wrote any of his epistles, or indeed if any of his epistles are unadulterated by later redactors.
Second, Paul invites his readers to consult with eyewitnesses who were still alive in his epistles...epistles in which he quotes passages from Luke's gospel. So, Luke's gospel must have existed during the living memory of the people Paul was referring to.
This is another problem you have. Why do you assume that the Lukian passages in our modern manuscripts of Paul's epistles were part of his original? If the majority dating of the bible and Paul himself is to be believed, then the inclusion of Luke's passages in Paul is certainly a redaction, because Paul would have died (AD 67) before the first gospel (Mark) was even written (AD 70).
Do you see the problem you have here?
QuoteReading, I see that it never even occured to the Jews to look after these reports, on the remote possiblity that maybe the women who originally reported this missing body were (forgive me) hysterical. Would it not occur to them that the women simply gotten the wrong tomb, or they were frightened away by something and made something up? Wouldn't this be worth a look to confirm that the tomb was really empty? No, the only people to claim to have seen this empty tomb were Jesus's diciples.
That's enemy attestation that the tomb was empty. Which eliminates a couple of key arguments against the resurrection: The Swoon Theory and the Shallow Grave Theory.
The Jews could have produced a body and killed Christianity in its infancy. Except that the couldn't because there was no body in the tomb to produce.
The Jews either discounted the possibility entirely (hell, I would), and your point is simply irrelevant, or the resurrection was a fabrication. Or Jesus wasn't the big enemy to the Jews you thought he was. Pick your poison.
Is it really that difficult to believe that the bible isn't the book of historical truth you think it is, rather than believe that a single body defied all natural law and precident and rose from the dead?
QuoteThere you go again, reducing a complex scenario into a simple black-and-white cardboard cutout. For instance, you do realize that the Pharisees were the Romans' catspaws, right? It was the Pharisees who petitioned Pompey to restore the old priesthood (read, them) and abolishing the Hasmonean royalty in exchange for helping them conquer Jerusalem â€" they betrayed Jerusalem, the holy city, to the Romans. That could easily made Paul salty towards the Pharisees no matter how much they favored him.
As a police detective what the list of motives for any crime. You'll get the three I gave. But your addition fails to explain the conversion of Paul, because he was already the golden boy of the Pharisees, the group in power in Jerusalem. Why give up his position only to join the hated band of believers and become persecuted himself?
Of course, being a founder of a new religion, there may be a little of column A going on as well.
QuoteAgain, you are assuming that any of the above were actual accounts, rather than repetitions of received stories. Nobody saw Jesus eat a fish or even claim to. They simply heard from a friend of a friend that Paul, or Luke, or Mark saw such an event. Even Paul may come to genuinely believe the event himself after constant repetition by fellow believers (but not witnesses) as a false memory even though it didn't happen to him. Such things occur in our world, even in a civilization that can read and write and launch space shuttles and go to the moon; is it really a stretch that the same may happen in a more primitive culture?
Yes, you can be sincere and wrong. But answer this for me: the disciples were transformed by what they believed to be physical appearances of Jesus. They touched his wounds. They saw him eat a piece of fish. He cooked breakfast for them. How do they get it wrong that badly if those things never happened?
QuoteCorrection. They thought they knew. Even if it never happened to them, they can still come to believe the event as if it actually happened to them through the wonder of false memories. I have an aunt that for many years seriously believed that my grandparents were regularly giving birth to and ritually sacrificing their own babies, and asserted the same with the same fervor as the diciples proclaimed their convictions. She has since only recently come out of it, a period lasting many decades. This alone cuts your argument off at the knees.
People willingly die for their beliefs; no one dies for a fraternity prank gotten out of hand. The disciples KNEW
And of course, this is assuming that these people even existed in the first place. You don't need to plant false memories or beliefs into a fictional person; they believe and know whatever you say they believe or know.
QuoteYou mean the same Josephus I already thoroughly reamed above.
Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus, so that's one strike against you.
QuoteThat doesn't make him any more our kind of "skeptic".
Second, Saul was not merely an indifferent skeptic. He was zealously persecuting the church, arresting believers, etc.
QuoteThey were a bunch of near ignorant goat-hearders who didn't even have the good sense to move out of the desert. How could they not be fools?
But I see, you modern-day skeptics are so much superior to skeptics in the past because science. Heh...yeah, those clods had no idea that people who died on a cross couldn't rise from the dead. Fools.
QuoteIt doesn't take the gospels to end temple practices when the temple has been destroyed.
Temple sacrifices ended in AD 70, for one.
QuoteOh, I thought you would say something interesting. That happens in any religious schism.
Families were divided between believers and non-believers. Neighborhoods and villages were divided.
QuoteThey were only 'heresies' to one of the sects â€" the one that survived. And 'centered on Jesus' doesn't mean that Jesus founded any one of them. Confusionism was founded by Confusious, but it certainly wasn't centered on him. Taoism was founded by Laozi, but Laozi certainly isn't the center of Taoism. None of the Christianities were founded by Christ himself. Ultimately, the heavy grunt of establishing those churches were done by other hands.
Those are heresies and even they were centered on Jesus.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 10:25:30 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 10:25:30 PM
Q is clearly the same as Thomas (Gospel of). Historical Jesus scholars refuse to conclude this, because even for them, the jig would be up even for them. The Q ordering is different, but then it would be ... the notion of Q ordering comes from Luke, which is the last of the Synoptics ... they had more time to organize. Thomas is disorganized, hence older than Luke.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 10, 2016, 10:56:09 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 10, 2016, 10:56:09 PM
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1458914422-20160324.png)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 09:27:09 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 09:27:09 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
You don't even have to produce G-d or Jesus ... just produce Paul in the flesh ... for cross-examination by a psychiatrist. Then I will believe you.
I can go one better. See, if I produced Paul in the flesh, he could intentionally lie to you. He could perjure himself. You could not trust him.
But if I have Paul's written testimony, we know that has not and cannot change. This is why the police ask a suspect to write out their confessions by hand. Later oral testimony can be compared with this written record to see if the details have been changed.
You can examine what Paul wrote in the middle of the first century, and what every single Early Church Father said about or quoted from Paul the next 700 years, to determine whether the gospel story has changed. This testimony is sure because it cannot be altered.
1 Corinthians 15:1-8 shows what Paul learned from the apostles in Jerusalem and passed on to the believers in Corinth in the middle of the first century:
QuoteNow, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 09:35:27 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 09:35:27 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 09:27:09 AMInteresting in that Paul wrote that prior to the rest of the NY authors (whoever they were) and so his 'scripture' was the Septuagint. We know this because when he quotes his scripture he repeats the errors that are inherent to that work. This is why Paul's works are placed after the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That way, the reader is led to think Paul was referring to the NT and not the OT.
I can go one better. See, if I produced Paul in the flesh, he could intentionally lie to you. He could perjure himself. You could not trust him.
But if I have Paul's written testimony, we know that has not and cannot change. This is why the police ask a suspect to write out their confessions by hand. Later oral testimony can be compared with this written record to see if the details have been changed.
You can examine what Paul wrote in the middle of the first century, and what every single Early Church Father said about or quoted from Paul the next 700 years, to determine whether the gospel story has changed. This testimony is sure because it cannot be altered.
1 Corinthians 15:1-8 shows what Paul learned from the apostles in Jerusalem and passed on to the believers in Corinth in the middle of the first century:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:12:42 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 07:39:19 PM
Pardon me if this has been covered, but can you even tell us who were the authors of the books of the NT?
Check out the thread I started yesterday on this. Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:15:20 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:15:20 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 10, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
The NT writers (whomever they may have been) made a lot of errors, of a vriety of types:
Historical Errors in the Gospels (http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm)
Thanks for the link.
An atheist quoting an Muslim...strange bedfellows, indeed.
I will be happy to address YOUR posts and queries about alleged contradictions if you raise them one at a time.
Otherwise, I could simply link you to a website refuting these allegations...but that's not what a discussion forum is for, is it?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:21:47 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:21:47 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 10, 2016, 07:29:10 PM
The name "The Ten Commandments" is only used once in the Bible and it is used for the covenant listed in Exodus 34:10-2 and according to Exodus it is this set of commandments which are on the stone tablets within the Arc of the Covenant. However, the book of Deuteronomy which was written after the book of Exodus tells us that a different list of commandments are written on the stone tablets. Deuteronomy 5:6-21 lists the more commonly known commandments as being written on the stone tablets despite what Exodus clearly tells us.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Why would anyone take you seriously after you post that?
Here is Deut. 5:5-22, and note the passages in red.
Quote5 (At that time I stood between the Lord and you to declare to you the word of the Lord, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:
6 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
7 “You shall have no other gods before me.
8 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
11 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
16 “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
17 “You shall not murder.
18 “You shall not commit adultery.
19 “You shall not steal.
20 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
21 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.â€
22 These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.
So, I have two passages of scripture which prove that "Honor your father and mother" are part of the Ten Commandments.
You have error and ignorance.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 10, 2016, 07:37:42 PM
There are 613 commandments, as any educated Jew can tell you. And Catholics violate most of them.
Because we are not Jews, and the New Covenant abrogated the old.
Which at least one uneducated Jew does not understand, apparently.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Blackleaf on May 11, 2016, 10:34:09 AM
Post by: Blackleaf on May 11, 2016, 10:34:09 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:21:47 AM
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Why would anyone take you seriously after you post that?
Here is Deut. 5:5-22, and note the passages in red.
Because everyone but you can see that he made a really good point, and you're just unwilling to admit it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:39:47 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:39:47 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
How? What is the credible means of dating 1 Cor 15:1-8, and the credible means of dating the resurrection to that 3-5 years before that?
1 Corinthians is dated around AD 50-55. Since Jesus was crucified in AD 30, the letter was written 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. Even critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin. Even the co-founder Jesus Seminar member John Dominic Crossan, writes:
QuotePaul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. But he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “I handed on to you as of first importance which I in turn received.†The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he “went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days†(3. Crossan, J.D. & Jonathan L. Reed. Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 2001, 254.)
As shown in detail in the relevant thread I started:
In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul reported that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem briefly and then went to Arabia for three years. Upon his return, he went to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles on two occasions: the first trip occurred within three years of his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second trip was made 14 years later (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1).
Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains what many scholars believe to be an early creed of the Church based in part upon the apparent stylistic differences between this passage and other writings of Paul. These differences suggest that the passage contains a core statement of belief of the early Church which Paul â€" following standard Jewish rabbinic teaching tradition â€" had memorized and passed along verbatim:
Quote1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he explicitly stated that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem). This suggests that the account of the resurrection of Jesus was based upon eyewitness testimony of the apostles that can be dated possibly to within five years of the event itself and certainly no later than 23 years after the event!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:16:29 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
Unless the book were New York: A History 1900-2000. Even if it were written in 2016, it's not going to have an account of the 2001 attacks on the WTC, because that's beyond the scope of the book. Similarly, the gospels come to a natural end shortly after the resurrection (if it gets that far), so why should the destruction of the temple be of any consequence to the narrative of Jesus?
1. I can't believe you wasted your time typing that out.
2. We're not talking about the gospels, we're talking about the Book of Acts. Acts ends suddenly without recording the destruction of the Temple.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:17:58 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:17:58 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
Furthermore, your dating assumes that the NT is meant to be a comprehensive history of the region. Nothing in the NT indicates that it is such, rather than being a book of spiritual matters. The date of Jesus's birth is never recorded, even though there are plenty of calenders to choose from that might give you some idea when it happened. Similarly for other important events in Jesus's life. In short, it's not even a comprehensive history of Jesus's life, let alone Nazareth and Jerusalem.
A comprehenivie history of the region. The NT is nothing of the sort. See Josephus for that.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 11:18:50 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 11:18:50 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:16:29 AMThat's what I say about everything you have posted here.
1. I can't believe you wasted your time typing that out.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:20:47 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:20:47 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
If the bible mentioned the temple destruction, then it may be evidence that that part of the bible was written after 70 AD. But not mentioning it, nah. That doesn't show much of anything.
Acts mentions the deaths of Stephen and James. Stephen would be unknown if not for this account. So, why did Luke record these two deaths, but not the deaths of the two most important figures in the early church?
Because they hadn't happened at the time the book was completed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:24:55 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:24:55 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 11:18:50 AM
That's what I say about everything you have posted here.
Overwhelmed by the evidence as well as the quotations from credentialed scholars I have presented and with nothing more to offer in rebuttal, this is your reply.
I'm underwhelmed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:32:43 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:32:43 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
Josephus mentiones a pair of figures referred to as Jesus and his brother, James. The text is as follows:QuoteAnd now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Huh. That doesn't sound like the bible story. Where did these political maneuverings come from? When did Jesus ever get promoted to high priest? When had his brother James ever been in the running for that job? And furthermore, why is it Jesus, son of Damneus?
Yeah, Josephus is talking about the same Jesus. Not.
Do some homework. You are ignorant.
QuoteEven more telling is the much noted fact that Paul claims that he met with, and therefore personally knew, Jesus’ own brother James. It is true that Paul calls him the “brother of the Lord,†not “the brother of Jesus.†But that means very little, since Paul typically calls Jesus the Lord and rarely uses the name Jesus (without adding “Christ,†or other titles). And so, In the letter to the Galatians Paul states as clearly as possible that he knew Jesus’ brother. Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this? The fact that Paul knew Jesus’ closest disciple and his own brother throws a real monkey wrench into the mythicist view that Jesus never lived. (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:37:51 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:07 PM
The other thing that I don't really find convincing about this passage: Who are these Aristarchus and Demas fellows? They are mentioned in the same breath as Mark and Luke. Are they also apostles? If so, what happened to them and why aren't they listed in the usual twelve? If not, why are they being put on the same level as Mark and Luke? Are these even the same Mark and Luke you're thinking of, and how are you so sure of that? And how are you sure that's not a later redaction?
Aristarchus and Demas were students of Paul. You know, like Timothy, Titus and Jude? Like Clement, Linus and Ignatius? And Papias and Polycarp?
They weren't Jesus' disciples and not part of the Twelve Apostles.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:39:45 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:39:45 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:34 PM
<continued>
You mean the account of Josephus that doesn't match the biblical Jesus? Or Tacitus who does not mention Jesus at all, except by reference to his title?
Again, the figures of Jesus and the Christ may have been in the Christian mythos for longer than any book of the bible, as empty shells to be filled in later by the gospels.
What do atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan say about the historical value of Josephus and Tacitus?
Here's Crossan:
"Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.†(John Dominic Crossan, Co-founder of The Jesus Seminar, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography,145.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 11:39:52 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:24:55 AMI don't care how much you are whelmed. You are still a prevaricator of half truths, willful ignorance, cherry picking, bullying and blindness. Your 'research' comes to naught when you research only one side of a question or issue.
I'm underwhelmed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:34 PM
And what we have above is a perfect example of why I don't consider the criterion of embarrassment to be be even a weak argument: people say stupid shit all the time. They don't think what they're saying is stupid shit, but it's still stupid shit. This is stupid shit.
I have noticed this to be especially true in this forum. Kinda disappointing as I had hoped to see better responses from the long-time members.
QuoteHave you ever heard of the Q source hypothesis? It describes how Matthew and Luke may have drawn from not only Mark for Jesus's sayings, but also from a hypothetical source, Q, in addition to adding their own material.
I've been doing apologetics for a long time. Yes, I have heard of Q. And M and L. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
However, as you must know since you are familiar with these things, Luke quotes nearly 250 passages verbatim from Mark. So, Mark had to have been written before gLuke and gLuke had to have been written before Acts and Acts had to have been written before the deaths of Peter and Paul in AD 64-65.
QuoteYour above question is loaded. It assumes dogmatically that the gospels were written at about the same time. There is nothing that shows this to be true, and textual criticism shows the opposite. Mark was clearly written first, and the two Matthew and James borrowed heavily from Mark, as well as including a new source (Q) and their own material. There is no collusion necessary, but they are also not multiple attestations. They are not independent accounts.
Of course they are. Four men working indenpendently wrote accounts that met the needs of the audiences to who their works were addressed. Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark and (possibly) Q, but so what? They still had to decide what they would and would not include in their accounts. They weren't all sitting in the same classroom copying off one another's test papers.
QuoteThis is also why your analysis of textual changes are bogus (as featured elsewhere on this forum), because it assumes that your pattern of descent is a tree â€"that authors draw from only a single, previous source and no otherâ€" when any schoolchild knows that you can use multiple sources for your work.
And it is stupid for you to assume that this is my position since I have repeatedly quoted Luke who is very clear in his prologue that "MANY" had written accounts prior to his efforts. Sheesh.
QuoteCute. You try to bludgeon a complex and nuanced situation into this black-and-white, either/or situation. These kinds of arguments only work when the two choices are genuinely exclusive and exhaustive. In this case, they are not. It is both the case that it is just one story told multiple times, and those retellings are different in ways that cannot possibly all be true if they depicted a real event or scenario (the contradictions). That story retold multiple times is just that: A STORY. It doesn't refer to a real event at all.
What evidence can you present to prove your positive statement that the gospels do not refer to a real event at all?
QuoteNonsense. I've already explained why your temple dating doesn't hold water. Even if I were to believe the majority opinion of biblical schollars, they put the writing of Mark (the earliest) at AD 70. Not "prior to" AD 70 â€" AT AD 70. That would put the most recent events of the gospels 40 years before that or more. That gives you a big problem for your eyewitness claim â€" it would make Mark a really old fucker by any definition at the time, writing about events at least 40 years in his past... assuming he wrote them at all.
Mark was the "hearer" of Peter. He recorded Peter's eyewitness account. See Papias for details.
And you know, I DID cover all this in another thread.
QuoteJohn could have been written as late as 110 AD. Also, isn't AD 95 getting a little late to be eyewitness testimony? That's about sixty years after the fact when the life expectancy of your average person was less than fifty. Add to that that John would need to be of age and pretty well established himself (~20 yo), it would put him well into his eighties. We also know the flakiness of episodic memory.
Apart from the fact that this was an account that John would have told repeatedly during the course of his lifetime (thereby reinforcing his memory), it is also true that John is VERY different from the others gospels. He was familiar with them, and so, he stressed some different things that resulted from his long years of reflection.
QuoteWe don't really know when Paul was alive, let alone when he wrote any of his epistles, or indeed if any of his epistles are unadulterated by later redactors.
Have you ever read a book on this? How many Pauline epistles are UNCONTESTED by modern scholars?
QuoteThis is another problem you have. Why do you assume that the Lukian passages in our modern manuscripts of Paul's epistles were part of his original? If the majority dating of the bible and Paul himself is to be believed, then the inclusion of Luke's passages in Paul is certainly a redaction, because Paul would have died (AD 67) before the first gospel (Mark) was even written (AD 70).
Um...that's kinda the point, isn't it? Scholars have dated Paul's letters based upon the dates of his missionary journeys. Consequently, if Paul is quoting gLuke in a letter that is definitively dated, then we can date gLuke, also.
And I have shown elsewhere why Mark was written prior to AD 70.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:59:47 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:59:47 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 11:39:52 AM
I don't care how much you are whelmed. You are still a prevaricator of half truths, willful ignorance, cherry picking, bullying and blindness. Your 'research' comes to naught when you research only one side of a question or issue.
And I keep burying you with quotes BY the "other side" (ie, atheists) who have the stones to concede what any fool ought to know.
Except in Internet forums, apparently.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:04:58 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:04:58 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:34 PM
Reading, I see that it never even occured to the Jews to look after these reports, on the remote possiblity that maybe the women who originally reported this missing body were (forgive me) hysterical. Would it not occur to them that the women simply gotten the wrong tomb, or they were frightened away by something and made something up? Wouldn't this be worth a look to confirm that the tomb was really empty? No, the only people to claim to have seen this empty tomb were Jesus's diciples.
If you ever bother to read the Book of Acts (and I doubt you have thus far), you would know that the Jews were actively trying to crush the Early Church. Peter, James and John were arrested, beaten, etc. James was eventually martyred. Stephen was stoned to death. A great persecution broke out against the early believers.
Now, if the Jews were eager to snuff out Christianity, all they had to do was to open the tomb and parade Jesus' body through the streets. But they didn't because they couldn't.
Consequently, they claimed that the disciples had stolen the body inadvertently giving enemy attestation to the fact that the tomb was empty.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:16:27 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:16:27 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:19:34 PM
Again, you are assuming that any of the above were actual accounts, rather than repetitions of received stories. Nobody saw Jesus eat a fish or even claim to. They simply heard from a friend of a friend that Paul, or Luke, or Mark saw such an event. Even Paul may come to genuinely believe the event himself after constant repetition by fellow believers (but not witnesses) as a false memory even though it didn't happen to him. Such things occur in our world, even in a civilization that can read and write and launch space shuttles and go to the moon; is it really a stretch that the same may happen in a more primitive culture?
Luke recorded it after interviewing the eyewitnesses:
Quote40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?†42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
Are you not familiar with what the scriptures actually say in this matter? Here is a brief passage from gJohn in which the author reveals his identity:
QuoteJohn 21:20-24
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?â€) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?â€
22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.†23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?â€
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
So, John the apostle, an eyewitness, says that he is the author of the gospel bearing his name. He also recorded that Jesus cooked breakfast for the apostles on the shore of the lake. He also recorded:
Quote26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!†27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.â€
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!â€
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.â€
Jesus rose from the dead physically.
QuoteCorrection. They thought they knew. Even if it never happened to them, they can still come to believe the event as if it actually happened to them through the wonder of false memories. I have an aunt that for many years seriously believed that my grandparents were regularly giving birth to and ritually sacrificing their own babies, and asserted the same with the same fervor as the diciples proclaimed their convictions. She has since only recently come out of it, a period lasting many decades. This alone cuts your argument off at the knees.
Did any other family members believe those things? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/no.gif)
Your aunt suffered, but she did so alone. The apostles did not share a hallucination or a delusion because the tricks of the mind do not affect others around us.
And thus, YOUR silly argument is dismissed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 12:34:03 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 12:34:03 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 01, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Yes and no.
First, there is every reason to consider the possibility that Jesus chose Matthew precisely because of his ability to read and write. It was not uncommon for teachers of antiquity to have disciples who recorded their teachings. The Q document, which contained sayings of Jesus, predated the gospels and was obviously compiled by someone.
Second, Jesus' teachings and sermons appear to be formed in the short, parable style that was commonly used by orators of antiquity because it facilitated recall.
Third, the disciples followed Jesus around for three years, so it's reasonable to think that they might have heard him preach the same message more than once in different towns and villages. Repetition is good for memorization. Repetition is good for memorization. Say it with me: Repetition is good for memorization.
Fourth, Jesus sent out the disciples on their own to preach in the towns around Galilee. So...what did they preach if not the same things that they had heard Jesus say? Did they do this entirely from memory? Or did they have a few outlines or notes from sermons they had heard him preach first?
Fifth, the era in question was an oral culture meaning that their memories were MUCH better than ours because they had to be. I barely know the phone numbers and a few birthdays of my family members because I don't have to store that with precise retrieval in my brain. I have an iPhone. In those days, people listened and remembered because they had to. There were no record, re-wind or pause buttons in their world.
FWIW, even today, people who practice can memorize the entire Qu'ran or massive portions of the OT. It's just not a skill that many of us have reason to develop.
Jesus and the writer of Matthew never met. Matthew would have said so if they did.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: LostLocke on May 11, 2016, 12:43:03 PM
Post by: LostLocke on May 11, 2016, 12:43:03 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:24:36 AMWhy, when I was Catholic, were the Ten Commandments hammered into us then? If we're not under the commandments, we're not under them.
Because we are not Jews, and the New Covenant abrogated the old.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 11, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 11, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:08:11 PMAs I keep telling you, history is not a court. They don't follow the same rules.
This is my first thread covering WHO wrote the gospels, and I have presented more information on this topic here than I have posted elsewhere.
Enjoy!
And the term "eyewitness account" applies ONLY to an event which "happened". You can have an eyewitness account of an accident, for instance, but without the account you STILL KNOW than an accident happened. What you are doing here is asserting that the incidents happened, now we must determine whether the people writing about it personally witnessed it. We dispute that the incident ever happened. You are starting this argument with the premise that the events in the Bible CANNOT BE pure fiction. You have to back up a step. FIRST you have to establish that an event ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Only THEN can you move on to "Was the account of what happened the whole truth? Are these eyewitnesses to these events?"
Essentially the argument you are making is like me asking if J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books were "eyewitness accounts" of the things that happened at Hogwarts. The term "eyewitness account" does not apply to fiction, so you must FIRST lay out your argument that the events are not purely, 100% fiction; that there may be at least some truth to the stories. It is only AFTER we have determined that "something" actually happened which inspired these stories that we can move on to determining whether or not the accounts are "accurate". Are J.K. Rowling's accounts of Hogwarts "accurate" accounts of what happened? Was she, herself an eyewitness or did she at least have access to eyewitnesses? How the hell do you answer that?
You are a bit like an impetuous child. You have all the patience in the world to stay here week after week and argue your case, but when it comes to giving an argument you have no patience at all. You want to skip right to the end without doing any groundwork to actually build an argument. Your every argument starts in the middle, at best. Some of them start at the end. I have yet to see you give a SINGLE argument which starts anywhere near the beginning.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Because we are not Jews, and the New Covenant abrogated the old.
Which at least one uneducated Jew does not understand, apparently.
Tsss..... Randy, pleas don't go about calling people that....
Your point however is right.....
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:04:50 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:04:50 PM
Quote from: LostLocke on May 11, 2016, 12:43:03 PM
Why, when I was Catholic, were the Ten Commandments hammered into us then? If we're not under the commandments, we're not under them.
I think that this is about the Jewish Law (dietary and otherwise) that Paul told Christians not to bother with. Not so much about the 10 C's.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 01:11:15 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 01:11:15 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:04:50 PMAnd don't you find that odd? Here I was under the impression Paul was the follower of Jesus, not the other way around. Jesus did not say the OT was null and void.
I think that this is about the Jewish Law (dietary and otherwise) that Paul told Christians not to bother with. Not so much about the 10 C's.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:39:47 AMWait, what? First you said 1 Cor was dated 3-5 years after the crucifixion/resurrection, now it's 20-25 years? So you have no proof that 1 Cor was actually written 3-5 years after the resurrection.
1 Corinthians is dated around AD 50-55. Since Jesus was crucified in AD 30, the letter was written 20-25 years after the death of Jesus.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:39:47 AMSo he's been repeating this same story for years, huh? Interesting, because that's one of the conditions it takes for a story to change drastically through embellishments, according to the latest in psychology. For all we know, Paul's "eyewitness testimony" started out as secondhand accounts that grew more intimate in the retellings until it became his own eyewitness testimony.
Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he explicitly stated that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem).
And before you say, "This can't happen," we've seen this happen. Ancient peoples were as prone to this phenomenon as modern ones.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:16:29 AMThere's no reason to believe that the books of the bible were written in the order they appear in. Furthermore, since the book of acts is just that, a book of acts, it could be seen at the initial fleshings out of the Jesus myth.
1. I can't believe you wasted your time typing that out.
2. We're not talking about the gospels, we're talking about the Book of Acts. Acts ends suddenly without recording the destruction of the Temple.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:17:58 AMSo you admit you can't use the lack of mention for the destruction of the temple as a way to date the gospels. Concession accepted.
A comprehenivie history of the region. The NT is nothing of the sort. See Josephus for that.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:20:47 AMNot mentioning an event does not prove that the event did not happen at the time of the writing of a manuscript. Drop this line of argument. It will you avail you nothing.
Acts mentions the deaths of Stephen and James. Stephen would be unknown if not for this account. So, why did Luke record these two deaths, but not the deaths of the two most important figures in the early church?
Because they hadn't happened at the time the book was completed.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:32:43 AMI read the part you bolded. It does show something that looks like part of the traditional bible story, but in the bible, that same judgement ended up in Jesus getting nailed to the cross. Jesephus's account ends up with Jesus being made high priest. So either Josephus is not the credible source he claims to be, or the tale of Jesus has undergone some evolution (or even had multiple, divergent versions) since Josephus' time before it ended up where it is now. Choose your poison.
Do some homework. You are ignorant.
Oh, and Bart Ehrman, while he makes some interesting obersvations, consistently fails to weigh them against the fact that all of the bible manuscripts have been copied through the ages, where any two-bit monk with a holy agenda can do some creative correction.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:37:51 AMI know that, you ninny. I was wondering why they were being mentioned in the same breath as Luke and Mark, as if they were of the same station as Luke and Mark. That is, as if they were Jesus's diciples.
Aristarchus and Demas were students of Paul. You know, like Timothy, Titus and Jude? Like Clement, Linus and Ignatius? And Papias and Polycarp?
They weren't Jesus' disciples and not part of the Twelve Apostles.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:39:45 AMWould we really? Even in the best of times, alternate history is more like alchemy than actual scholarship, and that's when we have plenty of documentation on the state of affairs at the time. In the distant past, where documentation is harder to come by, it's even more dubious. The above is speculation at best, and not very convincing speculation.
What do atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan say about the historical value of Josephus and Tacitus?
Here's Crossan:
"Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.†(John Dominic Crossan, Co-founder of The Jesus Seminar, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography,145.)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMDo you admit then that the afforementioned census would not and could never be conducted as described, and as such any such account must be a fabrication by someone who is ignorant of the logistics of running a kingdom or empire, or what the purpose of a census is?
I have noticed this to be especially true in this forum. Kinda disappointing as I had hoped to see better responses from the long-time members.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMYou had me right up until "gLuke had to have been written before Acts." No. You don't know that. You don't know what order these books were written in. That's what fucks up your timeline. Because right now you are at odds with the consensus of biblical schollars who date Mark no earlier than 70 AD. If Acts was written after Luke which was written after Mark which was written no earlier than 70 AD, then that places Acts well after the deaths of Peter and Paul in AD 64-65. It also demonstrates that your dating is bogus, which is what I've been saying all along.
I've been doing apologetics for a long time. Yes, I have heard of Q. And M and L. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
However, as you must know since you are familiar with these things, Luke quotes nearly 250 passages verbatim from Mark. So, Mark had to have been written before gLuke and gLuke had to have been written before Acts and Acts had to have been written before the deaths of Peter and Paul in AD 64-65.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMIt means that Matthew and Luke had to have written their stuff after Mark had already scribed the words Matt and Luke lifted. Lifting passages verbatum is one of the prima facie evidence of plagerism. It means that Matt and Luke need not have had any independant experience of Jesus apart from Mark to write about Jesus. They can simply crib off of Mark and Q for much of it, and then add and change what they needed to.
Of course they are. Four men working indenpendently wrote accounts that met the needs of the audiences to who their works were addressed. Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark and (possibly) Q, but so what? They still had to decide what they would and would not include in their accounts. They weren't all sitting in the same classroom copying off one another's test papers.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMWhich basically destroys any claim of Luke's independence or proximity to the Jesus story. It also means that Luke's account is hearsay.
And it is stupid for you to assume that this is my position since I have repeatedly quoted Luke who is very clear in his prologue that "MANY" had written accounts prior to his efforts. Sheesh.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMJesus being of a town that did not exist in the first century, accounts of a census that could not possibly have happened in the way it was recounted, any miracle at all in the gospel, and... *ahem* ...Jesus rising from the dead!
What evidence can you present to prove your positive statement that the gospels do not refer to a real event at all?
If this were Pacos Bill and not Jesus, it would rightly be called a tall tale.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMSo Mark is relaying second-hand information. Hearsay. There's a reason why we don't allow hearsay in a court of law. At best, Mark and Luke and all the other accounts are second-hand. Even Josephus heard about Jesus and James second-hand. There are no primary accounts of this Jesus character. Nothing in his own hand. Nothing in the hand of the people to actually witness the events in question, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
Mark was the "hearer" of Peter. He recorded Peter's eyewitness account. See Papias for details.
In such environs, urban legends are born and grown.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMTough titty for you because I'm not reading your other threads.
And you know, I DID cover all this in another thread.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMModern psychology tells us that this "reinforcing of memory" does not work for episodic memories. Reinforcement only works as advertised when you have a reference to compare to, like a script in a play, or a textbook for a class.
Apart from the fact that this was an account that John would have told repeatedly during the course of his lifetime (thereby reinforcing his memory),
We have shown that recalling memory reconstructs it, (http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/02/reconstructing-the-past-how-recalling-memories-alters-them.php) and in that reconstruction, that memory is altered. We have tested this, and it is strange but true. That John had told his account repeatedly through the course of his life is no guarantee of accuracy. In fact, the more often it is recalled, the more likely it is to be adulterated. It may even come to the point through repeated recall where a false personal memory is indistinguishable from your own true memories, as in the case of Oliver Sacks's 'memory' of an up-close encounter with an incendiary bomb that never happened.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMIn short, John's account comes long after the fact, an account degraded through repetition, and after exposure to other works. And you laughably call it an "independent account?"
it is also true that John is VERY different from the others gospels. He was familiar with them, and so, he stressed some different things that resulted from his long years of reflection.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMAgain, if those same schollars are to be believed in their dating, then we know that some of the Pauline epistles are, in fact, redacted. The fact that some of Paul's works are "UNCONTESTED" does not mean that any particular work can be trusted to be unadulterated and entire.
Have you ever read a book on this? How many Pauline epistles are UNCONTESTED by modern scholars?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:57:26 AMThen, again, you are at odds with exactly the same modern schollars that have some Pauline epistles to be "UNCONTESTED!!!!11!!1" Why should I believe you over them?
Um...that's kinda the point, isn't it? Scholars have dated Paul's letters based upon the dates of his missionary journeys. Consequently, if Paul is quoting gLuke in a letter that is definitively dated, then we can date gLuke, also.
And I have shown elsewhere why Mark was written prior to AD 70.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 11, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 11, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 12:30:53 PMNo, it is not vital to me. Very little would change in my life if I realized today that God was real. The MAJOR change in my life would be a realization that I did not have to poof out of existence when I died. What the hell would make you think I would be desperate for that NOT to be true?
I know you want to believe that.
It's important for you to deny that Christians have evidence for the resurrection which is, in turn, evidence for the existence of God.
So, this is VITAL to you.
However, I have provided a significant amount of indirect evidence in the OP's of my posts, and you have impeached none of it.
Consequently, you have a certain amount of dissonance resulting from: 1) the gospels are historically reliable but 2) they claim that Jesus performed miracles.
How will you reconcile those two things?
You have a lot of misconceptions about atheists and how we think, a product of decades of misinformation from other people who know nothing about atheists and fear us because we challenge their beliefs, beliefs which are already fragile in a modern world which is quickly dismissing the idea of magic as a reality. The supernatural is dying, and that is very, very scary for someone who depends on a belief in it so fully.
If you had any "evidence" that your magical beliefs are based in reality then you wouldn't need faith. Faith wouldn't be this big virtue that you can't be saved without.
As for your "indirect evidence", I used to hang out on a lot of supernatural and UFO forums. I know the language. "Indirect evidence" is known by other names. Soft evidence is the big one which comes to mind. They are also big on "eyewitness accounts" AND the "court of law" analogy. Why? Because if you lower the standards it makes your argument better. You use THE EXACT SAME argument styles and concepts I have seen used to "prove" alien visitation, psychic powers, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and all sorts of other nuttery. You use the term "indirect evidence" because you don't have "evidence", but you really, REALLY want to use the word "evidence" in your arguments. You "think" that we have not been able to dismiss "any" of your "evidence", but that's just not true. We have shot down your every shady argument, and they ARE ALL shady. You have yet to deliver an actual honest argument where you haven't stacked the deck heavily in your favor to begin with. We aren't convinced by your "evidence", not because we're desperate for it to be wrong. I know you would REALLY like to believe that, but it's just not true. If I'm wrong, I most certainly want to know it. Do you REALLY think that I want to find out that I'm wrong on judgement day? Do you REALLY think that I am so fucking stupid that I would trade an eternity in paradise for a blip in history on Earth if I thought for ONE MOMENT that an eternity in paradise was a real thing? That seems to be what you believe and, frankly, that makes you a fucking MORON! Who the fuck would make that choice? Who the fuck would say, "Wow. There sure is a LOT of evidence that God is real, but I REALLY don't want to believe it, so I'm going to trade FUCKING ETERNITY in the life to come for 80 or so years here, EVEN THOUGH my life would not change IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY by accepting this obvious reality."? NOBODY would do that and you're FUCKING RETARDED if you think we would!
I don't dismiss your nonsense because I REALLY want to keep going every day from work to home to work to home to work to home instead of going from work to home to church to work to home. You simply refuse to see that the problem isn't that every atheist everywhere just doesn't WANT to believe, the problem is that your arguments are poorly formed, deceptive and, frankly, crap.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:18:32 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:18:32 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 01:11:15 PM
And don't you find that odd? Here I was under the impression Paul was the follower of Jesus, not the other way around. Jesus did not say the OT was null and void.
Well, remember that Paul probably never got around to reading the gospels as we know them now. And he never met Jesus, although he apparently did meet some of his followers at the time. Also Paul, who was a Jew, argued that laws that were particularly meant for the Jewish people didn't apply to Gentiles who became followers of Jesus and he got in somewhat of a fix about that with Peter and James. But his reading became the Christian orthodoxy.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 01:24:36 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 01:24:36 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:18:32 PMI do agree with you! But is that not odd in that Paul taught about Christ, but not what Christ taught???? And Jesus said that the OT was not changed--not one dot for the 'i' or cross for the 't'. You are right, the only scripture he knew was the Septuagint; he could not have read any of the NT, except that which he wrote.
Well, remember that Paul probably never got around to reading the gospels as we know them now. And he never met Jesus, although he apparently did meet some of his followers at the time. Also Paul, who was a Jew, argued that laws that were particularly meant for the Jewish people didn't apply to Gentiles who became followers of Jesus and he got in somewhat of a fix about that with Peter and James. But his reading became the Christian orthodoxy.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:28:45 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:28:45 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 09:35:27 AM
Interesting in that Paul wrote that prior to the rest of the NY authors (whoever they were) and so his 'scripture' was the Septuagint. We know this because when he quotes his scripture he repeats the errors that are inherent to that work. This is why Paul's works are placed after the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That way, the reader is led to think Paul was referring to the NT and not the OT.
Oh, so that's the reason the NT is ordered as it is? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Yet, take a look at what Peter wrote of Paul's letters:
Quote2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
IOW, Peter is speaking of Paul's letters and comparing them to the "other scriptures" thereby recognizing Pauline epistles as scripture.
And Paul quoted passages from Luke's gospel including the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. So, Luke had to have been written prior to 2 Corinthians, otherwise, Paul would not have been able to quote it verbatim.
Paul wrote:
Quote1 Corinthians 11:23-25
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.†25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.â€
Luke wrote:
QuoteLuke 22
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.†20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
Luke is the only gospel which contains the phrase, "do this in remembrance of me", and Paul quotes it verbatim. The other gospels do not contain this phrase.
How would that happen if Paul were not familiar with an already existing gospel when he wrote his letter around AD 53?
And notice, too, that Paul writes, "For what I received...". When did Paul receive this teaching about what happened at the Last Supper? How early did he pass it on in person previously? And who taught him these words?
Paul is recounting very old information that he got directly from the apostles in Jerusalem during one of his two visits there.
The gospels were written very, very early.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 11, 2016, 01:30:15 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 11, 2016, 01:30:15 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 11:24:55 AMPeople aren't overwhelmed by your "evidence". They are overwhelmed by your large number of massive posts stating the same things over and over, dismissing any argument against it and then pretending there were no arguments against it.
Overwhelmed by the evidence as well as the quotations from credentialed scholars I have presented and with nothing more to offer in rebuttal, this is your reply.
I'm underwhelmed.
You aren't here for us. You're here for you. You are here to argue and argue and argue and deny that anyone has ever made a single valid point until you get banned or people just stop responding to you so that you can declare victory. You are here because your beliefs are so fragile, you are so close to rejecting them that you must CONSTANTLY prove, not to others, but to yourself that you are right. You are here because you need someone to fight with; someone to, in your own mind, "beat" so that you can keep your waning grasp on your belief system. Because subconsciously you know that if left to your own devices, your own thoughts, you would lose your faith and that terrifies you. So you need to constantly confirm to yourself how right you are by "proving" how wrong anyone who disagrees with you is. And you've fooled yourself into believing that if you just post the same shit over and over and over and deny that anyone has refuted a single point you've made, they'll eventually give up and you have "won" the debate because there just isn't enough reason NOT to believe for ANYONE to EVER be able to argue against you.
You are not a stupid person, but you act like one. You MUST hold onto this faith AT ALL COST because the alternative is to lose paradise forever. The thing is, though, you never had paradise to begin with because it's simply not real.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 11, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
As I keep telling you, history is not a court. They don't follow the same rules.
And the term "eyewitness account" applies ONLY to an event which "happened". You can have an eyewitness account of an accident, for instance, but without the account you STILL KNOW than an accident happened. What you are doing here is asserting that the incidents happened, now we must determine whether the people writing about it personally witnessed it. We dispute that the incident ever happened. You are starting this argument with the premise that the events in the Bible CANNOT BE pure fiction. You have to back up a step. FIRST you have to establish that an event ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Only THEN can you move on to "Was the account of what happened the whole truth? Are these eyewitnesses to these events?"
Essentially the argument you are making is like me asking if J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books were "eyewitness accounts" of the things that happened at Hogwarts. The term "eyewitness account" does not apply to fiction, so you must FIRST lay out your argument that the events are not purely, 100% fiction; that there may be at least some truth to the stories. It is only AFTER we have determined that "something" actually happened which inspired these stories that we can move on to determining whether or not the accounts are "accurate". Are J.K. Rowling's accounts of Hogwarts "accurate" accounts of what happened? Was she, herself an eyewitness or did she at least have access to eyewitnesses? How the hell do you answer that?
You are a bit like an impetuous child. You have all the patience in the world to stay here week after week and argue your case, but when it comes to giving an argument you have no patience at all. You want to skip right to the end without doing any groundwork to actually build an argument. Your every argument starts in the middle, at best. Some of them start at the end. I have yet to see you give a SINGLE argument which starts anywhere near the beginning.
I have demonstrated the following sequence:
1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.
Now, you can choose to ignore this argument, prove it wrong or concede that I'm right thus far. That's up to you.
Still to come:
Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:45:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:45:28 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 11, 2016, 10:34:09 AM
Because everyone but you can see that he made a really good point, and you're just unwilling to admit it.
I quoted Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 5 which contain the two lists of the Ten Commandments.
"Honor thy father and mother" is in both lists.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:47:09 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 01:24:36 PM
I do agree with you! But is that not odd in that Paul taught about Christ, but not what Christ taught???? And Jesus said that the OT was not changed--not one dot for the 'i' or cross for the 't'. You are right, the only scripture he knew was the Septuagint; he could not have read any of the NT, except that which he wrote.
We don't know that all of the stuff in the Gospels is what Christ actually taught. Paul may or may not have known about the passage you're quoting above, but even if he did, he could very well have argued that, as these laws were only supposed to be for the Jewish people anyway and Jesus also knew that very well, his point was therefore valid when it came to gentile followers of Christ! All of that without actually contradicting his Master.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:48:17 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:48:17 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 12:34:03 PM
Jesus and the writer of Matthew never met. Matthew would have said so if they did.
Gerard
Who was the writer of Matthew? Do you have an authoritative source suggesting an alternative?
Papias wrote:
QuoteMatthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.
Papias was a student of the Apostle John. How much more authoritative does it get than that, Gerard?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:48:40 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:04:58 PMYes, yes, they were persecuted, therefore they were right. Yawn.
If you ever bother to read the Book of Acts (and I doubt you have thus far), you would know that the Jews were actively trying to crush the Early Church. Peter, James and John were arrested, beaten, etc. James was eventually martyred. Stephen was stoned to death. A great persecution broke out against the early believers.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:04:58 PMThe Jews weren't Mulsims, you ninny. Touching a dead body is unclean. They would have never have done this, even to discredit their enemy. It's also desecrating a body. Once interred, a body is not to be moved, and especially not to display it in the street like an animal carcass. The populace would have been incensed, not silenced, in their flagrant act against the Torah.
Now, if the Jews were eager to snuff out Christianity, all they had to do was to open the tomb and parade Jesus' body through the streets. But they didn't because they couldn't.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:04:58 PMIf your ordering of the Book of Acts with the gospels is to be believed, this account was written more than 40 years after the fact (after Mark). I've already touched upon why eyewitness testimony is inaccurate, much less secondhand accounts, especially when repeatedly recalled.
Consequently, they claimed that the disciples had stolen the body inadvertently giving enemy attestation to the fact that the tomb was empty.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:16:27 PMMore secondhand accounts of eyewitness testimony. Yawn.
Luke recorded it after interviewing the eyewitnesses:
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:04:58 PMYawn, more "eyewitness accounts"
Are you not familiar with what the scriptures actually say in this matter? Here is a brief passage from gJohn in which the author reveals his identity:
<snip>
So what if "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down."
So, John the apostle, an eyewitness, says that he is the author of the gospel bearing his name. He also recorded that Jesus cooked breakfast for the apostles on the shore of the lake. He also recorded:
<snip>
Jesus rose from the dead physically.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:04:58 PMShe was not alone. The memory was jinned up by her wack-a-loon hypnotherapist who "recovered" the memory during that fucking "recovered memories" movement a while back, and the fucking hypnotherapist and his scumbag family. Neither of them set out to do this, but it happened anyway. My aunt was neither alone nor unique. This happened hundreds of times across the country, a wave of ultimately phony abuse and sacrifice charges induced by false memories.
Did any other family members believe those things? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/no.gif)
Your aunt suffered, but she did so alone.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 12:04:58 PMIt wasn't a mass hallucination or a shared delusion. What happens is that, as the events are recalled and recounted, they are changed and start to align, even at points that were ultimately entirely fabrications.
The apostles did not share a hallucination or a delusion because the tricks of the mind do not affect others around us.
And thus, YOUR silly argument is dismissed.
I know that this sounds like it shouldn't happen, but it does. We've done the experiments. It happens.
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
Quote
In another part of the Tversky-Marsh study, participants were asked to play prosecutors presenting a summation to the jury.8 Participants first read a murder story, where two men were suspects. Participants were then asked either to prepare a neutral recounting of all they remembered about one suspect, or to prepare a summation to the jury about one suspect. Later, participants were asked to recall the original story. Participants who wrote summations recalled more incriminating details and wrongly attributed details among suspects more often than participants who originally wrote a neutral recounting.
My argument is NOT dismissed in the slightest. It is dependent on the flaky nature of humanity, which has not changed since ancient times. Like a big fish story, the story of Jesus grew in the retellings, becoming this miracle filled tale only fit for the fiction section.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:52:02 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:18:32 PM
Well, remember that Paul probably never got around to reading the gospels as we know them now. And he never met Jesus, although he apparently did meet some of his followers at the time. Also Paul, who was a Jew, argued that laws that were particularly meant for the Jewish people didn't apply to Gentiles who became followers of Jesus and he got in somewhat of a fix about that with Peter and James. But his reading became the Christian orthodoxy.
Gerard
Paul was a student of Gamaliel, and he was in Jerusalem during the time that Jesus came and went from the city. He may have never met Jesus personally, but it's probably reasonable to say that Paul heard Jesus preach even if it was from a distance (to maintain appearances).
And yes, Paul did meet several of the apostles.
Good points about circumcision and other points of the Law and the Gentiles!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:55:42 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:55:42 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
Wait, what? First you said 1 Cor was dated 3-5 years after the crucifixion/resurrection, now it's 20-25 years? So you have no proof that 1 Cor was actually written 3-5 years after the resurrection.
Sheesh.
What I said is that the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 contains a proto-creed that Paul learned in Jerusalem within 3-5 years of Jesus' resurrection.
So, Paul memorized the creed ca. AD 33-35.
Paul preached the creed in Corinth in person prior to AD 50.
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians ca. AD 50-55.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:00:00 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:00:00 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
So he's been repeating this same story for years, huh? Interesting, because that's one of the conditions it takes for a story to change drastically through embellishments, according to the latest in psychology. For all we know, Paul's "eyewitness testimony" started out as secondhand accounts that grew more intimate in the retellings until it became his own eyewitness testimony.
If you had ever read the NT, you would know that Paul also challenges the Corinthians to ask the living witnesses whether what he's telling them is true or not. He wrote:
Quote1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
500 people saw him. Ask them if I'm telling the truth or not.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:02:12 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:02:12 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
There's no reason to believe that the books of the bible were written in the order they appear in. Furthermore, since the book of acts is just that, a book of acts, it could be seen at the initial fleshings out of the Jesus myth.
Acts begins this way:
QuoteActs 1
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.
Acts was Luke's second book. gLuke was his first book.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:04:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
So you admit you can't use the lack of mention for the destruction of the temple as a way to date the gospels. Concession accepted
You argue like a girl. Or a very young person. Which is it?
You claimed that the NT was a history of the REGION. That was YOUR word, not mine.
I disagreed then and now. And again, I point out that we are talking about the Book of Acts...not the gospels.
You're making yourself look ignorant.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:07:33 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:07:33 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
Not mentioning an event does not prove that the event did not happen at the time of the writing of a manuscript. Drop this line of argument. It will you avail you nothing.
Given that Luke DOES mention the deaths of minor players, his silence regarding major figures is deafening.
And you know this, but you can't admit this kind of thing without having to consider becoming a Christian yourself.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:09:25 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:09:25 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
Oh, and Bart Ehrman, while he makes some interesting obersvations, consistently fails to weigh them against the fact that all of the bible manuscripts have been copied through the ages, where any two-bit monk with a holy agenda can do some creative correction.
Already covered in the thread on the Accuracy of the NT.
This is not a good use of my time. Let's chat when you have gotten up to speed on the arguments I presented elsewhere.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 04:52:22 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 04:52:22 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:47:09 PM
We don't know that all of the stuff in the Gospels is what Christ actually taught. Paul may or may not have known about the passage you're quoting above, but even if he did, he could very well have argued that, as these laws were only supposed to be for the Jewish people anyway and Jesus also knew that very well, his point was therefore valid when it came to gentile followers of Christ! All of that without actually contradicting his Master.
Gerard
The NT has Jesus saying this:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.†â€" Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.†(Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.†(Matthew 5:17)
It seems to me if Paul knew Jesus said the above (supposedly) he would pass it along a what Jesus taught. But you are correct in that we don't know that the NT is accurate to what Jesus taught--or even if the man existed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 06:18:09 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 06:18:09 PM
What are you tring to do, Randy? Increase your post count? Split your response only to get them to come below the posting limit. Fucksake.
I've really run out of patience with you. You are making the case of believing that the bible is a book that may be relied on when it tells you (amongst other things) that the resurrection is a thing. That's the lynchpin of your entire faith, isn't it? The claim that a man came back from the dead two thousand years ago after three days being dead. To you, it seems more likely that a man came back from the dead after being stone cold for three days, than the stack of manuscripts that tells such a tale is just wrong.
There is nothing in science that supports the resurrection. We know too much about biochemistry, about the process of death, for this claim to be credible in any context. Even if we were to find a way to resurrect a body after three days of being dead, it would take whizz-bang technology unavailable to ancient Judea. Even in philosophy, where we can propose bizzare scenarios that break our normal sensibilities, resurrection is pretty dicey (is the risen Jesus a philosophical zombie?). As such, the claim of the resurrection is a textbook example of an extraordinary claim, and while not the most extreme case, it's pretty up there.
It would take a detailed and in-depth scientific investigation and a revolution in medicine and biology to establish even the possibility that a resurrection may have happened, with careful observation, experimentation, and replication of the phenomenon before the possibility is even on the table. Your book, the bible, that you admit is mostly second-hand, is insufficient to support the claim that any resurrection took place. Out of everyone who has lived in the past, every one of them has died once and stayed dead, or will die and stay dead. Each and every animal and plant on the Earth has died once and stayed dead. Everything that lives has and will have one chance at life, and when it dies it stays dead.
Except, so claim Christians, this single person in ancient Judea. This one sole exception that violates all natural law and precedent and future prospects and to them is more credible than the possibility that their entire religion simply bullshit.
And you have the gall to wonder why athiests think you're fucking insane.
I would sooner believe the Swoon Theory than believe that a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the Council of Nicea concocted the entire NT out of whole cloth, forging the corroborations by Josephus and Tacitus, forging and burying the dead sea scrolls, and planting the various pieces of evidence throughout the world and acedemia than believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that all of the diciples were tripping balls and sharing a single hallucination synchronized through psychic waves than believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the entire christian church was a big prank that gotten out of hand two thousand years ago before I would believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the diciples encountered Jesus's doppelganger and imposter than believe that a man rose from the dead.
I would sooner believe grand conspiracy theories, pychic powers, mistaken identity, and Judean candid camera before I would believe a man could come back from the dead, because those things have some semblance of being possible.
The claim of the resurrection is a deal-breaker for the veracity of the bible, and it doesn't matter how many "renouned scholars" tell us to the contrary. It is more parsimonious to assume that this one anomaly of the resurrection simply didn't happen and that every biblical scholar and believer who thinks otherwise is simply wrong, than to accept that this one exception in death exists. No matter how unlikely it seems to you that all of those people can be wrong in their belief, once you have eliminated the impossible (the resurrection) whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.
Until you demonstrate that the resurrection is even a possibility, it's off the table, along with any claims that the bible demonstrates the proof of the resurrection. The bible is not accurate here, because it contains a claim that is literally as impossible as they come.
I've really run out of patience with you. You are making the case of believing that the bible is a book that may be relied on when it tells you (amongst other things) that the resurrection is a thing. That's the lynchpin of your entire faith, isn't it? The claim that a man came back from the dead two thousand years ago after three days being dead. To you, it seems more likely that a man came back from the dead after being stone cold for three days, than the stack of manuscripts that tells such a tale is just wrong.
There is nothing in science that supports the resurrection. We know too much about biochemistry, about the process of death, for this claim to be credible in any context. Even if we were to find a way to resurrect a body after three days of being dead, it would take whizz-bang technology unavailable to ancient Judea. Even in philosophy, where we can propose bizzare scenarios that break our normal sensibilities, resurrection is pretty dicey (is the risen Jesus a philosophical zombie?). As such, the claim of the resurrection is a textbook example of an extraordinary claim, and while not the most extreme case, it's pretty up there.
It would take a detailed and in-depth scientific investigation and a revolution in medicine and biology to establish even the possibility that a resurrection may have happened, with careful observation, experimentation, and replication of the phenomenon before the possibility is even on the table. Your book, the bible, that you admit is mostly second-hand, is insufficient to support the claim that any resurrection took place. Out of everyone who has lived in the past, every one of them has died once and stayed dead, or will die and stay dead. Each and every animal and plant on the Earth has died once and stayed dead. Everything that lives has and will have one chance at life, and when it dies it stays dead.
Except, so claim Christians, this single person in ancient Judea. This one sole exception that violates all natural law and precedent and future prospects and to them is more credible than the possibility that their entire religion simply bullshit.
And you have the gall to wonder why athiests think you're fucking insane.
I would sooner believe the Swoon Theory than believe that a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the Council of Nicea concocted the entire NT out of whole cloth, forging the corroborations by Josephus and Tacitus, forging and burying the dead sea scrolls, and planting the various pieces of evidence throughout the world and acedemia than believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that all of the diciples were tripping balls and sharing a single hallucination synchronized through psychic waves than believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the entire christian church was a big prank that gotten out of hand two thousand years ago before I would believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the diciples encountered Jesus's doppelganger and imposter than believe that a man rose from the dead.
I would sooner believe grand conspiracy theories, pychic powers, mistaken identity, and Judean candid camera before I would believe a man could come back from the dead, because those things have some semblance of being possible.
The claim of the resurrection is a deal-breaker for the veracity of the bible, and it doesn't matter how many "renouned scholars" tell us to the contrary. It is more parsimonious to assume that this one anomaly of the resurrection simply didn't happen and that every biblical scholar and believer who thinks otherwise is simply wrong, than to accept that this one exception in death exists. No matter how unlikely it seems to you that all of those people can be wrong in their belief, once you have eliminated the impossible (the resurrection) whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.
Until you demonstrate that the resurrection is even a possibility, it's off the table, along with any claims that the bible demonstrates the proof of the resurrection. The bible is not accurate here, because it contains a claim that is literally as impossible as they come.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:35:48 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:35:48 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 06:18:09 PM
What are you tring to do, Randy? Increase your post count? Split your response only to get them to come below the posting limit. Fucksake.
No, it's really annoying responding to these epic posts. You probably don't like responding to mine. So, for simplicity and ease of use, I'm breaking them up into single concept chunks. Like this.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 06:47:06 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 06:47:06 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:35:48 PMFine. Your only task now is to defend the scientific possibility of the resurrection. Until you do so, that's the elephant in the room sitting on your claims for the historical reliability of the NT.
No, it's really annoying responding to these epic posts. You probably don't like responding to mine. So, for simplicity and ease of use, I'm breaking them up into single concept chunks. Like this.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 06:18:09 PM
I've really run out of patience with you. You are making the case of believing that the bible is a book that may be relied on when it tells you (amongst other things) that the resurrection is a thing. That's the lynchpin of your entire faith, isn't it? The claim that a man came back from the dead two thousand years ago after three days being dead. To you, it seems more likely that a man came back from the dead after being stone cold for three days, than the stack of manuscripts that tells such a tale is just wrong.
Actually, I'm a Catholic, so I don't rely on the Bible to tell me that. I have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of an infallible Church. If every Bible on the planet were to vanish tomorrow, the authority of the Catholic Church, and my faith, would be unfazed.
QuoteThere is nothing in science that supports the resurrection. We know too much about biochemistry, about the process of death, for this claim to be credible in any context. Even if we were to find a way to resurrect a body after three days of being dead, it would take whizz-bang technology unavailable to ancient Judea. Even in philosophy, where we can propose bizzare scenarios that break our normal sensibilities, resurrection is pretty dicey (is the risen Jesus a philosophical zombie?). As such, the claim of the resurrection is a textbook example of an extraordinary claim, and while not the most extreme case, it's pretty up there.
It would take a detailed and in-depth scientific investigation and a revolution in medicine and biology to establish even the possibility that a resurrection may have happened, with careful observation, experimentation, and replication of the phenomenon before the possibility is even on the table. Your book, the bible, that you admit is mostly second-hand, is insufficient to support the claim that any resurrection took place. Out of everyone who has lived in the past, every one of them has died once and stayed dead, or will die and stay dead. Each and every animal and plant on the Earth has died once and stayed dead. Everything that lives has and will have one chance at life, and when it dies it stays dead.
Actually, Elijah did not die, either. But I understand your point.
However, it is my contention that because gospels can be demonstrated to be reliable works of honest men, the accounts of the resurrection they contain are plausible even probable.
QuoteExcept, so claim Christians, this single person in ancient Judea. This one sole exception that violates all natural law and precedent and future prospects and to them is more credible than the possibility that their entire religion simply bullshit.
And you have the gall to wonder why athiests think you're fucking insane.
Actually, it has never occurred to me that athiests [sic] think me insane. I thought was indoctrinated...but still sane. This is a disturbing development...a new low...in our relations. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
QuoteI would sooner believe the Swoon Theory than believe that a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the Council of Nicea concocted the entire NT out of whole cloth, forging the corroborations by Josephus and Tacitus, forging and burying the dead sea scrolls, and planting the various pieces of evidence throughout the world and acedemia than believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that all of the diciples were tripping balls and sharing a single hallucination synchronized through psychic waves than believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the entire christian church was a big prank that gotten out of hand two thousand years ago before I would believe a man could come back from the dead. I would sooner believe that the diciples encountered Jesus's doppelganger and imposter than believe that a man rose from the dead.
I would sooner believe grand conspiracy theories, pychic powers, mistaken identity, and Judean candid camera before I would believe a man could come back from the dead, because those things have some semblance of being possible.
I know. Except that I can counter each of your alternative theories pretty convincingly. And you still have to answer for the Five Minimal Facts. Frankly, the Resurrection is the last theory standing.
And, btw, I don't think your insistence is very...scientific of you. I mean, aren't men of science supposed to be dispassionately following the evidence wherever it leads? I don't think you are actually that open-minded. As you prove now...
QuoteThe claim of the resurrection is a deal-breaker for the veracity of the bible, and it doesn't matter how many "renouned scholars" tell us to the contrary. It is more parsimonious to assume that this one anomaly of the resurrection simply didn't happen and that every biblical scholar and believer who thinks otherwise is simply wrong, than to accept that this one exception in death exists. No matter how unlikely it seems to you that all of those people can be wrong in their belief, once you have eliminated the impossible (the resurrection) whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.
Dude, once you have eliminated all the logical and natural explanations, the only thing left is the unthinkable: Jesus rose from the dead.
QuoteUntil you demonstrate that the resurrection is even a possibility, it's off the table, along with any claims that the bible demonstrates the proof of the resurrection. The bible is not accurate here, because it contains a claim that is literally as impossible as they come.
Let me begin with one simple question: If an all-powerful God exists, would raising Jesus from the dead be impossible for him?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:50:54 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:50:54 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 06:47:06 PM
Fine. Your only task now is to defend the scientific possibility of the resurrection. Until you do so, that's the elephant in the room sitting on your claims for the historical reliability of the NT.
I'm not going to defend the "scientific possibility of the resurrection"...I'm going to defend the supernatural possibility of the resurrection.
That was the point of my closing question in the post above.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 11, 2016, 06:54:26 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 11, 2016, 06:54:26 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:05:12 AMA shadow is more substantial that any Holy Ghost, as Magellan may have known:
Randy is shadow boxing with the Holy Ghost ... but the Holy Ghost will win.
"The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church."
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 07:31:54 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 07:31:54 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PMYou have nothing, little guy. Sacred Scripture=fiction. Sacred Tradition=blind fiction. Magisterium=bullshit. Infallible Chruch=the blind being lead by the hierarchy while bleeding the flock dry. There is no authority--just fiction. So, your Catholic Church has no authority, except that granted by the secular govt. And I fully understand that your faith would leave you unfazed--it is fully that blinding for you. Whoopty damn dooo--I'm happy for you.
Actually, I'm a Catholic, so I don't rely on the Bible to tell me that. I have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of an infallible Church. If every Bible on the planet were to vanish tomorrow, the authority of the Catholic Church, and my faith, would be unfazed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 07:32:29 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 07:32:29 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PMYou're still defending a resurrection. You're still defending the indefensible.
Actually, I'm a Catholic, so I don't rely on the Bible to tell me that. I have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of an infallible Church. If every Bible on the planet were to vanish tomorrow, the authority of the Catholic Church, and my faith, would be unfazed.
Fucksake.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PMHow would you know what a resurrection would look like? Have you seen one? Has anyone seen one? And so what if they're honest? You can be honestly, yet bizzarely wrong.
Actually, Elijah did not die, either. But I understand your point.
However, it is my contention that because gospels can be demonstrated to be reliable works of honest men, the accounts of the resurrection they contain are plausible even probable.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PM"Convincing" is relative. You need to make the resurrection more convincing than any of these. So far, you are insisting on the impossible as an alternative.
I know. Except that I can counter each of your alternative theories pretty convincingly.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PMIn a pig's eye. I doubt the existence of every one of the major players in the Jesus story, including Jesus himself. (Jesus mythicist in the house.) Nonexistent people can't die. That's your first Minimal "Fact" taken care of.
And you still have to answer for the Five Minimal Facts. Frankly, the Resurrection is the last theory standing.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PMThat's nice. Someone who has never done any actual science is trying to tell me how scientists do things. Science considers eyewitness accounts the lowest form of testimony, fit only for establishing the most mundane of claims. The resurrection is not a mundane claim. The resurrection is such a flagrant violation of all tested, reliable scientific theory that there is no point in entertaining it until it is reliably established, using much better quality evidence than eyewintess testimony, as an exant phenomenon. All of the apostles could swear up and down that they saw Jesus arose from the dead, and their testimony will not establish the claim.
And, btw, I don't think your insistence is very...scientific of you. I mean, aren't men of science supposed to be dispassionately following the evidence wherever it leads? I don't think you are actually that open-minded. As you prove now...
And the apostles didn't even witness the resurrection proper, did they?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PMSince when have you done any of this?
Dude, once you have eliminated all the logical and natural explanations, the only thing left is the unthinkable: Jesus rose from the dead.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:48:10 PM'All-powerful' is not even a coherent concept. Your question is meaningless, and any answer I could give would be wrong.
Let me begin with one simple question: If an all-powerful God exists, would raising Jesus from the dead be impossible for him?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 06:50:54 PM"Supernatural" is a cop-out.
I'm not going to defend the "scientific possibility of the resurrection"...I'm going to defend the supernatural possibility of the resurrection.
That was the point of my closing question in the post above.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 11, 2016, 07:41:34 PM
Post by: aitm on May 11, 2016, 07:41:34 PM
Talk sense to a fool, and they call you foolish.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 07:52:05 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 07:52:05 PM
Unlike Socrates, who knew that he didn't know ... your think you know what you know. This is solipsism.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 08:12:49 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 08:12:49 PM
I didn't realize you guys had so many pearls to throw ... but I am not anti-pig in saying that.
Randy doesn't have an experience of the living G-d ... just like most people who post here. That is fine, nothing wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks. But he posts so much here, because he has so much in common with many of you ... even though you are both in denial of it ;-)
Randy doesn't have an experience of the living G-d ... just like most people who post here. That is fine, nothing wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks. But he posts so much here, because he has so much in common with many of you ... even though you are both in denial of it ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 08:24:38 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 08:24:38 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Because we are not Jews, and the New Covenant abrogated the old.
Which at least one uneducated Jew does not understand, apparently.
Plain reading shows that Jesus never stopped being Jewish (on his own terms). He was more pious than the Pharisees, who were hypocrits. It was Paul that opened the door to uneducated and unconverted Gentiles. So go worship Paul.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 08:27:42 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 04:52:22 PM
The NT has Jesus saying this:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.†â€" Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.†(Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.†(Matthew 5:17)
It seems to me if Paul knew Jesus said the above (supposedly) he would pass it along a what Jesus taught. But you are correct in that we don't know that the NT is accurate to what Jesus taught--or even if the man existed.
Clearly Paul didn't know the Jesus of the Gospels. The ordering in the NT is clearly sophistry. For Paul, Jesus was a metaphysical person in a mystery religion, as was popular at that time. He may have had a theophany or not. When Paul was alive, Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed ... we don't hear him telling fellow Jews there to flee to the hills ... it is Jesus who did that, in fiction, after the city was destroyed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 08:56:52 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 08:27:42 PMIt is amazing how many people think Paul is talking about the NT writings when he referrers to scripture. And reading the NT in chronological order changes the story quite a bit.
Clearly Paul didn't know the Jesus of the Gospels. The ordering in the NT is clearly sophistry. For Paul, Jesus was a metaphysical person in a mystery religion, as was popular at that time. He may have had a theophany or not. When Paul was alive, Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed ... we don't hear him telling fellow Jews there to flee to the hills ... it is Jesus who did that, in fiction, after the city was destroyed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 10:34:28 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 10:34:28 PM
The authentic writings of Paul, and reading things in actual chronological order (along with knowledge of edgy Judaism of that time) clearly shows that Paul was a Kabbalist. The whole theoretical substitutionary atonement, of original sin ... is directly taken from Kabbalah, the New Adam cancels out the Old Adam. This is a long used theme, dating back to Bronze Age Canaan ... of Ba'al defeating Yam ... of in Babylon, of Marduk defeating Tiamat.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 12, 2016, 01:43:14 AM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 12, 2016, 01:43:14 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 02:04:44 PMWTF does that even mean? Using your tits to type? Arguing in short bursts in-between checking on the cake in the oven? Arguing in such a way that it is apparent that your gender out preforms boys in every school subject are is more likely then boys to earn a bachelors degree or enroll in graduate school?
You argue like a girl.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 12, 2016, 10:25:09 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 12, 2016, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 06:47:06 PM
Fine. Your only task now is to defend the scientific possibility of the resurrection. Until you do so, that's the elephant in the room sitting on your claims for the historical reliability of the NT.
...along with all the other stories where Jesus defies the laws of physics. An apologist can make forensic implications about the accuracy of who died when, or where the writing took place, or who may have been born in what town, and in fact, some of those events might be accurate (or not); Big whoop. That does nothing to support the incredibly tall tales about Jesus. Those are the stones Randy has to lay to the rest. It must be proven that Jesus was divine and had divine powers to make real magic.
Well, that's pretty much what all of Randy's non sequitur attempts to do. Unfortunately all we end up with are trivial claims as, "Jesus knew about the fall of the temple." However, this doesn't support the claim that Jesus turned water into wine. I mentioned before that a common characteristic of Christian apology is an excess of irrelevant verbiage to distract from the main issues under contention. That's what's been happening here. Showing that there are many trivial accuracies in the New Testament, doesn't prove there are not inaccuracies, and if that isn't done, Randy fails to prove that everything in the NT is true.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:41:17 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:41:17 AM
Quote from: widdershins on May 11, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
As I keep telling you, history is not a court. They don't follow the same rules.
There are significant similarities. Historians and juries have to weigh direct and indirect evidence.
QuoteAnd the term "eyewitness account" applies ONLY to an event which "happened". You can have an eyewitness account of an accident, for instance, but without the account you STILL KNOW than an accident happened.
A ferry runs aground and capsizes in the Mediterranean. I can read an eyewitness account of the accident, and without the account, I would have no way of knowing the accident ever occurred, because I did not see it.
Jesus rises from the dead and appears to his disciples. I can read an eyewitness account of this, and without the account, I would have no way of knowing the resurrection ever occurred, because I did not see it.
QuoteWhat you are doing here is asserting that the incidents happened, now we must determine whether the people writing about it personally witnessed it. We dispute that the incident ever happened.
I am telling you that I believe the resurrection to be true, because I have already evaluated the author's character, intent, corroboration, etc. And while you may be uncertain as to whether the resurrection ever happened, I think it is reasonable to suspend your judgement until you, too, have heard and considered ALL the evidence.
QuoteYou are starting this argument with the premise that the events in the Bible CANNOT BE pure fiction. You have to back up a step. FIRST you have to establish that an event ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Only THEN can you move on to "Was the account of what happened the whole truth? Are these eyewitnesses to these events?"
As in court, first we establish the credibility and credentials of the witnesses. Then, once we are convinced that they are worth hearing, we listen to WHAT they have to say. Consequently, I am posting threads establishing the credibility of the NT and its authorship. Once that is established, we can begin to consider their claims to Jesus' miracles and resurrection.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:45:09 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:45:09 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 08:56:52 PM
It is amazing how many people think Paul is talking about the NT writings when he referrers to scripture. And reading the NT in chronological order changes the story quite a bit.
Have you ever read the NT in the chronological order in which the books were written?
If so, in what order did you choose to read them?
If so, what did you find different about the doctrines of Christianity after viewing the NT this way?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 07:32:29 PM
"Convincing" is relative. You need to make the resurrection more convincing than any of these. So far, you are insisting on the impossible as an alternative.
First question: If an all-powerful God exists, would raising Jesus from the dead be impossible for Him?
QuoteIn a pig's eye. I doubt the existence of every one of the major players in the Jesus story, including Jesus himself. (Jesus mythicist in the house.) Nonexistent people can't die. That's your first Minimal "Fact" taken care of.
Then why do Josephus, Tacitus and others refer to him? Why does Josephus mention James, the brother of Jesus? Would we really know anything at all about Pontius Pilate if not for his connection to the crucifixion of Jesus. And why the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus all refer to people like Peter, Paul, John and James if the latter group never existed?
QuoteThat's nice. Someone who has never done any actual science is trying to tell me how scientists do things. Science considers eyewitness accounts the lowest form of testimony, fit only for establishing the most mundane of claims. The resurrection is not a mundane claim. The resurrection is such a flagrant violation of all tested, reliable scientific theory that there is no point in entertaining it until it is reliably established, using much better quality evidence than eyewintess testimony, as an exant phenomenon. All of the apostles could swear up and down that they saw Jesus arose from the dead, and their testimony will not establish the claim.
Science relies on a different sort of evidence. As atheist Bart Ehrman notes properly:
Quote“We have no direct access to the past. Once something happens, it is over and done with. There is no way to repeat a past event all over again. This makes historical evidence different from the kinds of evidence used in the hard sciences. In science, you can repeat an experiment. In fact, you have to repeat the experiment. Once an experiment is repeated sufficiently with the same results, a kind of predictive probability is established that the same results will obtain if the experiment is conducted one more time….â€
“With history, though, we don’t have the luxury of being able to repeat an event once it happens and so we look for other kinds of evidence. How do we know if we’ve proved something historically? Technically, we cannot prove a single thing historically. All we can do is give enough evidence to convince enough people (hopefully nearly everyone) about a certain historical claim, for example that Lincoln really did deliver the Gettysburg Address or that Julius Caesar really did cross the Rubicon. If you want to demonstrate that either historical event actually occurred, you need to marshal some convincing evidence. In neither of these cases, of course, is there really much doubt….â€
“Historians cannot repeat the past and so have to base their judgments on evidence that establishes most probably what happened.†(Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 37-39.)
QuoteAnd the apostles didn't even witness the resurrection proper, did they?
They were not sealed inside the tomb which His body and did not witness the actual moment at which Jesus came back to life. They saw Him alive after He left the tomb.
QuoteSince when have you done any of this?
Uh...daily? I'm an apologist. I deal with alternative theories every day. Do you have a pet theory as to what happened to Jesus?
Oh, that's right...you're one of those unthinking atheists that has swallowed the mythicist nonsense. I mean, why have to read books and think about things when it's so much easier to simply pretend that Jesus never existed.
Yeah, even other atheists laugh at that. At you.
Quote'All-powerful' is not even a coherent concept. Your question is meaningless, and any answer I could give would be wrong.
If an omnipotent God exists, would raising Jesus from the dead be impossible for Him?
Quote"Supernatural" is a cop-out.
Saying that the supernatural is a cop-out is the cop-out. Address the concept, okay?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 11:30:02 AM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 11:30:02 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:48:17 PM
Who was the writer of Matthew? Do you have an authoritative source suggesting an alternative?
No. And that's the whole point. He was probably a Greek who was well educated and could write, but that's all we know.
Quote from: Randy CarsonPapias wrote:
Papias was a student of the Apostle John. How much more authoritative does it get than that, Gerard?
Papias's works are mainly lost and a lot what is said about him is hearsay. It is said he knew and heard a John, but it's not clear what John we are dealing with here. John of Ephesus, John the son of Zebedee? This is said about him by Irenaeus who wrote at the end of the second century in lived in what is now France! You cited biblical critiscism earlier. Stick with what is authoritive. Virtually all Bible scholars since the end of the 18th century have argued that the gospels are anonymous, That whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts, and that Revelation was written by a person named John who is further unknown, but couldn't have been John, the son of Zebedee because Galilean fisherman from the 1st century didn't speak Greek and couldn't write.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 11:57:30 AM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 11:57:30 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2016, 04:52:22 PM
The NT has Jesus saying this:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.†â€" Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.†(Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.†(Matthew 5:17)
It seems to me if Paul knew Jesus said the above (supposedly) he would pass it along a what Jesus taught. But you are correct in that we don't know that the NT is accurate to what Jesus taught--or even if the man existed.
Yes, but even if Paul knew about all these remarks by Jesus, he may well have argued (which indeed he did) that these Laws weren't supposed to be for gentiles in the first place and that Jesus of course knew that very well. And Paul never said that the law became invalid or changed, he just said that Gentiles didn't need to follow them as these laws were never meant for them to follow. Even in Paul world the Law remained unabridged and intact (for the Jewish people).
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 12:19:51 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 11:30:02 AM
No. And that's the whole point. He was probably a Greek who was well educated and could write, but that's all we know.
We also know that Papias identified the writer of Matthew in this way:
"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
Technically, we can hold out for authorship by some "other" non-apostolic Matthew who wrote the gospel first in Hebrew and later Greek, but the constant teaching of the Church has been and remains that Matthew the Apostle wrote Matthew. Why introduce a second author when the apostle has been named from antiquity?
QuotePapias's works are mainly lost and a lot what is said about him is hearsay. It is said he knew and heard a John, but it's not clear what John we are dealing with here. John of Ephesus, John the son of Zebedee? This is said about him by Irenaeus who wrote at the end of the second century in lived in what is now France! You cited biblical critiscism earlier. Stick with what is authoritive.
You are correct, but we know that John the Presbyter (or Elder) was a disciple of John the Apostle. this sets up the following scenarios:
Who wrote the gospel of John?
Option #1: John the Apostle
Option #2: John the Presbyter (the Elder)
Option #3: John the Presbyter following the tradition of John the Apostle
If both were followers of Jesus, this means that the gospel was written by an eyewitness regardless of who wrote it.
If John the Presbyter was merely a disciple of John the Apostle only, this means that the gospel is an eyewitness account in the sense that Mark and Luke are eyewitness accounts.
Where did Papias get his information about the authors names?
Option #1: If Papias was a student of John the apostle, then his testimony about Matthew and Mark may be of apostolic origin.
Option #2: If Papias was a student of John the Presbyter, then his testimony about Matthew and Mark may still be of apostolic origin depending on what John the Apostle taught John the Presbyter.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AMThis question is disingenuous. You're asking for a "Get Out of Reason Free" card, only you call it an all-powerful God. If we throw out reasoning altogether, then the answer to that question could literally be anything to anyone. Your question does not deserve an answer, at all.
First question: If an all-powerful God exists, would raising Jesus from the dead be impossible for Him?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AMJosephus et al refer to a figure called Jesus or Christ, but that name does not refer to any actual being, the same way L. Frank Baum refers to an Ozma of Oz, the ruler of Oz and the Emerald City, but Ozma of Oz does not refer to any actual human being.
Then why do Josephus, Tacitus and others refer to him?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AMYou don't seem to be getting this idea of "fiction," do you?
Why does Josephus mention James, the brother of Jesus?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AMWe know about the Pilate Stone, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone) which confirms his historicity and that he was a prefect of Judea. However, that doesn't mean that we know anything further about him.
Would we really know anything at all about Pontius Pilate if not for his connection to the crucifixion of Jesus.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AMAgain, you don't seem to be getting this idea of "fiction." We don't have any manuscripts written by any of these people. There's no Pilate Stone for Peter, Paul, John and James. We have no material written by them directly. We have no primary, contemporary accounts of Jesus â€" there's no letters written to Jesus, no accounts of him where pen met paper within a year of the supposed event; all the accounts that schollars agree on a date were all written decades later.
And why the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus all refer to people like Peter, Paul, John and James if the latter group never existed?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AMBart is right in that we do not, in fact, have direct access to the past. Nor can they repeat past events. Or perform experiments. And to that I say, tough titties for you then. Historians are stuck with forms of evidence that are of lower quality than the forms of evidence demanded by the hard sciences, and all the limitations that entails. That means that history is going to be plauged by uncomfortable uncertainties in what has happened in the past. Sorry, bub, but you're just going to have to deal with the fact that history will never establish anything to the same certainty and confidence as physics or biology or even archeology.
Science relies on a different sort of evidence. As atheist Bart Ehrman notes properly:
<snip>
Psychologists have known for quite some time that memory is highly maleable and that seeing is not a passive process, but an active form of interpretation by the brain. We've done the experiments: we can manipulate juries to impant false memories in all of them of details that are not true, simply by one person misremembering and asserting that fact with conviction in discussion with their peers. This happens within the course of a short term experiment. Imagine what havoc you could do to an otherwise mundane memory over the course of years or decades. As observers and recorders of history, we suck.
And yes, this does mean that a fair chunk of your lifetime memories... are in false to a certain extent. False memories is not some bizzare syndrome of a crazy person; it's common and psychologically normal.
This is why science insists on careful documentation and analysis, with all observations gathered on site and committed to paper (or other nonvolitile storage) as soon as feasible, and automatic data logging is preferred over manual methods â€" because we suck at it.
Science relies on the good kinds of evidence; history, not so much. This is why whenever history proposes something that happened in the past that science says is impossible to have happened, we go with the science. "Science is true, even in philosophy class," is an aphorism I've heard bandied about, and I'd like to add my corrolary, "science is true, even in history class."
The NT is, at best, history. If that history contradicts science, it's the history that must be considered wrong, not the science. After all, it is the history that has the shakier foundation.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AMAllegedly. So the apostles were in no position at all to make any observations about the resurrection of Jesus. Thank you.
They were not sealed inside the tomb which His body and did not witness the actual moment at which Jesus came back to life. They saw Him alive after He left the tomb.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AM:lol: That's rich. No, you think that you have "proven" these on a daily basis. However, you have consistently failed to grasp the fundamental flaw in your argument: ultimately, you are pitting mealy-mouthed apologetics and sophistry against hard science â€"hell, even against the soft 'science' of textual criticism. You accept the majority of biblical schollars only when it suits you; when they don't, you blithely ignore them (like that the consensus of schollars put Mark at AD 70 and not before) in favor of your own cherry-picked favorites.
Uh...daily? I'm an apologist. I deal with alternative theories every day. Do you have a pet theory as to what happened to Jesus?
Oh, that's right...you're one of those unthinking atheists that has swallowed the mythicist nonsense. I mean, why have to read books and think about things when it's so much easier to simply pretend that Jesus never existed.
Yeah, even other atheists laugh at that. At you.
And you're wrong. Biblical mythicism is a quite respectible position in biblical schollarship. It's not a popular one, to be sure, but it is respectible. Quite a few schollars are holders of the positions and are publishing quite well-received books on the subject. Like Richard Carrier (On the Historicity of Jesus), and Robert M. Price (The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems â€" don't let the title fool you, he makes a good case for the christ-myth theory).
But let's take the majority opinion that there was a man called Jesus. This is about all that can be agreed on by those who hold to the historical Jesus; there is no consensus amongst biblical schollars on his beliefs and teachings, and there is no consensus on the details of his life as described in the gospels. And except for the religious hard-liners, NONE of them would say that Jesus actually performed miracles or was really resurrected. Again, you accept biblical schollarship only when it suits you.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AM"Omnipotent" is just a synonym for "all-powerful" and equally logically incoherent. The question remains meaningless.
If an omnipotent God exists, would raising Jesus from the dead be impossible for Him?
Give an operational definition of "omnipotent", defined in a logically coherent manner, and we'll be getting somewhere. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time and yours.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AMDefine what you mean by "supernatural," then, because the word is such a catch-all for any sort of woo to occur to any crank that it's nearly meaningless. Give me an operational defintion of "supernatural" â€"defined such that we can confirm that something is supernatural rather than naturalâ€" and your question might deserve an answer. Otherwise, walk.
Saying that the supernatural is a cop-out is the cop-out. Address the concept, okay?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 01:20:18 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 12:19:51 PM
We also know that Papias identified the writer of Matthew in this way:
"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
Technically, we can hold out for authorship by some "other" non-apostolic Matthew who wrote the gospel first in Hebrew and later Greek, but the constant teaching of the Church has been and remains that Matthew the Apostle wrote Matthew. Why introduce a second author when the apostle has been named from antiquity?
If the book of Matthew doesn't claim any authorship by a person named Matthew, who is Papias to make that identification? Furthermore, if that Matthew is the Apostle Matthew it get's even unlikelier. The Apostle Matthew couldn't write. None of the Apostles could (save Paul).
Quote from: RandyYou are correct, but we know that John the Presbyter (or Elder) was a disciple of John the Apostle. this sets up the following scenarios:
Who wrote the gospel of John?
Option #1: John the Apostle
Option #2: John the Presbyter (the Elder)
Option #3: John the Presbyter following the tradition of John the Apostle
If both were followers of Jesus, this means that the gospel was written by an eyewitness regardless of who wrote it.
If John the Presbyter was merely a disciple of John the Apostle only, this means that the gospel is an eyewitness account in the sense that Mark and Luke are eyewitness accounts.
Those are not the only options. The author of John never claims to be an eyewitness. Nor does he claim to be John the Apostle. John was written much later that Mark and Matthew and when you compare these gospels, none of them could have been eyewitnesses. The gospel of John is so divergent from the other ones. Much later and so stuffed with anecdotes the other ones don't mention that John is the most unlikely author to have been an eyewitness or an apostle.
Quote from: Randy CarsonWhere did Papias get his information about the authors names?
Option #1: If Papias was a student of John the apostle, then his testimony about Matthew and Mark may be of apostolic origin.
Option #2: If Papias was a student of John the Presbyter, then his testimony about Matthew and Mark may still be of apostolic origin depending on what John the Apostle taught John the Presbyter.
Again these are not the only options. Your scenario's are of a typical fundamentalist nature. If..... then..... therefore. All very clever of course but... If you tweak all the data enough to make them confirm what you want them to.... Fine. But that doesn't make serious history.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 12, 2016, 01:38:22 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 12, 2016, 01:38:22 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 11:57:30 AMI do think it reasonable to think that Paul would have understood that the future growth of his branch of Judaism would not be with the Jews, but the Gentiles. And growing in the Gentile communities would be difficult with The Law hanging around his neck.
Yes, but even if Paul knew about all these remarks by Jesus, he may well have argued (which indeed he did) that these Laws weren't supposed to be for gentiles in the first place and that Jesus of course knew that very well. And Paul never said that the law became invalid or changed, he just said that Gentiles didn't need to follow them as these laws were never meant for them to follow. Even in Paul world the Law remained unabridged and intact (for the Jewish people).
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 01:54:21 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 01:54:21 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 12, 2016, 01:38:22 PM
I do think it reasonable to think that Paul would have understood that the future growth of his branch of Judaism would not be with the Jews, but the Gentiles. And growing in the Gentile communities would be difficult with The Law hanging around his neck.
Bingo! And that wasn't just Paul's idea. The pseudo Paul's that wrote all of the misogynic stuff (at which Paul probably would have frowned) was making Christianity ready for the (misogynic)Roman Empire!
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 12, 2016, 02:28:04 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 12, 2016, 02:28:04 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PMPerhaps. Perhaps not. I'm not accepting this as truth, but neither am I disputing it. I simply don't care enough to look into it.
I have demonstrated the following sequence:
1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PMNo, you have repeatedly asserted this, you have not "shown" this. In fact, I linked an article from catholic.com which put the writing of the gospels at about 30-60 years after the supposed death of Jesus. The average lifespan for a man at that time was 40-45 years of age. The VAST MAJORITY of scholars agree that the first gospel written was by Mark around 70 AD and all others were after that. It is known that Mark died on April 25, 68 AD. His date of birth is not known. So Mark wrote the first gospel near the end of his life, according to, again, the VAST MAJORITY of scholars. Jesus died, at the latest, 36 AD. Assuming a high-average lifespan and the absolute best-case scenario for the death of Jesus Mark would have been 13 when Jesus died, and that's the best-case scenario for your case, not mine. AND THEN he didn't write it down for around 30 years. Unlikely.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
Further, merely reading the gospels will show you definitively that three of them are substantially similar, even word-for-word in several places. This is a CLEAR indication of copying. AT LEAST TWO of the 4 gospels were absolutely, definitively, NO DOUBT NOT "eyewitness accounts". Large portions of them were copied from an earlier work, WITHOUT DOUBT. You don't have a word-for-word recreation in "eyewitness account" unless one is copying the other, EVER. It does not happen. And there is plenty of evidence that the two copycats got material from other sources as well. This is simply not how an "eyewitness" explains what he saw. This is how someone quotes bits from earlier works to highlight what is important to him.
And finally, "The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses." DOES NOT PROVE THAT "We know that the authors were present at the scene." Even if you proved they were written early enough (again, YOU HAVE NOT because a VAST MAJORITY of scholars disagree with you, which means YOU ARE WRONG) that DOES NOT MEAN that they were, in fact, eyewitnesses and, in fact, there is irrefutable evidence that two of them copied an earlier work, which not only gives ZERO evidence that they were eyewitnesses, it is pretty strong evidence that they WERE NOT as they didn't have anything original to say on the matter.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PMThey are BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and you keep ASSERTING that the authors were eyewitnesses, but HISTORY DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU! You DO NOT get to rewrite history and assert that your revisionist version is accurate!
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PMPARTS OF the gospels were corroborated by non-Biblical sources. We DO NOT KNOW that magic happened.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PMI HAVE proved it wrong time and time again, as has EVERYONE HERE. Now, YOU can continue to make the same assertions that you call an argument until you get banned or prove that you know more about history than the VAST MAJORITY of historians. That's up to you.
Now, you can choose to ignore this argument, prove it wrong or concede that I'm right thus far. That's up to you.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PMSpoiler alert, the answer is "NO!"
Still to come:
Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 12, 2016, 02:36:35 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 12, 2016, 02:36:35 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 01:54:21 PMThat's how I see it.
Bingo! And that wasn't just Paul's idea. The pseudo Paul's that wrote all of the misogynic stuff (at which Paul probably would have frowned) was making Christianity ready for the (misogynic)Roman Empire!
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:42:25 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:42:25 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
This question is disingenuous. You're asking for a "Get Out of Reason Free" card, only you call it an all-powerful God. If we throw out reasoning altogether, then the answer to that question could literally be anything to anyone. Your question does not deserve an answer, at all.
If there is a being who is all-powerful, then would it be too difficult for that being to raise Christ from the dead?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:47:12 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:47:12 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Josephus et al refer to a figure called Jesus or Christ, but that name does not refer to any actual being, the same way L. Frank Baum refers to an Ozma of Oz, the ruler of Oz and the Emerald City, but Ozma of Oz does not refer to any actual human being.
"Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.†(John Dominic Crossan, Co-founder of The Jesus Seminar, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 145.)
“But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least-favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things with relative certainty about him.†(Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:49:33 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:49:33 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
You don't seem to be getting this idea of "fiction," do you?
Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand what fiction is. Because everyone else who looks at the gospels the the writings of Josephus and Tacitus sees HISTORY.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:52:58 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
We know about the Pilate Stone, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone) which confirms his historicity and that he was a prefect of Judea. However, that doesn't mean that we know anything further about him.
The Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961.
So, for more than 1900 years, fools like you would have said that there was no evidence for the existence of Pilate and that he was just a fictional character in a book of fiction.
Whoops. Pilate was real, and the Stone corroborates the gospels.
Damn, it must SUCK to have to explain away stuff like that.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:59:24 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:59:24 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Again, you don't seem to be getting this idea of "fiction." We don't have any manuscripts written by any of these people. There's no Pilate Stone for Peter, Paul, John and James. We have no material written by them directly. We have no primary, contemporary accounts of Jesus â€" there's no letters written to Jesus, no accounts of him where pen met paper within a year of the supposed event; all the accounts that schollars agree on a date were all written decades later.
Still fixated on the Pilate Stone, eh? Man, this is sooooo sweet. I can see how that's gonna haunt you. Forever.
As for the writings, we have so many manuscripts of the books of the NT that textual critics can easily determine what the original autograph copies contained. I'm guessing you don't understand textual criticism, do you?
And accounts within a year? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Historians who study Alexander the Great and Socrates wish they had as much material dated as early as the NT is dated.
But again, you don't understand the significance of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, do you?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:02:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:02:53 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Bart is right in that we do not, in fact, have direct access to the past. Nor can they repeat past events. Or perform experiments. And to that I say, tough titties for you then. Historians are stuck with forms of evidence that are of lower quality than the forms of evidence demanded by the hard sciences, and all the limitations that entails. That means that history is going to be plauged by uncomfortable uncertainties in what has happened in the past. Sorry, bub, but you're just going to have to deal with the fact that history will never establish anything to the same certainty and confidence as physics or biology or even archeology.
Nor do historians expect to, bub. Or lawyers in a courtroom. See, all we can do is establish degrees of certainty...of probability.
And when all is said and done, we can be reasonably certain of the resurrection.
Which is NOT what you want hear, is it?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:06:21 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Psychologists have known for quite some time that memory is highly maleable and that seeing is not a passive process, but an active form of interpretation by the brain. We've done the experiments: we can manipulate juries to impant false memories in all of them of details that are not true, simply by one person misremembering and asserting that fact with conviction in discussion with their peers. This happens within the course of a short term experiment. Imagine what havoc you could do to an otherwise mundane memory over the course of years or decades. As observers and recorders of history, we suck.
And yes, this does mean that a fair chunk of your lifetime memories... are in false to a certain extent. False memories is not some bizzare syndrome of a crazy person; it's common and psychologically normal.
This is why science insists on careful documentation and analysis, with all observations gathered on site and committed to paper (or other nonvolitile storage) as soon as feasible, and automatic data logging is preferred over manual methods â€" because we suck at it.
Science relies on the good kinds of evidence; history, not so much. This is why whenever history proposes something that happened in the past that science says is impossible to have happened, we go with the science. "Science is true, even in philosophy class," is an aphorism I've heard bandied about, and I'd like to add my corrolary, "science is true, even in history class."
Were these experiments conducted on people who were immersed in an oral culture like first-century Palestine? Because if your research was not conducted on people who actually had to memorize things all their lives and were GOOD at it, then your research is "maybe" at best. Moderns can't even remember their own phone numbers because that's stored in an iPhone. Why bother memorizing anything?
QuoteThe NT is, at best, history. If that history contradicts science, it's the history that must be considered wrong, not the science. After all, it is the history that has the shakier foundation.
History or fiction? Which is it? And is there something in the NT that contradicts science? Or are miracles outside of science?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Allegedly. So the apostles were in no position at all to make any observations about the resurrection of Jesus. Thank you.
Sure.
Kinda like when you come home from work and find a box of cookies torn open, crumbs and partially eaten cookies scattered about, and your dog hiding under the kitchen table.
Oh, sure, you didn't actually SEE him jump up on the counter, chew open the box and eat the cookies.
You're in no position to make any observations about the dog stealing the cookies at all. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:27:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
And you're wrong. Biblical mythicism is a quite respectible position in biblical schollarship. It's not a popular one, to be sure, but it is respectible. Quite a few schollars are holders of the positions and are publishing quite well-received books on the subject. Like Richard Carrier (On the Historicity of Jesus), and Robert M. Price (The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems â€" don't let the title fool you, he makes a good case for the christ-myth theory).
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier
by Bart Ehrman
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 1 of 2)
by Tim O'Neill
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/
Jesus Did Exist: A Response to Richard Carrier
by Jimmy Akin
http://www.strangenotions.com/jesus-did-exist/
By the way, in his take-down of Mythicism, O'Neill responded to some questions in the combox of the StrangeNotions website where his articles were published. In one comment, O'Neill wrote:
QuoteWe can't know where Tacitus got his information, but that's not unusual with ancient sources. But I note several solid reasons that his source was not mere "hearsay" and was not from what Christians themselves said but from a non-Christian source or sources. Rather than repeat myself, I'd invite you to re-read my arguments in this regard.
If by "hearsay evidence", however, you mean second hand evidence than my response would be "of course". Given that he was writing a generation later and at the other end of the Empire to Jesus, he is inevitably going to be reporting second hand. Again, this is the case with most of our ancient sources. Appian was writing 600 years after the death of Alexander and even when he was referring to (now lost) first hand accounts from the time, his accounts are at least second hand. No-one bats an eyelid at that. To apply a degree of hyper-scepticism about this unremarkable mention of an executed Jewish preacher on those grounds is absurd and smacks of bad faith and double standards.
And as for your being "doubtful" that Tactius consulted some "hall of records", this is actually as plausible as anything else. We know from his writings that he actually did precisely this on occasion and had access to public records and archives of the Acta Diurna (see Annals XV.74, Annals XII.20 or Annals III.3 for example). He also tells us that he was drawing from several sources when writing his account of the Great Fire. So there is good reason to believe that what he says here was not mere "hearsay". And "second hand" (or more) accounts are the norm for ancient histories.
And in a second comment, he notes:
QuoteIncidentally, Richard Carrier has repeatedly claimed that any such records would have been destroyed in the Great Fire and so Tacitus couldn't have used them, which shows that Carrier, for all his bluster, isn't as well read in the sources as he thinks he is.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:34:04 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Define what you mean by "supernatural," then, because the word is such a catch-all for any sort of woo to occur to any crank that it's nearly meaningless. Give me an operational defintion of "supernatural" â€"defined such that we can confirm that something is supernatural rather than naturalâ€" and your question might deserve an answer. Otherwise, walk.
It seems like a pretty well-understood word. My online dictionary says it this way:
su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
How can science study, measure or even comment upon that which is beyond its understanding?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:46:03 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:46:03 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 12, 2016, 02:28:04 PM
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm not accepting this as truth, but neither am I disputing it. I simply don't care enough to look into it.
Then why bother arguing with me if you don't care enough to investigate for yourself whether I'm telling you the truth or not?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:59:10 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:59:10 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 01:20:18 PM
If the book of Matthew doesn't claim any authorship by a person named Matthew, who is Papias to make that identification? Furthermore, if that Matthew is the Apostle Matthew it get's even unlikelier. The Apostle Matthew couldn't write. None of the Apostles could (save Paul).
Matthew was a minor government official working for the Romans. He was a tax collector. Now, do you suppose that someone responsible for collecting taxes has to be able to read documents containing records of who owes what? And to submit reports about what he had collected?
Yeah, me, too.
QuoteThose are not the only options. The author of John never claims to be an eyewitness. Nor does he claim to be John the Apostle. John was written much later that Mark and Matthew and when you compare these gospels, none of them could have been eyewitnesses. The gospel of John is so divergent from the other ones. Much later and so stuffed with anecdotes the other ones don't mention that John is the most unlikely author to have been an eyewitness or an apostle.
QuoteJohn 21:21-24
22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.†23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?â€
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
John didn't name himself, but we know that He was the beloved disciple from other passages. So, he is referring to himself in the verses above.
John's gospel is different because John already had knowledge of the three synoptics. Why tell the same story again? Instead, John filled in a few blanks and offered a deeper Christology than the synoptics because he had more time to reflect on who Jesus was.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:00:17 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 12, 2016, 01:38:22 PM
I do think it reasonable to think that Paul would have understood that the future growth of his branch of Judaism would not be with the Jews, but the Gentiles. And growing in the Gentile communities would be difficult with The Law hanging around his neck.
Well, duh.
The Gentiles outnumbered the Jews, so that was the ultimate no-brainer. And, then there was that little bit called the "great commission" found at the end of Matthew's Gospel when Jesus told the apostles to make disciples of "all nations".
Israel was going to have to make room in Church for the newbies.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:03:22 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:03:22 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 01:54:21 PM
Bingo! And that wasn't just Paul's idea. The pseudo Paul's that wrote all of the misogynic stuff (at which Paul probably would have frowned) was making Christianity ready for the (misogynic)Roman Empire!
Gerard
Really???
I know you're an atheist, but you know the scriptures better than this, don't you?
Matthew 28
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.â€
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 05:27:16 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:59:10 PM
Matthew was a minor government official working for the Romans. He was a tax collector. Now, do you suppose that someone responsible for collecting taxes has to be able to read documents containing records of who owes what? And to submit reports about what he had collected?
Yeah, me, too.
John didn't name himself, but we know that He was the beloved disciple from other passages. So, he is referring to himself in the verses above.
John's gospel is different because John already had knowledge of the three synoptics. Why tell the same story again? Instead, John filled in a few blanks and offered a deeper Christology than the synoptics because he had more time to reflect on who Jesus was.
From "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman, Chapter 4:
QuoteMoreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" â€" Jesus and the disciples â€" were doing, never about what "we" â€" Jesus and the rest of us â€" were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.
With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.
If John had knowledge of the tree synoptics he should have read them better before he wrote his own gospel. He basically couldn't have known them because he contradicts them all the time!
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:41:29 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:41:29 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 05:27:16 PM
From "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman, Chapter 4:
If John had knowledge of the tree synoptics he should have read them better before he wrote his own gospel. He basically couldn't have known them because he contradicts them all the time!
Gerard
Gerard-
I'll actually come back to your comment in my next post, but before I forget, I want to refer you to a book by Richard Bauckham entitled, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
I don't expect you to read it (I haven't, yet), but this review by Ben Witherington should give you a flavor:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:48:08 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 05:27:16 PM
From "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman, Chapter 4:
If John had knowledge of the tree synoptics he should have read them better before he wrote his own gospel. He basically couldn't have known them because he contradicts them all the time!
Gerard
Yes, he makes a similar statement in Did Jesus Exist?, his full-length treatment of the existence of Jesus which he defends very strongly!
He also overplays his hand by claiming that except for "fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals" scholars generally agree that the gospels were not actually written by their namesakes. Well, first of all, that is not an insignificant number of folks. Second, he forgot about the Catholics!
So, when a head count is taken, I think Ehrman will find himself in the minority camp.
Finally, I'm always happy to help untangle the confusion that people have about the gospels that the differences which are often viewed as contradictions.
If you have a favorite, let's take a look together.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 06:03:01 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 06:03:01 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 05:48:08 PM
Yes, he makes a similar statement in Did Jesus Exist?, his full-length treatment of the existence of Jesus which he defends very strongly!
He also overplays his hand by claiming that except for "fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals" scholars generally agree that the gospels were not actually written by their namesakes. Well, first of all, that is not an insignificant number of folks. Second, he forgot about the Catholics!
So, when a head count is taken, I think Ehrman will find himself in the minority camp.
Finally, I'm always happy to help untangle the confusion that people have about the gospels that the differences which are often viewed as contradictions.
If you have a favorite, let's take a look together.
I'm pretty sure he didn't forget about the Catholics. These things are actually taught by Catholic scholars, most of them not being fundamentalists anyway. I'll take certified historians (Christian or atheist) over amateur hermeneutics any time, thank you. There is no way Ehrman finds himself in the minority camp on this point. He may use some stronger language than some of his colleagues but that's about it.
On the existence of Jesus, yes he does defend it very strongly and I agree with him.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 06:44:43 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 06:44:43 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 06:03:01 PM
I'm pretty sure he didn't forget about the Catholics. These things are actually taught by Catholic scholars, most of them not being fundamentalists anyway. I'll take certified historians (Christian or atheist) over amateur hermeneutics any time, thank you. There is no way Ehrman finds himself in the minority camp on this point. He may use some stronger language than some of his colleagues but that's about it.
On the existence of Jesus, yes he does defend it very strongly and I agree with him.
Gerard
No favorite contradiction you'd like to discuss? You must have one you use when pressed at a party or Thanksgiving at your in-laws.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 06:54:56 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:34:04 PM
It seems like a pretty well-understood word. My online dictionary says it this way:
su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
How can science study, measure or even comment upon that which is beyond its understanding?
A person's first mistake, is to allow one's opponent to defined one's vocabulary.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:00:33 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:00:33 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:46:03 PM
Then why bother arguing with me if you don't care enough to investigate for yourself whether I'm telling you the truth or not?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
You are not telling the truth. People can't do that, any more than they can fly without an airplane. You are a person, therefore ...
So what is the point of BS-ing people back and forth? Orthodoxy means correct belief, not correct truth. The Church never claimed it had the truth, only that, it was necessary for the Church to control the message, so everyone stayed on the same dime. Uniformity on whatever, but uniformity above all. Thus the need for bishops and scriptures and creeds.
Truth is a Platonic ideal, and Plato is wrong.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:08:57 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:08:57 PM
The theology of John is often thought to be late. But that theology most closely matches Paul, who is clearly early. This is because it is vital for people to accept the Synoptics as early, and the gospel of John etc as late. The church in Antioch pushed the "human" Jesus ... and the church in Alexandria pushed the "divine" Jesus. In the end, we get a compromise, after the John and the Synoptics are both accepted. Tatian even composed a harmony of all four of these gospels, to try to paper over the differences.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 07:34:23 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 07:34:23 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:08:57 PM
The theology of John is often thought to be late. But that theology most closely matches Paul, who is clearly early. This is because it is vital for people to accept the Synoptics as early, and the gospel of John etc as late. The church in Antioch pushed the "human" Jesus ... and the church in Alexandria pushed the "divine" Jesus. In the end, we get a compromise, after the John and the Synoptics are both accepted. Tatian even composed a harmony of all four of these gospels, to try to paper over the differences.
Yes and Tatian wasn't the only one. Many people still do that today. But what Tatian did was basically tweaking the existing gospels to make a new one that none of the original authors would agree with.
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:36:08 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:36:08 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 07:34:23 PM
Yes and Tatian wasn't the only one. Many people still do that today. But what Tatian did was basically tweaking the existing gospels to make a new one that none of the original authors would agree with.
Gerard
I don't think any of the original authors were still alive in Tatian's time ... so I take it you meant that rhetorically. Ultimately Tatian's work was rejected, because it was too obviously a manipulation.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 07:46:52 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 07:46:52 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 06:44:43 PM
No favorite contradiction you'd like to discuss? You must have one you use when pressed at a party or Thanksgiving at your in-laws.
I don't usually talk to family members about stuff like this. That's why I'm on this forum and mostly I don't get to do it here as well..... I'm not sure what to choose and I'm the first to admit that I can't quote chapter and verse from my head in these matters. There are some options however. The sojourn in Egypt. The day Jesus was crucified. The way his crucifixion was depicted in the different gospels. On what day was the last supper? In what place was he born? And in what kind of building? But if you read Ehrman you'll get most of the answers. You may have some resort to his analysis that you don't agree with perhaps? I'm pretty sure that some very clever fundamentalists have thought of all the excuses possible when it comes to these contradictions. The thing is that they have to use loads of special pleading to make their point. Must sound familiar....
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 07:51:32 PM
Post by: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 07:51:32 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:36:08 PM
I don't think any of the original authors were still alive in Tatian's time ... so I take it you meant that rhetorically. Ultimately Tatian's work was rejected, because it was too obviously a manipulation.
Yes, but many people (not all of them fundamentalists) still make implicit or explicit mashed up versions where they merge all the gospel stories into one. Just look at nativity plays....
Gerard
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 10:03:13 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 10:03:13 AM
What are reasonable expectations for the gospels as eyewitness accounts? Cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace explains it this way:
QuoteI’ve seen unreasonable expectations impact the way people view the New Testament. Bart Ehrman clearly held a view of Biblical inerrancy that crippled his opinion of the Gospels once he discovered the presence of textual variants. As an atheist coming to the text for the very first time, I reacted very differently to the alleged “contradictions†I saw in the Gospel accounts and to the discovery of scribal insertions and variants. I had already been working criminal investigations for many years and understood the nature of eyewitness accounts. I knew that witnesses seldom agreed on details of the same crime, that witnesses could be wrong about a particular detail yet still considered reliable by a jury or a judge, and that juries could arrive at proper conclusions with less than complete information. In other words, my initial evidential expectations were appropriately modest. I didn’t expect perfection and I didn’t require it. Instead, I was concerned about reliability and I understood that dependability was not reliant on perfection.
There are dangerous presuppositions that hinder investigations. My personal, dangerous presupposition was philosophical naturalism. It prevented me from exploring any reasonable explanation that might include a supernatural cause. But there’s another dangerous presupposition that many of us take for granted, and it’s just a debilitating as philosophical naturalism. We have to be careful to avoid “evidential perfectionismâ€. No worldview can answer every important question; no worldview is evidentially perfect. As an atheist, I could not account for the beginning of space, time and matter or the appearance of life from inanimate materials, yet I was comfortable in spite of these unanswered questions and absence of evidence. Now, as a Christian Case Maker, I recognize that it’s important to help people understand more than the nature of the evidence for the Christian Worldview. We have to first help people understand the rules that govern this evidence. It’s not about what to think, it’s about how to think. That’s why it’s important for us to help people understand that they cannot expect evidential perfection in the cases we make for theism or Christianity.
Taken from:
The Case for Christianity, Unrealistic Expectations and Evidential Modesty
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/the-case-for-christianity-unrealistic-expectations-and-evidential-modesty/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 11:52:27 AM
Post by: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 11:52:27 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 06:54:56 PM
A person's first mistake, is to allow one's opponent to defined one's vocabulary.
Meaningful discourse often requires consensus on the definitions of certain words. It doesn't matter who presents a possible definition. What is important is an agreement of a word's meaning for purposes of the particular discussion, and proper use of that definition in subsequent conversation. Of course, even with an agreed definition, some will use the word in manipulative ways, or not use the agreed definition, but that's not the word's fault, it's the fault of the word's user.
For example, note how poster Randy Carson misuses the definition. The definition provided (as an adjective) states it is something attributed to a force beyond science or natural law. The definition of "supernatural" (as a noun) indicates it is something considered to be so. Yet, Carson pretends that the definition means his supernatural claims are real in the first instance and ignores that the definition states the claims are merely attributed or considered, not fact. Put another way, a reader (using the definition properly) sees Carson attributing or considering certain things as supernatural, whereas Carson see his own statement as establishing a supernatural event as fact. Carson doesn't understand that he is merely asserting, and that he cheats.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: gentle_dissident on May 13, 2016, 11:59:29 AM
Post by: gentle_dissident on May 13, 2016, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 11:52:27 AMI get the feeling he might have an idea he's cheating. Religion is a willing suspension of disbelief.
Carson doesn't understand that he is merely asserting, and that he cheats.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 01:55:37 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 11:52:27 AM
Meaningful discourse often requires consensus on the definitions of certain words. It doesn't matter who presents a possible definition. What is important is an agreement of a word's meaning for purposes of the particular discussion, and proper use of that definition in subsequent conversation. Of course, even with an agreed definition, some will use the word in manipulative ways, or not use the agreed definition, but that's not the word's fault, it's the fault of the word's user.
Agreed.
QuoteFor example, note how poster Randy Carson misuses the definition. The definition provided (as an adjective) states it is something attributed to a force beyond science or natural law. The definition of "supernatural" (as a noun) indicates it is something considered to be so. Yet, Carson pretends that the definition means his supernatural claims are real in the first instance and ignores that the definition states the claims are merely attributed or considered, not fact. Put another way, a reader (using the definition properly) sees Carson attributing or considering certain things as supernatural, whereas Carson see his own statement as establishing a supernatural event as fact. Carson doesn't understand that he is merely asserting, and that he cheats.
I have given you a basic definition of the word supernatural which you can verify by typing the word into your Internet browser. I just did this for a second word:
mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
There is NO implication or understanding that the supernatural or miracles exists simply because we have words to describe them.
I was asked:
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Define what you mean by "supernatural," then, because the word is such a catch-all for any sort of woo to occur to any crank that it's nearly meaningless. Give me an operational defintion of "supernatural" â€"defined such that we can confirm that something is supernatural rather than naturalâ€" and your question might deserve an answer. Otherwise, walk.
Now, if atheists can't work with these two words, then we can't have a meaningful conversation on this topic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:46:03 PMFirst, why should I care? If it's all magical nonsense, why should I care if the text is an accurate depiction of the original?
Then why bother arguing with me if you don't care enough to investigate for yourself whether I'm telling you the truth or not?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Second, there was a WHOLE LOT MORE to that post than a single sentence you can easily find fault with. Why bother arguing with me if you aren't going to address any of my ARGUMENTS? All you addressed was the part where I said I didn't care enough to look up on particular argument you made.
I know EXACTLY why. It's the same thing you've been doing all along. You're refusing to address the actual problems with your argument and focusing instead on unimportant minutia. You have a laser focus on the things people say which DON'T address the flaws in your argument because if you didn't you would be forced to address the flaws in your argument. If you did that, if you acknowledge that I pointed out those flaws, if you were forced to address them knowing full well how flawed those arguments really are then never again would you be able to later say, "None of you have disproved any of my points!" Yes, we have very much disproved all of your points. You just don't want to address that because it would shatter the illusion you have spun for yourself in which your God is SO real and your argument is SO great that nobody can effectively dispute it. But we have effectively disputed it. I have effectively disputed it. You're just too much of a coward to face that reality.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 03:19:34 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 03:19:34 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
First, why should I care? If it's all magical nonsense, why should I care if the text is an accurate depiction of the original?
And if it's not "all magical nonsense"?
Should you care then? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 05:31:44 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 05:31:44 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 03:19:34 PMTHE MOMENT I have reason to believe that there SO MUCH AS MIGHT be some reason to believe in magic, THEN I will care. Until then, you want me to believe in magic, show me some fucking magic. I'm not going to waste my time trying your stupid magic rituals to effect change to prove what I already believe, that magic isn't real.
And if it's not "all magical nonsense"?
Should you care then? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Second, AND AGAIN, there was a WHOLE LOT MORE to that post than one single sentence.
If you worked half as hard at forming a coherent argument as you do avoiding one you might pass for intelligent life.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 05:38:49 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 01:55:37 PMYeah, we can't have meaningful discourse anyway because you will change those and any other definitions the moment they become inconvenient for you. I tried a conversation with you where we set some standards in the beginning and you happily applied them to me and ignored them completely when it was your turn.
Now, if atheists can't work with these two words, then we can't have a meaningful conversation on this topic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Simon Moon on May 13, 2016, 05:39:05 PM
Post by: Simon Moon on May 13, 2016, 05:39:05 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:05:53 PM
If it can be proved that an account was written by an eyewitness, this is indisputably better than saying, "We have no clue who wrote this."
As any district attorney.
Yeah, right.
Ask any DA if they'd believe an eyewitness is credible if his or her testimony for a murder included stories of; alien abductions, zombies, incantations, or any other supernatural event.
But move the eyewitness testimony back a couple of thousand years, when people were much more ignorant about the way the world worked and they believed they were surrounded by magic, and somehow you believe it becomes more credible!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 13, 2016, 05:50:24 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 13, 2016, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:00:33 PMI guess it's no coincidence that the word "catholic" means "universal."
Uniformity on whatever, but uniformity above all. Thus the need for bishops and scriptures and creeds.
Truth is a Platonic ideal, and Plato is wrong.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:47:16 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:47:16 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 05:38:49 PM
Yeah, we can't have meaningful discourse anyway because you will change those and any other definitions the moment they become inconvenient for you. I tried a conversation with you where we set some standards in the beginning and you happily applied them to me and ignored them completely when it was your turn.
Right. Because I'm...what did you call me? ah, yes...a coward.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah.....
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:50:30 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:50:30 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 13, 2016, 05:31:44 PM
THE MOMENT I have reason to believe that there SO MUCH AS MIGHT be some reason to believe in magic, THEN I will care. Until then, you want me to believe in magic, show me some fucking magic. I'm not going to waste my time trying your stupid magic rituals to effect change to prove what I already believe, that magic isn't real.
Second, AND AGAIN, there was a WHOLE LOT MORE to that post than one single sentence.
If you worked half as hard at forming a coherent argument as you do avoiding one you might pass for intelligent life.
How will you know whether there is reason to believe without studying the matter?
But why would you study something you don't care?
See, I'm not sure you're a real atheist. I think you're an apatheist. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/sad_yes.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:57:10 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: Simon Moon on May 13, 2016, 05:39:05 PM
Yeah, right.
Ask any DA if they'd believe an eyewitness is credible if his or her testimony for a murder included stories of; alien abductions, zombies, incantations, or any other supernatural event.
But move the eyewitness testimony back a couple of thousand years, when people were much more ignorant about the way the world worked and they believed they were surrounded by magic, and somehow you believe it becomes more credible!
Wrong. As shown from this document from the State of New York:
QuoteCredibility of Witnesses
As judges of the facts, you alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of each witness. You must decide whether a witness told the truth and was accurate, or instead, testified falsely or was mistaken. You must also decide what importance to give to the testimony you accept as truthful and accurate. It is the quality of the testimony that is controlling, not the number of witnesses who testify.1
Accept in Whole or in Part (Falsus in Uno)
If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness's entire testimony. Or, you may disregard so much of it as you find was untruthful, and accept so much of it as you find to have been truthful and accurate.2
Credibility factors
There is no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of another person's statements or testimony. You bring to this process all of your varied experiences. In life, you frequently decide the truthfulness and accuracy of statements made to you by other people. The same factors used to make those decisions, should be used in this case when evaluating the testimony.
In General
Some of the factors that you may wish to consider in evaluating the testimony of a witness are as follows:
Did the witness have an opportunity to see or hear the events about which he or she testified?1
Did the witness have the ability to recall those events accurately?
Was the testimony of the witness plausible and likely to be true, or was it implausible and not likely to be true?
Was the testimony of the witness consistent or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence in the case?
Did the manner in which the witness testified reflect upon the truthfulness of that witness's testimony?
To what extent, if any, did the witness's background, training, education, or experience affect the believability of that witness's testimony?
Did the witness have a bias, hostility or some other attitude that affected the truthfulness of the witness's testimony?
More here:
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Credibility.pdf
+++
You know, at some point you folks really ought to recognize that I have the backing of the US judicial system procedures and precedents on my side and that you cannot win the argument about evidence.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_dancing.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 13, 2016, 08:45:07 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 13, 2016, 08:45:07 PM
But I reject the American juridical system, and the American Bar Association. But I hope they don't take it personal ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 13, 2016, 08:46:56 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 13, 2016, 08:46:56 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:47:16 PM
Right. Because I'm...what did you call me? ah, yes...a coward.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah.....
And now you think you are an evil villain ... Torquemada much?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 10:43:16 PM
Post by: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 10:43:16 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 13, 2016, 08:46:56 PM
And now you think you are an evil villain ... Torquemada much?
Don't move him forward too much yet. He's still dealing with the claim that he is a coward. That's a tough assignment for a well established narcissist.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 10:47:50 PM
Post by: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 10:47:50 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 13, 2016, 08:45:07 PM
But I reject the American juridical system, and the American Bar Association. But I hope they don't take it personal ;-)
You paint with a broad brush. I am a member of the ABA, have been for decades, and have had positive life experiences with that group, mostly due to interactions with other members.
Of course, you have no experience whatsoever with the ABA, or its members.
I conclude, on this topic only, that you are full of nonsense.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2016, 10:57:37 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2016, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:42:25 PM'All-powerful' is an incoherent concept, thus no existing being could have such a property. Thus, an all-powerful being cannot exist to raise Christ from the dead, owing to the fact that nonexistent things are impotent.
If there is a being who is all-powerful, then would it be too difficult for that being to raise Christ from the dead?
Scale back your question, and you might get somewhere.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:47:12 PMIf nobody wrote about Jesus for a hundred years, if his historical presence remained so small that no one would bother to write about him for a hundred years, how would Josephus and Tacitus hear about him?
"Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.†(John Dominic Crossan, Co-founder of The Jesus Seminar, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 145.)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:47:12 PMI find it interesting that you skipped over the blue part, as if I wouldn't catch it. The part that basically said that there's no reason to believe that Jesus had any supernatural properties at all. And what is Jesus without the supernatural feats? Not really Jesus, is he?
“But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least-favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things with relative certainty about him.†(Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:49:33 PMRobert Price doesn't see history. Richard Carrier doesn't see history. They both see a story. Bart Ehrman, while he took umbridge at Carrier's scathing invective against him, nonetheless respects the man.
Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand what fiction is. Because everyone else who looks at the gospels the the writings of Josephus and Tacitus sees HISTORY.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:52:58 PMUh... no. It doesn't "SUCK", and I don't have to "explain away" that stuff. This is because you really don't understand the gulf in the kinds of evidence each claim requires.
The Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961.
So, for more than 1900 years, fools like you would have said that there was no evidence for the existence of Pilate and that he was just a fictional character in a book of fiction.
Whoops. Pilate was real, and the Stone corroborates the gospels.
Damn, it must SUCK to have to explain away stuff like that.
While Pontius Pilate might not have had any hard, solid, grade-A evidence of his existence before the Pilate stone discovery, his existence is also much easier to establish, mostly due to the fact that he had no genuine big-M miracles associated with him, and was pretty much as he was portrayed, as an ordinary man doing ordinary things. In short, his existence is a very mundane claim. Jesus, on the other hand, does have big-M miracles associated with him, and furthermore, was portrayed from his birth to be an auspicious presence (with Magi traveling from far afield just to meet with a baby Jesus). These are much more difficult to establish. Jesus's existence, in all his son of man glory, is not a mundane claim. It is an extraordinary claim.
So, while the existence of Pilate may not be as firmly established by the gospels, he need not have very solid evidence because the claims of his existence is very mundane. It simply doesn't have a high hurdle to clear. The existence of a miraculous personage like Jesus is extraordinary, and as such requires more and better evidence than the bible can supply.
And further, what if the gospels never existed? Well, the first we would come to know of Pilate, at all, would be the stone. Would this be a shock that I would have to "explain away"? No. It would simply be a discovery that would add to my knowledge.
I've come to terms with the fact that I do not know everything, and I don't need to know everything immediately. If contrary evidence comes to light, I've learned something. I have nothing to learn from you, however, because you keep insisting on me accepting something that cannot be accepted on the paultry evidence you present: the resurrection.
The Pilate stone corroborates one fact of the bible: that Pontius Pilate existed and was a prefect of Judea. You still have a long way to go to prove the rest of it.
The time to believe in something is when there is good evidence to show that there is something to believe. It is the nature of knowledge to be an evolving thing. If you were to produce some contemporary proof that Jesus existed (and no, the bible is not that), then that's the time to start believing in it, and not a moment before. A wooden goblet carved and signed by Jesus with good provinance would go much further to prove his existence than the entire bible and all the appologetic you spout.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:59:24 PMI like it how you pretend you have an insight into my mind, like you have an insight into the minds of people long dead.
Still fixated on the Pilate Stone, eh? Man, this is sooooo sweet. I can see how that's gonna haunt you. Forever.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:59:24 PMThe chain of custody for the bible is broken in so many places it would not be admitted as evidence in a court of law, let alone a scientific analysis. Anyone could have messed with it along the way, even if all parts of the bible were written when you say they were written.
As for the writings, we have so many manuscripts of the books of the NT that textual critics can easily determine what the original autograph copies contained. I'm guessing you don't understand textual criticism, do you?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:59:24 PM:lol: Alexander the Great founded Alexandria and its great library. He was king of Macedonia and conquered the Persian empire and sought to conquer India. There are books of his campaigns, with excerpts surving in secondary sources. These are not trivial marks on history, unlike Jesus whose only influence during his lifetime seemed to be some small headaches for the local government, a cult following, and works written by people who had not directly met him.
And accounts within a year? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Historians who study Alexander the Great and Socrates wish they had as much material dated as early as the NT is dated.
Socrates had two students, Plato and Aristotle, whom we do have original works and accounts.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 03:59:24 PMI understand that it was written by people who had not directly met Jesus. This is hardly a point in your favor.
But again, you don't understand the significance of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, do you?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:06:21 PMWere the authors of Mark, Matthew, and John not literate, then? Or your much vaunted Paul? You can't have it both ways.
Were these experiments conducted on people who were immersed in an oral culture like first-century Palestine? Because if your research was not conducted on people who actually had to memorize things all their lives and were GOOD at it, then your research is "maybe" at best. Moderns can't even remember their own phone numbers because that's stored in an iPhone. Why bother memorizing anything?
Anyway, the kind of memorization you talk of takes the form of rehersed epics, with plenty of time to practice and memorize, and in a particular form that aids memorization. This essentially transforms the memory into procedural memory, which is much more robust because it is practiced. Of course, as the epic developed, who knows how many alterations the text experienced before attaining that form.
And finally, what gives you leave to say that "people who had to memorize things all their lives" were "GOOD" at it?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:27:44 PMCherry picking your defenders again?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier
by Bart Ehrman
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 1 of 2)
by Tim O'Neill
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/
Jesus Did Exist: A Response to Richard Carrier
by Jimmy Akin
http://www.strangenotions.com/jesus-did-exist/
In reading through Ehrman's reply, one thought kept occuring to me. You previously mentioned that the Pharasees thought of Jesus as an enemy, and that the man had made such a pest of himself that Pontius Pilate had to intervene directly in what, in any other case, would be an internal matter of the client state. For someone who attracted as much attention to himself as Jesus did, so much so that the Roman constabulary was sent in to capture him, had a Roman trial, deferred to the locals what was to be done with him, and had a Roman execution, why did Jesus have a nonexistent presence in the Roman records. While Ehrman made the point that the Romans didn't record everything as Carrier claims, surely this would have been recorded.
And for someone who did such amaizing things over the course of his lifetime, he didn't seem to attract much attention from the Romans either.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:27:44 PMThis is hardly a point in Tacitus's favor. Bad evidence doesn't become good in the absence of proper good evidence.
By the way, in his take-down of Mythicism, O'Neill responded to some questions in the combox of the StrangeNotions website where his articles were published. In one comment, O'Neill wrote:
<snip>
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:27:44 PMA fair note, but that still leaves Richard Price and other mythicists. Even Ehrman conceeds some points to Carrier.
And in a second comment, he notes:
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:34:04 PMHow do you tell the difference between something that is beyond the understanding of science and what is not? That's what is meant by an "operational definition." What are the salient characteristics or properties that distinguishes between a natural event and a supernatural event? This is not a question answered by your definition.
It seems like a pretty well-understood word. My online dictionary says it this way:
su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
How can science study, measure or even comment upon that which is beyond its understanding?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: hrdlr110 on May 14, 2016, 07:02:43 AM
Post by: hrdlr110 on May 14, 2016, 07:02:43 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:21:40 AMI have not claimed victory (that happens when folks become believers), but I haven't had a "Well, he got me there" moment. Yet. (It does happen occasionally.)
Maybe you need to sharpen your senses, because nearly every response to your posts that I've seen has a been a "he got you there" moment. Your faith is strong randy, I'll admit that, but it needs to be........it's all you have!
In the end you'll go where where I go. Before that, I won't have wasted time worshipping anything! I'm planning weekends and holidays while I'm alive, you're planning for a non-existent afterlife.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 08:48:00 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 08:48:00 AM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 10:43:16 PM
Don't move him forward too much yet. He's still dealing with the claim that he is a coward. That's a tough assignment for a well established narcissist.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2016, 10:57:37 PM
'All-powerful' is an incoherent concept, thus no existing being could have such a property. Thus, an all-powerful being cannot exist to raise Christ from the dead, owing to the fact that nonexistent things are impotent.
Scale back your question, and you might get somewhere.
If a God who created the entire universe from nothing exists, would it be too much for him to raise Jesus from the dead?
QuoteIf nobody wrote about Jesus for a hundred years, if his historical presence remained so small that no one would bother to write about him for a hundred years, how would Josephus and Tacitus hear about him?
But people did write about him, and they did so very early. Not a "hundred years".
And your question about Josephus and Tacitus is self-defeating. If they did hear of him, how? Because of the existence of the Christian Church. But who founded this Church?
QuoteI find it interesting that you skipped over the blue part, as if I wouldn't catch it. The part that basically said that there's no reason to believe that Jesus had any supernatural properties at all. And what is Jesus without the supernatural feats? Not really Jesus, is he?
Correct. He would either be a liar (since he claimed to be God knowing full well he wasn't) or a lunatic (since he claimed to be God out of madness).
So, I haven't skipped th e"blue part"; I'm simply waiting to answer it at the appropriate time.
QuoteRobert Price doesn't see history. Richard Carrier doesn't see history. They both see a story. Bart Ehrman, while he took umbridge at Carrier's scathing invective against him, nonetheless respects the man.
Sure. But "respecting" is not the same as "agreeing", is it?
QuoteUh... no. It doesn't "SUCK", and I don't have to "explain away" that stuff. This is because you really don't understand the gulf in the kinds of evidence each claim requires.
There is no need for "extraordinary evidence". This is a smoke-screen that atheists hide behind. At the end of the day, you evaluate the evidence and determine for yourself whether the claims of the resurrection are believable or not.
QuoteWhile Pontius Pilate might not have had any hard, solid, grade-A evidence of his existence before the Pilate stone discovery, his existence is also much easier to establish, mostly due to the fact that he had no genuine big-M miracles associated with him, and was pretty much as he was portrayed, as an ordinary man doing ordinary things. In short, his existence is a very mundane claim. Jesus, on the other hand, does have big-M miracles associated with him, and furthermore, was portrayed from his birth to be an auspicious presence (with Magi traveling from far afield just to meet with a baby Jesus). These are much more difficult to establish. Jesus's existence, in all his son of man glory, is not a mundane claim. It is an extraordinary claim.
So, while the existence of Pilate may not be as firmly established by the gospels, he need not have very solid evidence because the claims of his existence is very mundane. It simply doesn't have a high hurdle to clear. The existence of a miraculous personage like Jesus is extraordinary, and as such requires more and better evidence than the bible can supply.
I agree.
Jesus does have miracles attributed to him. We will need to sort that out. But first, we have to agree that Jesus even existed.
So, what is your view? Was there a man named Jesus (and no, not just any man because "lots of people had that name") whose disciples believed was God, etc.?
Your answer here determines the course of the rest of our discussion.
QuoteAnd further, what if the gospels never existed? Well, the first we would come to know of Pilate, at all, would be the stone. Would this be a shock that I would have to "explain away"? No. It would simply be a discovery that would add to my knowledge.
True. But in this case, the stone corroborates what the authors of the gospels said. Prior to this discovery in 1961, atheists would have argued that Pilate never even existed because there was no record of him, the Romans were such excellent record keepers, Pilate's position was important, etc, etc. The usual sorts of arguments they throw at the existence of Jesus. Then, BOOM! Pilate's existence was confirmed. The authors of the gospels were proven to be historically reliable. Again.
QuoteI've come to terms with the fact that I do not know everything, and I don't need to know everything immediately. If contrary evidence comes to light, I've learned something. I have nothing to learn from you, however, because you keep insisting on me accepting something that cannot be accepted on the paultry evidence you present: the resurrection.
There are two ways to approach the resurrection:
1. From the historical evidence found in historically reliable books or
2. From the facts of history which must be explained (such as the conversions of Saul and James, etc)
QuoteThe Pilate stone corroborates one fact of the bible: that Pontius Pilate existed and was a prefect of Judea. You still have a long way to go to prove the rest of it.
Thank you. I appreciate your acceptance of this fact, and I hope you see it as I do: the gospel writers wanted to write accurate accounts of what they had witnessed, and the archaeological corroboration gives us reason to believe that they accomplish that goal.
I need to run some errands, so I will continue responding later today.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:13:10 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:13:10 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2016, 10:57:37 PM
The chain of custody for the bible is broken in so many places it would not be admitted as evidence in a court of law, let alone a scientific analysis. Anyone could have messed with it along the way, even if all parts of the bible were written when you say they were written.
I covered this in a detailed, four-part OP here:
The Text of the NT is Accurate
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.0
Not only were the texts written early, but we have accurate reconstructions of them as explained in that thread.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2016, 11:28:15 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2016, 11:28:15 AM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 13, 2016, 10:47:50 PM
You paint with a broad brush. I am a member of the ABA, have been for decades, and have had positive life experiences with that group, mostly due to interactions with other members.
Of course, you have no experience whatsoever with the ABA, or its members.
I conclude, on this topic only, that you are full of nonsense.
We will have to agree to disagree. I am not claiming they are doing anything illegal or immoral. Just business ;-( I don't believe in other professions, medicine for instance. The professionals are ... doing what they do ... for personal profit ... like everyone else.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 11:50:44 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 11:50:44 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2016, 10:57:37 PM
Alexander the Great founded Alexandria and its great library. He was king of Macedonia and conquered the Persian empire and sought to conquer India. There are books of his campaigns, with excerpts surving in secondary sources. These are not trivial marks on history, unlike Jesus whose only influence during his lifetime seemed to be some small headaches for the local government, a cult following, and works written by people who had not directly met him.
Socrates had two students, Plato and Aristotle, whom we do have original works and accounts.
Scholars who study ancient literature have far more New Testament manuscripts to work with. This is significant, and I covered that in the other thread. This chart gives you a helpful visual.
(https://ismormonismbiblical.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/josh-mcdowell-chart.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2016, 12:01:42 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2016, 12:01:42 PM
You see this as positive, not a negative. With so many different manuscripts, there are many small differences to be mulled over (by the folks who write their own definitive edition of the Greek text). If there were only one surviving manuscript (as happens with many old texts that miraculously don't get discarded) ... then these curiosities would be less of a problem.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2016, 10:57:37 PM
I understand that it was written by people who had not directly met Jesus. This is hardly a point in your favor.
Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. See the account of this event in Acts 8. Additionally, he learned the proto-creed contained in 1 Co. 15:1-8 from the apostles in Jerusalem, and they had met Jesus, also.
This is covered here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0
QuoteWere the authors of Mark, Matthew, and John not literate, then? Or your much vaunted Paul? You can't have it both ways.
Nor am I attempting to have it both ways. Someone who lives in a predominantly oral culture can know how to read and write. Conversely, people today can develop memory skills that most of us neglect.
This was not one of your stronger points of disagreement.
QuoteAnyway, the kind of memorization you talk of takes the form of rehersed epics, with plenty of time to practice and memorize, and in a particular form that aids memorization. This essentially transforms the memory into procedural memory, which is much more robust because it is practiced. Of course, as the epic developed, who knows how many alterations the text experienced before attaining that form.
The guardrails on the narrative, however, is the fact that the audience is already familiar with the story. While some deviation is permitted to the orator, the audience would not permit wholesale changes.
QuoteAnd finally, what gives you leave to say that "people who had to memorize things all their lives" were "GOOD" at it?
When you practice a skill, you get better at it. This is just common sense.
QuoteCherry picking your defenders again?
Simply pointing out that even atheists reject Carrier. As do theists, of course.
QuoteIn reading through Ehrman's reply, one thought kept occuring to me. You previously mentioned that the Pharasees thought of Jesus as an enemy, and that the man had made such a pest of himself that Pontius Pilate had to intervene directly in what, in any other case, would be an internal matter of the client state. For someone who attracted as much attention to himself as Jesus did, so much so that the Roman constabulary was sent in to capture him, had a Roman trial, deferred to the locals what was to be done with him, and had a Roman execution, why did Jesus have a nonexistent presence in the Roman records. While Ehrman made the point that the Romans didn't record everything as Carrier claims, surely this would have been recorded.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article. It is a pleasure chatting with someone who is willing to consider the material properly.
If there was no written record of Pontius Pilate, why would there be much contemporaneous record of Jesus. As atheists love to point out, the Romans crucified people all the time. Jesus was just one more victim of their oppressive rule of Palestine.
QuoteAnd for someone who did such amaizing things over the course of his lifetime, he didn't seem to attract much attention from the Romans either.
Akin addresses this point here:
The Procurator and the Peasant
http://jimmyakin.com/2014/10/the-procurator-and-the-peasant.html
QuoteThis is hardly a point in Tacitus's favor. Bad evidence doesn't become good in the absence of proper good evidence.
Sorry, but I can't determine which point about Tacitus you are referring to.
QuoteA fair note, but that still leaves Richard Price and other mythicists. Even Ehrman conceeds some points to Carrier.
As is only reasonable. Carrier is a smart guy with a legit Ph.D. He's going to get some things right!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2016, 01:22:41 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2016, 01:22:41 PM
"Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. See the account of this event in Acts 8. Additionally, he learned the proto-creed contained in 1 Co. 15:1-8 from the apostles in Jerusalem, and they had met Jesus, also."
Paul had a vision of Christ, he never met Jesus in the flesh. I would suggest, since the main problem the Jerusalem church had with him, was the manner he was preaching, that it was latitudinarian, resulted in him being tolerated ... but rejected by Peter, Barnabas and Mark eventually ... so long as he only preached to Gentiles not to Jews. The idea that he had a vision of Jesus wasn't controversial. I would suggest the reason why was ... that the Jerusalem church had never met Jesus in the flesh either (literally) ... that they were also recipients of prophetic visions, such as induced by Kabbalah practices.
Paul had a vision of Christ, he never met Jesus in the flesh. I would suggest, since the main problem the Jerusalem church had with him, was the manner he was preaching, that it was latitudinarian, resulted in him being tolerated ... but rejected by Peter, Barnabas and Mark eventually ... so long as he only preached to Gentiles not to Jews. The idea that he had a vision of Jesus wasn't controversial. I would suggest the reason why was ... that the Jerusalem church had never met Jesus in the flesh either (literally) ... that they were also recipients of prophetic visions, such as induced by Kabbalah practices.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 10:36:07 AM
Post by: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 10:36:07 AM
Bible written by Romans about 1700 years ago. They thought it easier to control the ignorant masses with mono theism vs the previous party-on gods. Religion is just another tool the ruling class used to control the ignorant masses.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:47:43 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:47:43 AM
Quote from: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 10:36:07 AM
Bible written by Romans about 1700 years ago. They thought it easier to control the ignorant masses with mono theism vs the previous party-on gods. Religion is just another tool the ruling class used to control the ignorant masses.
Right. Christianity was invented by the Romans to control the masses.
Except that there is no record of this conspiracy (conspiracies being notoriously difficult to maintain) and the process backfired when the Roman empire became Christian.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 12:37:33 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 12:37:33 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMWhy are you going all the way to "who created the entire universe from nothing" levels of power? Let's scale it back again to suit the particular claim: A God who could resurrect Jesus from the dead.
If a God who created the entire universe from nothing exists, would it be too much for him to raise Jesus from the dead?
First off, that's only possible if resurrection is a thing at all. If resurrection is impossible, then God cannot do it, period. The impossibility of resurrection precludes the possibility that a god with the ability to raise people from the dead exists. That's just logic.
So this is scenario is only coherent if resurrection is possible. But seeing how this God hasn't seen fit to raise any other creature besides Jesus, resurrection remains a very very tiny probability, close to zero. That is, P(r) <<< 1 â€" the probability that anyone has ever been resurrected is pretty darn close to 0. But now you've thrown an unevidenced God into the mix. Furthermore, even if we could conceed that resurrection is what happened to Jesus, there's still a chance that your resurrection-causing God wasn't the agent responsible. That is, P(g|r) < 1 â€" the probability, given that anyone has ever been resurrected (namely Jesus), that the agent responsible is God is less than 1. Perhaps not much less than 1, but less than 1. That means that the probability that Jesus was resurrected and that God caused it is P(g&r) = P(r) P(g|r) < P(r) <<< 1. In other words, the probability is less.
In other words, throwing in the interference of God doesn't strengthen your case
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMYou asked me a hypothetical: what if nobody wrote about Jesus such that Josephus and Tacitus were the only one in a position to do so? I answered that if nobody wrote about Jesus, Josephus and Tacitus wouldn't know about him to write at all. At least, if it's the Jesus Josephus and Tacitus are talking about.
But people did write about him, and they did so very early. Not a "hundred years".
And your question about Josephus and Tacitus is self-defeating. If they did hear of him, how?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMThe so-called diciples or more probably their followers. Like it or not, they did all the heavy lifting.
Because of the existence of the Christian Church. But who founded this Church?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMOr legend. That is, the fantastic stuff about him was actually a later addition.
Correct. He would either be a liar (since he claimed to be God knowing full well he wasn't) or a lunatic (since he claimed to be God out of madness).
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMYes. And it also means that the Jesus Myth theory is still a respectable one, dispite your earlier bluster.
Sure. But "respecting" is not the same as "agreeing", is it?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMThe reason why we need extraordinary evidence is because of that extraordinary claim. You don't argue with someone who claims that they've seen cars on the road because... well, you've seen cars on the road, many times, and furthermore, that's what the road is there for. On the other hand, if that person claimed to have seen a pink elephant dancing down the road, that would immediately set the bullshit bells off in your head, because elephants aren't pink, elephants don't usually go down roads, and elephants don't dance. The claim is extraordinary because it is out of the ordinary. You are going to need more than that person's word alone to make you believe in the dancing pink elephant.
There is no need for "extraordinary evidence". This is a smoke-screen that atheists hide behind. At the end of the day, you evaluate the evidence and determine for yourself whether the claims of the resurrection are believable or not.
Even by your own admission, the resurrection is extraordinary. The miracles of Jesus are extraordinary. Even more extraordinary than a dancing pink elephant. There is nothing in the body of scientific knowledge that says that these things should be possible at all.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMThere could be a cult lead by a man named Jesus, with a few followers (otherwise it wouldn't be a cult), as portrayed in the bible (except the miracles). But there might also be a cult lead by Jeshua, or Mark, or Matthew, or John the Baptist, with all combinations of names of cult leaders, composition of followers, and composition of beliefs and claims of divinity. The fudge factors are enormous. Why are you to be believed when you assert that the Jesus et al portrayed in the bible is how it "really happened"?
I agree.
Jesus does have miracles attributed to him. We will need to sort that out. But first, we have to agree that Jesus even existed.
So, what is your view? Was there a man named Jesus (and no, not just any man because "lots of people had that name") whose disciples believed was God, etc.?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMOn that one fact. It's rare that a shyster doesn't include some true information to make the lies go down easier, and deluded truth tellers aren't any less likely to get some or even most things right either. It's very rare for a book to have everything right or everything wrong. That's why serious research papers and books are extensively sourced, with a bibliography and everything, so that there's a way to check facts should you feel neccessary to do so.
True. But in this case, the stone corroborates what the authors of the gospels said. Prior to this discovery in 1961, atheists would have argued that Pilate never even existed because there was no record of him, the Romans were such excellent record keepers, Pilate's position was important, etc, etc. The usual sorts of arguments they throw at the existence of Jesus. Then, BOOM! Pilate's existence was confirmed. The authors of the gospels were proven to be historically reliable. Again.
(Also, have athiests ever argued that Pilate never existed?)
The bible is not an extensively sourced book. To take even the mundane claims seriously, outside, independent corroboration that have not been bundled with the book for the last thousand-plus years are needed.
Sorry, bub, you're just going to have to wait until those claims are confirmed, one by one, before you get to crow victory. We did the same for every other claim in myths and legends of every other culture, and we'll do it for you; you don't get special treatment.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMConversions are not extraordinary evidence of anything. Otherwise, you would be worried by the fact that the Catholic church is the christian sect that loses the most followers due to conversions. Conversions can happen for any number of reasons, and I think we are overstepping our historical bounds to guess on the psychology of an ancient person, especially second-hand.
There are two ways to approach the resurrection:
1. From the historical evidence found in historically reliable books or
2. From the facts of history which must be explained (such as the conversions of Saul and James, etc)
A historically reliable book would be one that is well-sourced in all the relevant facts. The bible is not that book. You would need at least corroborate those facts with other sources before I would consider them to have merrit. Furthermore, even if the bible was historically accurate, it can and will get some things wrong, and the things most likely to be wrong is the stuff that we have good, scientific reasons to believe are virtually impossible, like the resurrection. "Science is true, even in history books."
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:05:20 AMEvery history writer wants to write accurate accounts. Every history writer has failed in this very often. That's why we source and corroborrate.
Thank you. I appreciate your acceptance of this fact, and I hope you see it as I do: the gospel writers wanted to write accurate accounts of what they had witnessed, and the archaeological corroboration gives us reason to believe that they accomplish that goal.
I'll break here. Back in a bit.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 01:19:14 PM
Post by: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 01:19:14 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:47:43 AM
Right. Christianity was invented by the Romans to control the masses.
Except that there is no record of this conspiracy (conspiracies being notoriously difficult to maintain) and the process backfired when the Roman empire became Christian.
NO conspiracy. Everyone with more than 10 brain cells knows it to be a fact. Bible and romans succeeded, see all their gold and power, even today.
All your writing is pseudo science, psycho babble. Not worth 2 seconds. Too obvious how you try to cover previous posts with a full page of BS. I got YOUR number.
Mennonite Brethren criminal scum.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwinr-G51LfMAhUFs4MKHcA8AxcQFghXMAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FExpose-the-Abuse-Mennonites-Holdeman-310772122345807%2F&usg=AFQjCNEeciNz_QvOUiDhXdFxEC_oO9_ecQ (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwinr-G51LfMAhUFs4MKHcA8AxcQFghXMAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FExpose-the-Abuse-Mennonites-Holdeman-310772122345807%2F&usg=AFQjCNEeciNz_QvOUiDhXdFxEC_oO9_ecQ) DISGUSTING MENNONITE BRETHREN PERVERTS
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiLwLPkyLfMAhUohYMKHYbADBsQFggqMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fcalgary%2Fmennonite-ties-to-mexican-drug-cartels-years-in-the-making-1.2626314&usg=AFQjCNFcsUkL8L_2Yl6lwnKUeTbsETGwkA (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiLwLPkyLfMAhUohYMKHYbADBsQFggqMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fcalgary%2Fmennonite-ties-to-mexican-drug-cartels-years-in-the-making-1.2626314&usg=AFQjCNFcsUkL8L_2Yl6lwnKUeTbsETGwkA) LAZY MENNONITE BRETHREN DRUG SMUGGLING SCUM
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 01:31:32 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 01:31:32 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 12:37:33 PM
Why are you going all the way to "who created the entire universe from nothing" levels of power? Let's scale it back again to suit the particular claim: A God who could resurrect Jesus from the dead.
First off, that's only possible if resurrection is a thing at all. If resurrection is impossible, then God cannot do it, period.
God cannot breathe life into an object that does not have it? How do you know this?
QuoteThe impossibility of resurrection precludes the possibility that a god with the ability to raise people from the dead exists. That's just logic.
No, that's just a presupposition. Merely stating your opinion is not the same as providing evidence for what you believe.
Please prove that resurrection of the dead is not possible.
QuoteSo this is scenario is only coherent if resurrection is possible. But seeing how this God hasn't seen fit to raise any other creature besides Jesus, resurrection remains a very very tiny probability, close to zero. That is, P(r) <<< 1 â€" the probability that anyone has ever been resurrected is pretty darn close to 0. But now you've thrown an unevidenced God into the mix. Furthermore, even if we could conceed that resurrection is what happened to Jesus, there's still a chance that your resurrection-causing God wasn't the agent responsible. That is, P(g|r) < 1 â€" the probability, given that anyone has ever been resurrected (namely Jesus), that the agent responsible is God is less than 1. Perhaps not much less than 1, but less than 1. That means that the probability that Jesus was resurrected and that God caused it is P(g&r) = P(r) P(g|r) < P(r) <<< 1. In other words, the probability is less.
If Jesus was raised from the dead, then the probability that Jesus was raised from the dead is one. And if Jesus was raised from the dead, then the probability that God exists goes up really dramatically, doesn't it?
You have asserted that the probability of ANY resurrection is very low, but you have not proven that the probability of Jesus' resurrection is zero.
QuoteYou asked me a hypothetical: what if nobody wrote about Jesus such that Josephus and Tacitus were the only one in a position to do so? I answered that if nobody wrote about Jesus, Josephus and Tacitus wouldn't know about him to write at all. At least, if it's the Jesus Josephus and Tacitus are talking about.
Why not? Were there no Christians in Rome? Were there no Romans who had spoken to these Christians? Pliny speaks of interviewing Christians about their beliefs before condemning them to death.
QuoteThe reason why we need extraordinary evidence is because of that extraordinary claim. You don't argue with someone who claims that they've seen cars on the road because... well, you've seen cars on the road, many times, and furthermore, that's what the road is there for. On the other hand, if that person claimed to have seen a pink elephant dancing down the road, that would immediately set the bullshit bells off in your head, because elephants aren't pink, elephants don't usually go down roads, and elephants don't dance. The claim is extraordinary because it is out of the ordinary. You are going to need more than that person's word alone to make you believe in the dancing pink elephant.
You believe in cars on the road because you have seen cars on the road. There is nothing extraordinary about believing what you have seen. The disciples said that they had seen Jesus alive three days after he died on the cross. He wasn't pink and he wasn't dancing. But he was alive, and that is not something that we would normally expect after someone dies. Nonetheless, there would have been nothing extraordinary about believing that Jesus was alive again if you had seen it with your own eyes. Trusting in your own experience would satisfy you in the case of the cars, the pink elephants or Jesus.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: facebook164 on May 15, 2016, 02:05:36 PM
Post by: facebook164 on May 15, 2016, 02:05:36 PM
Resurection is impossibble because when people die and the heart stop beating parts of the body becomes broken beyond repair. Unless you are willing to believe that absoluteky anything is possible.
But then you are nothing but a fool.
But then you are nothing but a fool.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 02:12:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 02:12:53 PM
Quote from: facebook164 on May 15, 2016, 02:05:36 PM
Resurection is impossibble because when people die and the heart stop beating parts of the body becomes broken beyond repair. Unless you are willing to believe that absoluteky anything is possible.
But then you are nothing but a fool.
For God, anything that can be done is possible. If God can make the entire universe out of nothing, if he can breathe life into dust and make a man, then yes, bringing a dead man back to life is not impossible.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: facebook164 on May 15, 2016, 02:54:39 PM
Post by: facebook164 on May 15, 2016, 02:54:39 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 02:12:53 PMFor santa, delivering presents to children all over the world is not impossible.
For God, anything that can be done is possible. If God can make the entire universe out of nothing, if he can breathe life into dust and make a man, then yes, bringing a dead man back to life is not impossible.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 07:03:56 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 07:03:56 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 09:13:10 AMYour explanation is based on something that looks quite familiar to me, phylogenetic analysis. In organisms, we can compare their genomes at various loci and, with the assistence of an outgroup, figure out their relations. Now, it's a wonderful tool for puzzling out the relation between organisms, but it does have a number of limitations:
I covered this in a detailed, four-part OP here:
The Text of the NT is Accurate
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.0
Not only were the texts written early, but we have accurate reconstructions of them as explained in that thread.
(1) It cannot date the changes. At best, it can only tell you which branches are basal to which other branches. It cannot even tell you the order of changes on different branches. Any date fixed for one branch do not apply to dates for other branches, even at the same locus.
(2) It cannot detect extinct branches. If there were a branch where there is no exant members available, they are completely invisible to the analysis.
(3) It cannot tell you which of the changes are original, or even if any of them are. If there are six examples where at one particular locus, five of them have one letter, and one has another, then you cannot tell if the lonely member is a mutant of the original, or if the five are the more successful mutation, or if they're both mutants and the original is lost. The only way to guard against this is to specify an outgroup â€" a sample separate from the ones of interest, that is similar enough to use as comparison, but assuredly the most basil to the root of the tree (Ie, it split off first).
(4) It does not deal well with horizontal transfers. Horizontal transfers from other branches altogehter are not really a problem, but they can play havoc an analysis on a single group. With enough loci in consideration, these kinds of situations can be detected and even unraveled, but they will always be uncertain to a certain extent.
(5) It cannot get you past bottlenecks. Related to (2), if there occurs a point where all of the side branches to a line become extinct, then this kind of analysis can take you no further than that point. The analysis can only tell you about exant branches; extinct branches must be discovered through other means.
It's easy to see how these limitations would have direct analogues to textual criticism.
Now lets call up that chart...
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 11:50:44 AM
(https://ismormonismbiblical.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/josh-mcdowell-chart.jpg)
...Yeah, that one. Ignoring the rather glaring order of magnitude error in the age of the first copies of Natural History (did the 7500 year difference really not tip anyone off?), the earliest fragment of the NT is AD 114. According to you, the gospels were written about AD 35. That leaves a good 80+ years where we have no fragments available. Even if we accept the majority opinion, it's still a good 44 years before the existence of the first fragments.
It is during this time that the most interesting things are going to be happening to the books of the bible. It's the time where the vqrious sects of christianity (and yes, we know they existed â€" the gnostics were one) are going to be competing for members, borrowing text, and most imporantly, driving each other out of existence. The unique and home versions of books of eaten sects become either incorporated, or often neglected â€"extinct. Since this is the time where the least text exists (you're not going to have many more copies as you do members), it is unlikely we are going to find fragments in exactly the time the biblical books are going to be changing the most. After all, if you only have a few copies of a version of Mark in existence, there are only a few to dispose of should you decide to change it. After this period, when only a handful of sects survive and books finally come to be written, most of the books have already crystalized and attain their final forms.
By the time your textual criticism comes in, where Bruce Metzer notes the similarities in the biblical versions, most of the interesting stuff is already well behind the bottleneck, invisible to the technique, and the only clues of those halcyon days are to be found in the final texts. As such, it's not really surprising to me that, as Ehrman notes, "most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology," because by this time those issues had already been sussed out.
It's also not clear whether these >98% figures are for single named text (only versions of Mark is compared with other versions of Mark, for example), or with multiple texts (comparing Mark to Matthew). I doubt it's the latter, given the large amount of text from Q in Matthew and Luke. But the former is not an acceptable conclusion because (citing the large amount of borrowing from Mark in Mt&L), the gospels are not separate works from each other, but actually separate versions of the same work (or at least, the same schema). And not just the canonical gospels, but also the gospels not included in the canon (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of George, Gospel of Larry, Gospel of Curley, Gospel of Moe â€" okay, the GoT is the only serious one, but there are undoubtedly other gospels besides the canonical ones). After all, we know that the Catholic canon excludes 26 books from the OT and 16 from the NT... that we know of. There were probably much more, and if you exclude all the gospels most problematic for your theology, of course the remainder is going to be no problem. If we had all of the texts from all of those various sects in our hot little hands, I don't think that the theological and ideological concerns would be nearly so clear-cut.
Oh, about that graph... most of the 5000 someodd copies are going to be fragmentary, with a small percentage distinct books. Also, Tacitus's Annals. Isn't that the one with one of your "independent corroborations" of Jesus? If you get to keep a text with a 1000 year gap between work and first copies, I get to keep Socrates and Alexander the Great. Or do corroborations only work when they suit you?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 15, 2016, 07:41:31 PM
Post by: stromboli on May 15, 2016, 07:41:31 PM
Just a little clarification....
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Good article. Recommend you read it. Point being that the creation of the bible by committee was absolutely a political agenda.
The Vatican from its creation was a political operator across Italy and then Europe and into Asia. Watch "The Borgias" on Showtime to get some idea of how they rolled. Its fiction based on actual events, but gives some idea of the politics and cutthroat (literally) tactics involved. Ol' Lucretia had a way with poisons for a reason.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
QuoteIn tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when
> Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of
> 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council
> was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those
> of questionable origin.
> The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
> project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
> atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
> bigotry.
> At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the
> church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known
> Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would
> settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what
> they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a
> book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
> authority to the new church.
The references in the Christian religion of reincarnation, I am told,
> were removed by the Council of Nicea. (See Note A)
Also, we do know that there were many books of supposed prophets
> floating around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided
> which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to
> the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying
> books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the
> Council of Nicea.
Christianity consisted of many sects. By converting Constantine
> (The Great) the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the
> Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of
> Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome
> and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus
> legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy.
>Actually, legend has it that at the Council of Nicea, Constantine was
>unsure of what else to include as a holy scripture (which later the batch
>became the Bible). He threw the batch that he was to choose from onto a
>table. Those that remained on the table were in, those that fell off were
>out.
There are one or two places where there is evidence of which is 'right',
> the most famous example perhaps being the account of the raising of Lazarus
> which was removed from Mark on the instructions of the Council of Nicea as
> it hat overtones of a 'mystery cult'.
The Roman Catholic Church created the canon of Christian
> scripture at the Council of Nicea, at the same time that they determined
> the doctrine of Trinity (through the assassination of a few of the voting
> bishops, by one vote).
Good article. Recommend you read it. Point being that the creation of the bible by committee was absolutely a political agenda.
The Vatican from its creation was a political operator across Italy and then Europe and into Asia. Watch "The Borgias" on Showtime to get some idea of how they rolled. Its fiction based on actual events, but gives some idea of the politics and cutthroat (literally) tactics involved. Ol' Lucretia had a way with poisons for a reason.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 08:17:52 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 08:17:52 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PMThis is false, as Baruch already explained.
Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. See the account of this event in Acts 8.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PMYeah. We called it "rote memorization." I don't know what you kids do these days, but when I was in school, we had to know facts by heart. None of that iPhone shit.
Nor am I attempting to have it both ways. Someone who lives in a predominantly oral culture can know how to read and write. Conversely, people today can develop memory skills that most of us neglect.
Furthermore, while you can train yourself to memorize easier, all of the methods I'm aware of require you to transform the memory in some way, because all of them require you to link those memories to imagery or a rhyme or somesuch. Even the ones from mideval Europe.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PM"Familiar with the story" does not mean that they have memorized an accurate version of the story. Also, that narrative has to be appealing to them in some way, otherwise they'll just take their ears elsewhere, and there were other sects to choose from. Some playing up is to be expected.
The guardrails on the narrative, however, is the fact that the audience is already familiar with the story. While some deviation is permitted to the orator, the audience would not permit wholesale changes.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PMDo remember that it's these societies of oral tradition is where all of the other myths and legends of the world come from. Am I to take them seriously too because they were memorized tales from old? Should I sacrifice you to Quetzalcoatl, who is sustained by the blood of humans? He must be dying for a tall glass of blood by now. Perhaps I should search for the island of Polyphemus in the Mediterranian? After all, Homer â€"with his good oral memoryâ€" has obviously preserved the memory of the giant cyclops for all time. Or what of the tale of the trickster spirit Coyote and the wasichu, where wiley Coyote tricks the too-clever-for-his-own-good guy into giving Coyote his horse and clothes?
When you practice a skill, you get better at it. This is just common sense.
Or does this good oral memory only work when it suits you?
Nah, there's a limit to how much you can train this sense. Modern psychological studies into memory do not help you in your case.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PMYeah, they did crucify people, but not that much. Jesus's conflict with the Pharasees was an internal matter. Unless Jesus was acting against the Roman state, there's no reason why Pilate would even be bothered. Internal governence is why the Romans left the Pharasees in charge of Judea in the first place, as was part of their deal. The Roman Empire was a true empire, with a monopole (Rome) and periphery states under control of the regional governers, and with people mostly under their own governence provided it was subservient to Rome.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article. It is a pleasure chatting with someone who is willing to consider the material properly.
If there was no written record of Pontius Pilate, why would there be much contemporaneous record of Jesus. As atheists love to point out, the Romans crucified people all the time. Jesus was just one more victim of their oppressive rule of Palestine.
Which makes the biblical account really kind of puzzling. It's as if the tail is wagging the dog here. If Jesus did anything against Roman interests, Pilate would simply deal with him without input from the Pharasees; if Jesus did nothing against the Romans, Pilate wouldn't have interfered.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PMYeah, it seems reasonable, except when you consider a very imporant point: Jesus was executed by Roman authority and apparently came back from the dead. Are you really saying that no Roman got wind of Jesus coming back and thinking, "Hey, didn't we already kill that guy?" A man in Judea defied Roman authority, and defied the gods themselves, and came back from the dead, as well as performing other miracles during his life and extra life.
Akin addresses this point here:
The Procurator and the Peasant
http://jimmyakin.com/2014/10/the-procurator-and-the-peasant.html
And the Romans have nothing to say on that? Really?
Keep your story. I'm not buying that.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 12:13:12 PMTacitus was writing about Christ. All the Romans who supposedly met Jesus were already long gone, and it seems for all intents and purposes were all "Nothing unusual happened today" in any case. As such, all of the people spreading the word of Jesus initially spoke Aramaic and/or Hebrew, not Latin. Being on the other side of the empire, it is unlikely Tacitus spoke either. Thus, the report of Jesus had to have passed through at least one set of ears that spoke Aramaic and Latin on its way to Tacitus. Hearsay.
Sorry, but I can't determine which point about Tacitus you are referring to.
This makes it different from second-hand accounts, where some text is lifted directly from the original text into a secondary source as excepts, and paraphrases are done with the original text right in front of you.
Alright. Caught up. I'm going to take a break.
PS, thank goodness for automatic backups!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 15, 2016, 08:45:59 PM
Post by: stromboli on May 15, 2016, 08:45:59 PM
I have a couple of points
The necessity of a Jesus narrative to be derived from a Hebrew source. I don't count myself a Biblical scholar, but is there such an account? As far as I am aware, everything in the NT was both written and originated in Greek. The Septuagint was translated about 300 BCE. I know that there were later revised versions of Torah that post date the Septuagint.
In other words:
1. Lacking a Hebrew source for any Jesus narrative, I would expect it calls into question any authenticity, specifically of the Gospels. I personally do not know of any translation. It could just as easily have been created post tense by Roman Christians to bolster their story.
2. The Septuagint was translated before some changes in the relevant Torah Scrolls. Torah were an ongoing set of directives vis a vis Judaism, as I understand. Therefore the Septuagint version accepted as the OT would not include any later revisions, meaning that there could be many differences of accepted Jewish belief from the OT. All of which call into question both the relevance and the authenticity of source material.
The necessity of a Jesus narrative to be derived from a Hebrew source. I don't count myself a Biblical scholar, but is there such an account? As far as I am aware, everything in the NT was both written and originated in Greek. The Septuagint was translated about 300 BCE. I know that there were later revised versions of Torah that post date the Septuagint.
In other words:
1. Lacking a Hebrew source for any Jesus narrative, I would expect it calls into question any authenticity, specifically of the Gospels. I personally do not know of any translation. It could just as easily have been created post tense by Roman Christians to bolster their story.
2. The Septuagint was translated before some changes in the relevant Torah Scrolls. Torah were an ongoing set of directives vis a vis Judaism, as I understand. Therefore the Septuagint version accepted as the OT would not include any later revisions, meaning that there could be many differences of accepted Jewish belief from the OT. All of which call into question both the relevance and the authenticity of source material.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 08:47:57 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 07:03:56 PM
Now lets call up that chart...
...Yeah, that one. Ignoring the rather glaring order of magnitude error in the age of the first copies of Natural History (did the 7500 year difference really not tip anyone off?), the earliest fragment of the NT is AD 114. According to you, the gospels were written about AD 35. That leaves a good 80+ years where we have no fragments available. Even if we accept the majority opinion, it's still a good 44 years before the existence of the first fragments.
Sorry for the typo. 7,500 years would be a long time, wouldn't it?
Now, I have not said that ALL of the gospels were written about AD 35. But your point still holds. There is a gap. And I think the gap is insignificant. So do the scholars who actually do the work. In fact, scholars of other ancient literature are jealous of the wealth of manuscripts that NT scholars have at their disposal.
QuoteIt is during this time that the most interesting things are going to be happening to the books of the bible. It's the time where the vqrious sects of christianity (and yes, we know they existed â€" the gnostics were one) are going to be competing for members, borrowing text, and most imporantly, driving each other out of existence. The unique and home versions of books of eaten sects become either incorporated, or often neglected â€"extinct. Since this is the time where the least text exists (you're not going to have many more copies as you do members), it is unlikely we are going to find fragments in exactly the time the biblical books are going to be changing the most. After all, if you only have a few copies of a version of Mark in existence, there are only a few to dispose of should you decide to change it. After this period, when only a handful of sects survive and books finally come to be written, most of the books have already crystalized and attain their final forms.
But we are not in the dark about this period, are we? Read the Didache, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias, and Ignatius of Antioch, etc. And most notably (and fatal to your argument) is that during the period of "silence" between the writing of the gospels (which occurred between AD 40-45 and AD 95) and AD 114, there were still living witnesses alive to consult regarding the events in Jerusalem on Easter morning. The number of living witnesses dropped over time, but the Apostle John lived until near the end of the first century. This closes the gap considerably. And when we consider the disciples of the disciples:
Peter > Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch
John > Papias, Polycarp > Irenaeus
etc.
we can easily see that there is no gap in the memory of the Church at all.
It is obvious that you are an intelligent person, but are you unfamiliar with the Apostolic Fathers and their successors, the Early Church Fathers? If so, you should know that the NT can be reconstructed from the writings of the ECF's completely independently of the manuscripts themselves. So, there is more than one way to conclude that the modern reconstruction of the NT is reliable.
QuoteBy the time your textual criticism comes in, where Bruce Metzer notes the similarities in the biblical versions, most of the interesting stuff is already well behind the bottleneck, invisible to the technique, and the only clues of those halcyon days are to be found in the final texts. As such, it's not really surprising to me that, as Ehrman notes, "most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology," because by this time those issues had already been sussed out.
And this should not be a problem. The apostles and disciples, led by the Holy Spirit, reflected upon the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and came to some conclusions about what it meant. The core of the Christian faith was established early by living eyewitnesses.
QuoteIt's also not clear whether these >98% figures are for single named text (only versions of Mark is compared with other versions of Mark, for example), or with multiple texts (comparing Mark to Matthew). I doubt it's the latter, given the large amount of text from Q in Matthew and Luke. But the former is not an acceptable conclusion because (citing the large amount of borrowing from Mark in Mt&L), the gospels are not separate works from each other, but actually separate versions of the same work (or at least, the same schema). And not just the canonical gospels, but also the gospels not included in the canon (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of George, Gospel of Larry, Gospel of Curley, Gospel of Moe â€" okay, the GoT is the only serious one, but there are undoubtedly other gospels besides the canonical ones). After all, we know that the Catholic canon excludes 26 books from the OT and 16 from the NT... that we know of. There were probably much more, and if you exclude all the gospels most problematic for your theology, of course the remainder is going to be no problem. If we had all of the texts from all of those various sects in our hot little hands, I don't think that the theological and ideological concerns would be nearly so clear-cut.
Are you a scientist? I get the impression that you would benefit from reading a good book on the subject. And if you REALLY want to be sure of your opposition to the gospels, then be sure to read a book by a respected Christian scholar and find the errors in his work. This is in keeping with the idea that you need to know your opponent's arguments better than he does. So, learn the BEST Christian explanation and prove it wrong.
QuoteOh, about that graph... most of the 5000 someodd copies are going to be fragmentary, with a small percentage distinct books. Also, Tacitus's Annals. Isn't that the one with one of your "independent corroborations" of Jesus? If you get to keep a text with a 1000 year gap between work and first copies, I get to keep Socrates and Alexander the Great. Or do corroborations only work when they suit you?
Scholars have no problem accepting Tacitus and Socrates and Alexander the Great. And the accuracy of the New Testament. You seem to be making my point for me.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 08:55:21 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 08:55:21 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 01:31:32 PMLogic. If God could do that, resurrection wouldn't be impossible, but possible. If resurrection is impossible, period, then it is impossible for God. They are mutually exclusive propositions. (And life is not a substance that can be breathed, but a process.)
God cannot breathe life into an object that does not have it? How do you know this?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 01:31:32 PMI cover both possibilities, Randy. Don't get your panties in a twist because I don't assume that your God is big-O omnipotent.
No, that's just a presupposition. Merely stating your opinion is not the same as providing evidence for what you believe.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 01:31:32 PMNo. You simply don't understand how probability works. P(g|r) is the conditional probability of god doing it, given that Jesus is raised from the dead. This is the only place where any assumption that Jesus actually has been raised from the dead exists.
If Jesus was raised from the dead, then the probability that Jesus was raised from the dead is one. And if Jesus was raised from the dead, then the probability that God exists goes up really dramatically, doesn't it?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 01:31:32 PMOf course not. I showed that proposing a God capable of resurrecting Jesus doesn't improve his chances of being raised. Because a mere proposition of God doesn't compel him to exist. That's the basic error behind all 'logical proofs' of god.
You have asserted that the probability of ANY resurrection is very low, but you have not proven that the probability of Jesus' resurrection is zero.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 01:31:32 PMPlease keep in mind that this is a Pliny writing in a history that has the bible. Half the problem that Romans had with christians is their complete reluctance to pay any kind of homage to the Roman gods. Without a bible and preachers speaking with its authority to prevent compromise, Roman christians would probably come to be much more amenable to that. In the Roman empire, the state didn't really care what you believed as long as you did that, and there would be no persecution of christians, and much less attention drawn to them to see what all the fuss was about.
Why not? Were there no Christians in Rome? Were there no Romans who had spoken to these Christians? Pliny speaks of interviewing Christians about their beliefs before condemning them to death.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 01:31:32 PMIt's not just that I've seen one car on the road, or even a few. I've seen many cars on the road, and further, cars are made to drive on roads, roads are made to be driven on by cars, and I've driven cars on the road. But coming back from the dead is something a precious few creatures in the world have claimed. Yes, seeing Jesus in the flesh would make it easier for the diciples to swallow, but even they should realize just how ridicious that would seem to anyone they would tell about this. If they had any scientific bent, then they could have done some proper documentation, but as it is, the opportunity was lost. Too bad, so sad.
You believe in cars on the road because you have seen cars on the road. There is nothing extraordinary about believing what you have seen. The disciples said that they had seen Jesus alive three days after he died on the cross. He wasn't pink and he wasn't dancing. But he was alive, and that is not something that we would normally expect after someone dies. Nonetheless, there would have been nothing extraordinary about believing that Jesus was alive again if you had seen it with your own eyes. Trusting in your own experience would satisfy you in the case of the cars, the pink elephants or Jesus.
---
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 08:47:57 PMI think so, but any conclusion you come up with is always going to be some flavor of "maybe." Any conclusions of textual criticism is going to have to be weighed against everything you know. "Science is true, even in textual criticism."
You raise some good questions, and all of them are answered comfortably by textual criticism.
Before I insult your intelligence, you DO understand what that is and how it works at least at a layman's level, right?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:20:20 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:20:20 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 15, 2016, 08:55:21 PM
Logic. If God could do that, resurrection wouldn't be impossible, but possible. If resurrection is impossible, period, then it is impossible for God. They are mutually exclusive propositions. (And life is not a substance that can be breathed, but a process.)
"breathing life" = "initiating that process"
Poetry is not your thing, is it?
If God can initiate the process of life, he can re-initiate that process in a dead body.
QuoteNo. You simply don't understand how probability works. P(g|r) is the conditional probability of god doing it, given that Jesus is raised from the dead. This is the only place where any assumption that Jesus actually has been raised from the dead exists.
I studied this subject in college (note the avatar?), but it's been awhile.
QuoteOf course not. I showed that proposing a God capable of resurrecting Jesus doesn't improve his chances of being raised. Because a mere proposition of God doesn't compel him to exist. That's the basic error behind all 'logical proofs' of god.
If there is no God capable of raising him from the dead exists, the his chances of being raised are decidedly worse. :lol:
QuoteIt's not just that I've seen one car on the road, or even a few. I've seen many cars on the road, and further, cars are made to drive on roads, roads are made to be driven on by cars, and I've driven cars on the road. But coming back from the dead is something a precious few creatures in the world have claimed. Yes, seeing Jesus in the flesh would make it easier for the diciples to swallow, but even they should realize just how ridicious that would seem to anyone they would tell about this. If they had any scientific bent, then they could have done some proper documentation, but as it is, the opportunity was lost. Too bad, so sad.
They did realize this. Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 09:22:44 PM
Post by: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 09:22:44 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 10:55:41 AMNow you're explicitly a liar -- how very christian of you.
As shown above, I listened carefully to your objection. I answered your direct questions.
You haven't answered anything, and you've ignored my objections. You've just re-asserted you're right without offering one shred of independently confirmable solid evidence.
Mods? I vote ban. He's long since degenerated into preaching.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:39:48 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:39:48 PM
Quote from: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 09:22:44 PM
Now you're explicitly a liar -- how very christian of you.
You haven't answered anything, and you've ignored my objections. You've just re-asserted you're right without offering one shred of independently confirmable solid evidence.
Mods? I vote ban. He's long since degenerated into preaching.
If you think I have ignored your question, post it again - either in this thread or in the thread I started to collect all the questions that I have allegedly ignored:
One Question, One Response.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10069.0
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 10:50:37 PM
Post by: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 10:50:37 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:39:48 PMWhy? So you can go "LA LA LA I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT HERE'S MORE MADE UP STUFF THAT I BELIEVE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT PROVES I'M RIGHT AND I DIDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO ANYTHING YOU WROTE LA LA LA"? It's a waste of time. You have no interest in honest debate, you're just out to preach.
If you think I have ignored your question, post it again - either in this thread or in the thread I started to collect all the questions that I have allegedly ignored:
One Question, One Response.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10069.0
I don't *think* you've ignored my questions. I *know* you have. And you do too. Creating another thread is just a dilatory tactic: "HEY LOOK OVER HERE SO MAYBE YOU WON'T NOTICE I HAVE DODGED DIRECT QUESTIONS."
I don't really care what you believe. When you claim to think you know what I believe or why I believe it, and when you deliberately mistake your beliefs for actual settled facts, that's when you cross over into dishonesty. If you at least had the honesty to admit that the evidence for your mythology is a) flimsy at best and b) not universally accepted to demonstrate what you claim, that would make all the difference in the world.
But you won't, and so demonstrate that you are a dishonest disputant more interested in preaching than debating.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:36:27 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
Do you admit then that the afforementioned census would not and could never be conducted as described, and as such any such account must be a fabrication by someone who is ignorant of the logistics of running a kingdom or empire, or what the purpose of a census is?
Census Edict for Roman Egypt, 104 C.E.:
Quote"Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, declares:
The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes [an Egyptian administrative district] be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, the Cavalry Commander, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month..."
More here: http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html
Alternate translation:
QuoteGaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt.
As a house-to-house registration has been authorized, it is necessary to order all persons absent from their nomes [an Egyptian administrative district] for any reason whatsoever to return to their homes that they may perform the customary business of registration and may apply themselves to the cultivation of the land, as is their proper duty. I realize, however, that the city has need of some of the peasants ; and it is my will that all persons who appear to have good reason to remain in the city shall register themselves with . . . and Festus, the prefect of the cavalry, whom I have assigned to this duty, from whom those persons who prove that it is necessary for them to remain in the city will receive the necessary authorization to remain until Epiph 30 in the current month . . .
http://droitromain.upmf-grenoble.fr/Anglica/Aegypti29_johnson.htm
So, Hakurei Reimu, would you like to run that by me again about how a census would not and could never be conducted as described" in the gospels???
And how the gospel "must be a fabrication by someone who is ignorant of the logistics of running a kingdom or empire"?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Once again, the authors of the New Testament are shown to be accurate in the smallest details. Here are two examples I've provided so far (with more to come):
1. The Pilate Stone confirms the existence of Pontius Pilate.
2. The Edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus confirms the need to travel to Bethlehem.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:58:27 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:58:27 PM
Quote from: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 10:50:37 PM
Why? So you can go "LA LA LA I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT HERE'S MORE MADE UP STUFF THAT I BELIEVE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT PROVES I'M RIGHT AND I DIDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO ANYTHING YOU WROTE LA LA LA"? It's a waste of time. You have no interest in honest debate, you're just out to preach.
I don't *think* you've ignored my questions. I *know* you have. And you do too. Creating another thread is just a dilatory tactic: "HEY LOOK OVER HERE SO MAYBE YOU WON'T NOTICE I HAVE DODGED DIRECT QUESTIONS."
I don't really care what you believe. When you claim to think you know what I believe or why I believe it, and when you deliberately mistake your beliefs for actual settled facts, that's when you cross over into dishonesty. If you at least had the honesty to admit that the evidence for your mythology is a) flimsy at best and b) not universally accepted to demonstrate what you claim, that would make all the difference in the world.
But you won't, and so demonstrate that you are a dishonest disputant more interested in preaching than debating.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.
I'm being dishonest because I won't "admit" things that I don't believe? How does THAT work?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
A lot of posts are directed at me, so I have not responded to every single one. However, if I have failed to answer any important question you posed in any thread, post it here so that I may respond.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2016, 10:57:21 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2016, 10:57:21 PM
Per Stromboli ...
People think that Jews are homogeneous. Any exposure to Falasha Jews should blow that away. We are not racially homogenous, nor doctrinally homogeneous. We don't all follow the same Torah ... the Karaites and the Samaritans dispute the written and oral Torah of the rabbinic faction. This was even less true 2000 years ago, Jews were heterogenous. Jews have developed pidgin or creole tongues according to whichever group of Gentiles they were living with. In Spain they developed Ladino, in Germany they developed Yiddish. But there are many more, mostly extinct tongues. One of these was Judeo-Greek. The Septuagint and the NT are in Judeo-Greek, not in Pagan-Greek (which came in multiple varieties among the Pagans). Simpletons overly simplify ... they just say Koine Greek ... the most common uneducated Greek dialect of that time. Koine Greek and that of the Hellenistic Jews is similar, but they are not the same. Even words that are written the same, don't mean the same, because Pagan and Jewish culture are different.
My scholarship ... Papias says that ...
"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
This is misinterpreted by later scholars ... "logia" refers to sayings (not a narrative gospel) ... the Q or the Gospel of Thomas in Judeo-Greek. Not Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Judeo-Greek we have now, was in Greek letters ... but this is not necessary. One can do Judeo-Greek on Hebrew letters just fine. I think someone ignorant of the details ... couldn't tell the difference between a Judeo-Greek text in Hebrew letters (aka square Aramaic, a distinction without a difference) and a Hebrew text. Papias nor his source quotes actual material from this "logia". By interpretation, I would see this as the origin of the fictional gospels.
Analysis of the gospels usually confirm that they are composed by literate people, not illiterate fishermen, and with very few phrases deliberately called out ... in Aramaic. If one is committed to a historical Jesus, one has to believe he spoke Aramaic, not Judeo-Greek, not Hebrew (only scholars did that). But this puts the cart before the horse. If I don't suppose a historical Jesus, I can accept that the Gospels were composed by literate men, several generations after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, men who were part of the Jewish Hellenistic community. The last 50 native speakers of Judeo-Greek (expelled from Egypt by Nasser) are probably dead now. A native speaker of modern Greek, doesn't automatically understand ancient Greek in any dialect ... they are different languages ... same as an Israeli doesn't understand Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic.
Now I can't say, why the Gospels were written, and written anonymously. Obviously Papias was concerned about this circa 100 CE and wanted to help create the historical Jesus movement along with the Synoptic Gospels, whose message is different from that of Paul or the Gospel of John ... which speak more of Christ the god, not Jesus the man.
And this is all I will interject on this circular turkey shoot. Scripture doesn't matter. Papias himself says ...
"As Papias clearly states, he found the "living voice" superior to the content of the written texts available to him."
Indeed ... I would take one person possessed by the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) over 1000 theologians. The creation of writings, as per Socrates ... is the initial loss of confidence in a particular Messianic Jewish community ... a Judeo-Greek community ... and the worst nightmare of the Aramaic/Hebrew speaking Pharisees who are the foundation of almost all later Judaism. G-d and religion aren't complicated, but clergy makes it so ... and I think Yochanan the Immerser would agree!
People think that Jews are homogeneous. Any exposure to Falasha Jews should blow that away. We are not racially homogenous, nor doctrinally homogeneous. We don't all follow the same Torah ... the Karaites and the Samaritans dispute the written and oral Torah of the rabbinic faction. This was even less true 2000 years ago, Jews were heterogenous. Jews have developed pidgin or creole tongues according to whichever group of Gentiles they were living with. In Spain they developed Ladino, in Germany they developed Yiddish. But there are many more, mostly extinct tongues. One of these was Judeo-Greek. The Septuagint and the NT are in Judeo-Greek, not in Pagan-Greek (which came in multiple varieties among the Pagans). Simpletons overly simplify ... they just say Koine Greek ... the most common uneducated Greek dialect of that time. Koine Greek and that of the Hellenistic Jews is similar, but they are not the same. Even words that are written the same, don't mean the same, because Pagan and Jewish culture are different.
My scholarship ... Papias says that ...
"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
This is misinterpreted by later scholars ... "logia" refers to sayings (not a narrative gospel) ... the Q or the Gospel of Thomas in Judeo-Greek. Not Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Judeo-Greek we have now, was in Greek letters ... but this is not necessary. One can do Judeo-Greek on Hebrew letters just fine. I think someone ignorant of the details ... couldn't tell the difference between a Judeo-Greek text in Hebrew letters (aka square Aramaic, a distinction without a difference) and a Hebrew text. Papias nor his source quotes actual material from this "logia". By interpretation, I would see this as the origin of the fictional gospels.
Analysis of the gospels usually confirm that they are composed by literate people, not illiterate fishermen, and with very few phrases deliberately called out ... in Aramaic. If one is committed to a historical Jesus, one has to believe he spoke Aramaic, not Judeo-Greek, not Hebrew (only scholars did that). But this puts the cart before the horse. If I don't suppose a historical Jesus, I can accept that the Gospels were composed by literate men, several generations after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, men who were part of the Jewish Hellenistic community. The last 50 native speakers of Judeo-Greek (expelled from Egypt by Nasser) are probably dead now. A native speaker of modern Greek, doesn't automatically understand ancient Greek in any dialect ... they are different languages ... same as an Israeli doesn't understand Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic.
Now I can't say, why the Gospels were written, and written anonymously. Obviously Papias was concerned about this circa 100 CE and wanted to help create the historical Jesus movement along with the Synoptic Gospels, whose message is different from that of Paul or the Gospel of John ... which speak more of Christ the god, not Jesus the man.
And this is all I will interject on this circular turkey shoot. Scripture doesn't matter. Papias himself says ...
"As Papias clearly states, he found the "living voice" superior to the content of the written texts available to him."
Indeed ... I would take one person possessed by the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) over 1000 theologians. The creation of writings, as per Socrates ... is the initial loss of confidence in a particular Messianic Jewish community ... a Judeo-Greek community ... and the worst nightmare of the Aramaic/Hebrew speaking Pharisees who are the foundation of almost all later Judaism. G-d and religion aren't complicated, but clergy makes it so ... and I think Yochanan the Immerser would agree!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2016, 11:24:28 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2016, 11:24:28 PM
It is OK to not to admit to anything, Randy. For you we are in a court run by a hanging judge (that guy in Ft Smith Arkansas). Your lawyer would tell you ... plead innocent, and try to break out of jail! Yehah!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 17, 2016, 02:31:21 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 17, 2016, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:50:30 PMIf I told you my dick was 14 inches long would you feel compelled to "study the matter"? If I told you that I catch fairies in jars with the kids on Saturday nights would you feel compelled to spend hundreds of dollars to come witness this to see if it were, in fact, true? Have you ever looked for Bigfoot? Have you ever taken a boat and sonar onto Loch Ness? Have you ever prayed to Satan to get his side of the story?
How will you know whether there is reason to believe without studying the matter?
But why would you study something you don't care?
See, I'm not sure you're a real atheist. I think you're an apatheist. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/sad_yes.gif)
Let me help you with those answers. They are, "Ewe! No!", "Not really.", "Probably not.", "No." and "FUCK NO!"
Why should I pay your beliefs any more mind than you pay the millions of "not your" beliefs out there? Why, ONCE AGAIN, are the standards higher for me than they are for you? What is so super special about your religion that sets it apart from any other? From my perspective, not a damned thing.
And you can label me whatever you like. It doesn't bother me. I know what I am and am comfortable with it. If you feel the need to slap a different label on me then, like everything else about your posts, feel free to do something entirely for yourself with no regard for others and pretend you have some "knowledge".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 05:04:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 17, 2016, 02:31:21 PM
If I told you my dick was 14 inches long would you feel compelled to "study the matter"? If I told you that I catch fairies in jars with the kids on Saturday nights would you feel compelled to spend hundreds of dollars to come witness this to see if it were, in fact, true? Have you ever looked for Bigfoot? Have you ever taken a boat and sonar onto Loch Ness? Have you ever prayed to Satan to get his side of the story?
Let me help you with those answers. They are, "Ewe! No!", "Not really.", "Probably not.", "No." and "FUCK NO!"
Why should I pay your beliefs any more mind than you pay the millions of "not your" beliefs out there? Why, ONCE AGAIN, are the standards higher for me than they are for you? What is so super special about your religion that sets it apart from any other? From my perspective, not a damned thing.
And you can label me whatever you like. It doesn't bother me. I know what I am and am comfortable with it. If you feel the need to slap a different label on me then, like everything else about your posts, feel free to do something entirely for yourself with no regard for others and pretend you have some "knowledge".
Oh, you miss the point here completely.
If you really think Catholicism/Christianity are bogus, it seems to me that you ought to study them carefully in order to be able diprove them EVEN BETTER than you already can.
IOW, it makes sense to know your opponent's arguments even better than he does, doesn't it?
But that's only if you care. You don't, so it doesn't matter.
This is an odd place to spend so much of your free time, though. I don't care about knitting, so I don't post in knitting forums.
But that's just me.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 02:57:03 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 02:57:03 PM
The Author of the Gospel of John
by Max Andrews
http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/gospel-of-john/
A logical order of argument for why the author of the fourth Gospel, John, was written by John the apostle.
Irenaeus (c. 130â€"200):
“John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was a resident at Ephesus in Asia†(Against Heresies 3.1.2).
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150â€"215):
“John, last of all … composed a spiritual Gospel†(quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7).
On the other side of the argument, those who doubt apostolic authorship take their point of departure from a quote of Papias (c. 60â€"130) by Eusebius (c. 260â€"340). Papias appeared to refer to a John other than the apostle:
“And if anyone chanced to come who had actually been a follower of the elders, I would enquire as to the discourses of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples; and the things which Aristion and John the Elder, disciples of the Lord, say†(Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.4â€"5, emphasis added).
by Max Andrews
http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/gospel-of-john/
A logical order of argument for why the author of the fourth Gospel, John, was written by John the apostle.
- The author identified himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved†(21:20, 24), a prominent figure in the Johannine narrative (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20).
- The author used the first person in 1:14, “we have seen his glory,†revealing that he was an eyewitness to the accounts contained in his Gospel.
- The “we†of 1:14 refers to the same people as does 2:11, Jesus’ disciples. Thus, the writer was an apostle, an eyewitness, and a disciple of Jesus.
- Since the author never referred to himself by name, he cannot be any of the named disciples at the Last Supper: Judas Iscariot (13:2, 26â€"27), Peter (13:6â€"9), Thomas (14:5), Philip (14:8â€"9), or Judas the son of James (14:22).
- The disciple that Jesus loved is also one of the seven mentioned in the last chapter: “Simon Peter, Thomas (called ‘Twin’), Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, Zebedee’s sons, and two other of his disciples†(21:2; see 21:7).
- Peter and Thomas have already been eliminated. Nathanael is also ruled out as a possible author since the author remains unnamed in John’s Gospel.
- The author must be either one of “Zebedee’s [two] sons†or one of the “two other of [Jesus’] disciples.†Of the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, James can safely be ruled out since he was martyred in the year 42 (see Acts 12:2). This leaves John the son of Zebedee as the probably author of the Gospel.
Irenaeus (c. 130â€"200):
“John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was a resident at Ephesus in Asia†(Against Heresies 3.1.2).
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150â€"215):
“John, last of all … composed a spiritual Gospel†(quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7).
On the other side of the argument, those who doubt apostolic authorship take their point of departure from a quote of Papias (c. 60â€"130) by Eusebius (c. 260â€"340). Papias appeared to refer to a John other than the apostle:
“And if anyone chanced to come who had actually been a follower of the elders, I would enquire as to the discourses of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples; and the things which Aristion and John the Elder, disciples of the Lord, say†(Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.4â€"5, emphasis added).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 18, 2016, 03:06:19 PM
Post by: stromboli on May 18, 2016, 03:06:19 PM
https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/
And so on. Long article. Read it.
QuoteNo Mention of Gospels Until 2nd Century
There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named†(Dissertations upon Irenaeus).
The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] â€" do not occur once in all his writings†(Christian Records, p. 71).
Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.
Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.
These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are “according†to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, “They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.†Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever†(Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).
The Gospel According To Mark
The Gospel According to Mark is the most important of the synoptic gospels because it is the primary source for Matthew and Luke. Seventy six percent of Mark is reproduced almost word-for-word in both Matthew and Luke. An additional 18% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew but not in Luke, and an further 3% of Mark is in Luke but not in Matthew. This means that 97% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke.
Matthew contains 606 of Mark’s 661 verses. Luke contains 320 of Mark’s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces 31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke.
Much of what is present in this section I learned from a Christian with excellent credentials, Ian Bond, who who closes his webpage with “Yours, In Christâ€. His web page, “Who Wrote The Synoptic Gospels†is much better and shorter than mine. I encourage you to read what he has to say and then come back. The diagram below is lifted, without permission, from his writings. I hope he is understanding. Clicking on the diagram takes you to his website, so it’s kinda like not copying it.
Who Wrote Mark and What Were His Sources?
Not even the Bible claims that Mark was an eye witness to Jesus’ ministry. Modern, non Christian biblical scholars believe that the gospel of Mark was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written). These stories were in circulation year after year, told in different languages and in different countries from that of Jesus.
That’s it. The source for the gospel of Mark is other peoples’ stories and writings. In other words, all of Mark’s sources were at best, second hand, more likely fifth or sixth hand. What happens to stories that circulate orally for years? Obviously, they come to be changed in the retelling. Thus, the source for much of the synoptic gospels is no more than hearsay.
Apologists dismiss the charge of “hearsay†by pointing to the strength of the “oral traditionâ€. The simple childhood game of “Telephone†is sufficient to illustrate the point that stories told mouth to mouth for 35 years or more can’t possibly retain their original content.
The Gospel of Mark is the first of the Gospels to proffer quotes allegedly from Jesus. We question how authentic these quotes could possibly be, given the convoluted path from Jesus’ lips to “Marks†writing and the years that passed since the words were allegedly spoken. We have written a treatise on the impossibilities of Jesus’ actual words being accurately recorded 40+ years after they were spoken.
And so on. Long article. Read it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Flanker1Six on May 18, 2016, 03:33:28 PM
Post by: Flanker1Six on May 18, 2016, 03:33:28 PM
The gospels are too true! It says so right in the sales brochure............................eeeeeerrrrrrrrr; I mean Bible.
Your sole is essentially like your money. Wery waluable; you would not trust money to any bahnk, nyet? So! You should trust sole to bible! Becuz, bible iz true....................says so in one bible book. Trust me.....................I hahve pen!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjr1KyEDW0E
Your sole is essentially like your money. Wery waluable; you would not trust money to any bahnk, nyet? So! You should trust sole to bible! Becuz, bible iz true....................says so in one bible book. Trust me.....................I hahve pen!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjr1KyEDW0E
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Unbeliever on May 18, 2016, 03:46:21 PM
Post by: Unbeliever on May 18, 2016, 03:46:21 PM
The pen is mightier than the dork...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 04:07:40 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 04:07:40 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 18, 2016, 03:06:19 PM
https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/
And so on. Long article. Read it.
I will. Printing it out now.
Thanks.
PS - The opening paragraphs don't appear to be too problematic from my perspective. Maybe he has something substantive further on...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: 21CIconoclast on May 18, 2016, 04:31:43 PM
Post by: 21CIconoclast on May 18, 2016, 04:31:43 PM
Randy, hello?
Why do you continue to LIE about your primitive Catholic faith? Huh? The gospels WERE NOT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS! They're built upon HEARSAY, just like your alleged other attempts to prove your serial killer Yahweh god Jesus, period! The alleged gospels were written 70 years plus, book of Mark, AFTER the alleged life of your serial killer Jesus god, FACT! And these are "eyewitnesses? LOL!!!
Wow, you pseudo-christians will go to great lengths in trying in vain to prove your mythical Jesus character, won't you? LOL The logical mind would be hiding Jesus, as god incarnate, because of him being greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent, AND A BASTARD CHILD TO THE TRUE TRADITION OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE BECAUSE JOSEPH WAS NOT THE PATERNAL FATHER!
Who in their right mind would want to worship a primitive god concept that is truthfully described above? Wait, i am sorry, the inept minds of Catholic Christians do. My bad.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on May 18, 2016, 04:47:36 PM
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on May 18, 2016, 04:47:36 PM
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.. Ok you're all eye witnesses to me writing blah blah blah blah blah blah blah so you KNOW THAT I DID*
*except that none of you actually saw me write it. Someone may have hacked my account and wrote it.
*except that none of you actually saw me write it. Someone may have hacked my account and wrote it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 04:53:36 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 04:53:36 PM
Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 18, 2016, 04:31:43 PM
Randy, hello?
Why do you continue to LIE about your primitive Catholic faith? Huh? The gospels WERE NOT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS!
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
No, seriously. I really appreciate the opportunity to post even MORE explanations of the Christian position for all to see. Keep those questions coming! (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
SIX REASONS TO ACCEPT THE GOSPELS AS EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
I. Eyewitness Authority Is Inherent to the Gospels
The Gospel accounts are written as historical narratives. The life of Jesus is intertwined with historical events locating it geographically and historically. The Gospels repeatedly affirmed their own historical, eyewitness nature, mentioning key figures who served to validate the history of Jesus as eyewitnesses:
John 1:6-7
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
II. Eyewitness Authority Was Commissioned by Jesus
Jesus understood the eyewitness status of the Apostles. In fact, he commissioned them to grow the Kingdom on the basis of their eyewitness observations:
Luke 24:44-49
Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.†Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.â€
Acts 1:6-8
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?†He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.â€
III. Eyewitness Authority Was Affirmed By the Gospel Authors
The authors of the Gospels proclaimed their authority as eyewitnesses (or as chroniclers of the eyewitnesses). While some skeptics have attempted to disassociate the Biblical statements from the Gospel authors to refute the authorship of the Gospels, the earliest believers embraced the traditional authorship of the eyewitnesses (and we can also make good circumstantial cases for the traditional authorship). The Gospel authors (and their sources) repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses:
1 Peter 5:1
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…
2 Peter 1:16-17
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
1 John 1:1-3
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life â€" and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us â€" what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us…
John 21:24-25
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
IV. Eyewitness Authority Was Confirmed By the First Believers
The early believers and Church Fathers accepted the Gospel accounts as eyewitness documents. In fact, many Church fathers wrote about the Gospels. Papias, when describing the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, said, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.†In addition, Papias, Ireneaus, Origen and Jerome affirmed the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel by the tax collector described in the account, written for the Hebrews in his native dialect and translated as he was able.
V. Eyewitness Authority Was Foundational to the Growth of the Church
It really shouldn’t surprise us that the authority of the Gospels was grounded in their eyewitness status. The eyewitness authority of the Apostles was key to the expansion of the early Church. The apostles were unified in the manner in which they proclaimed Christ. They repeatedly identified themselves, first and foremost, as eyewitnesses:
Acts 2:23-24, 32
“This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him… God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.â€
Acts 3:15
“You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.â€
Acts 4:20
“For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heardâ€
Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
Acts 10:39-42
“We are witnesses of everything he (Jesus) did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen â€" by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.â€
VI. Eyewitness Authority Was Used to Validate New Testament Writings
Even Paul understood the importance of eyewitness authority. He continually referred to his own encounter with Jesus to establish the authenticity of his office and writings. Paul also directed his readers to other eyewitnesses who could corroborate his claims:
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
Taken from:
The Case for the Eyewitness Status of the Gospel Authors
by J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-case-for-the-eyewitness-status-of-the-gospel-authors/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 18, 2016, 05:04:46 PM
Post by: stromboli on May 18, 2016, 05:04:46 PM
So basically your method is proving Harry Potter is true by quoting Harry Potter. Gotcha. Going to go mow the lawn now. Done here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 18, 2016, 05:04:46 PM
So basically your method is proving Harry Potter is true by quoting Harry Potter. Gotcha. Going to go mow the lawn now. Done here.
It's funny you should ask...
Why the Claims About Jesus Are Not the Same as the Claims About Peter Pan
By J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/why-the-claims-about-jesus-are-not-the-same-as-the-claims-about-peter-pan/
As a skeptic and new investigator of the Gospel accounts, my philosophical naturalism dictated what I was willing to accept from the Biblical authors. As I investigated the accounts, I recognized many of the locations and historical claims could be corroborated by archaeology, but this fact alone did not incline me to believe the Gospel accounts were true, especially when it came to their claims about the supernatural activities of Jesus (especially the Resurrection). The mere fact an account may be rooted in some form of true history doesn’t mean everything in the account is accurate or true. When Scottish novelist and playwright J. M. Barrie wrote the fictional story of Peter Pan, for example, he set the account in late Victorian London. A thousand years from now, archaeologists will certainly find archaeological evidence confirming the existence of London and may even find ancient accounts of other writers describing the Peter Pan story. But the archaeological or manuscript support confirming a portion of Pan’s story would not guarantee the authenticity of the entire account. The true existence of London does not corroborate the true existence of Peter, Wendy, Tinker Bell or the Lost Boys. So even though I discovered archaeology support for many of the historical claims of the Gospels, I still rejected the supernatural elements. My investigation of the Gospels would require me to move beyond the simple archaeology to investigate the authors themselves as eyewitnesses. Once I was done, I realized the claims about Jesus were not the same as the claims about Peter Pan:
The Authors of the Gospels Claimed to Be Eyewitnesses
There is a difference between the authors of the Gospels and J. M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan. Barrie never wrote his story as a true claim about history from the perspective of an eyewitness. Instead, he first introduced the character of Peter Pan in a small section of The Little White Bird, a 1902 novel. He later adapted the character into a stage play for children and eventually the character appeared in a separate publication. All the while, Barrie never claimed to be writing true history as an eyewitness. The authors of the Gospels, on the other hand, repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses:
2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
1 John 1:1,3
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life… we proclaim to you also
John 21:24-25
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
The Authors of the Gospels Can Be Tested As Eyewitnesses
In the end, the authors themselves must be tested for their reliability. There is a four-part template we use to test eyewitnesses in any criminal trial or investigation. If we can determine a witness was actually present to see what they reported, can be corroborated by some form of external evidence, has been honest and accurate over time, and has no ulterior motive or bias to tell a lie, we can consider the witness to be reliable. If we apply this four part template to J. M. Barrie, he is quickly exposed as an author of fiction (this shouldn’t surprise us given the fact he never claimed to be an eyewitness). When we apply this investigative template to the authors of the Gospels, however, they survive remarkably as reliable witnesses, especially when compared to other accurate historians of antiquity. I’ve written about this in Cold-Case Christianity, where I examined these four categories of eyewitness reliability and applied them to the Gospel authors.
The Authors of the Gospels Died As Eyewitnesses
J. M. Barrie and his publishers profited from the story of Peter Pan in a number of ways. The authors of the Gospels were not as fortunate. In fact, the eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus died for their claims without ever recanting their testimony. They suffered persecution for these accounts, and although there is evidence second generation Christians were tortured and forced to recant (as described in Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan), there is absolutely no evidence the original eyewitnesses ever recanted in such a way. On the contrary, there are numerous accounts describing the martyrdom of the eyewitnesses. These authors never enjoyed the success of a stage play or successful publication. Instead, they suffered for their claims, yet held firm to their accounts in spite of the tremendous pressure to change their testimony.
The case for the reliability of the Gospels is built on far more than simple archaeological support. It is built instead on the cumulative case for the reliability of the gospel eyewitnesses. The archeological evidence is one small part of this collective case. The story of Peter Pan is a fictional claim, the story of Jesus is an historical claim. As such, the Gospel accounts can be tested to see if they accurately describe the Jesus of history. The claims about Jesus are not the same as the claims about Peter Pan.
+++
The same may be said regarding Harry Potter. Done here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: doorknob on May 18, 2016, 08:46:49 PM
Post by: doorknob on May 18, 2016, 08:46:49 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:39:06 PM
I have demonstrated the following sequence:
1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.
Now, you can choose to ignore this argument, prove it wrong or concede that I'm right thus far. That's up to you.
Still to come:
Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?
There's virtually no evidence of anything thing you just said. Actually there is much historical evidence that none of it happened and no such person as jesus existed. Jesus was a legend of the time and some one decided to make him a prophet/god. Extensive records were kept by Rome and not a single word was written about said events. That sounds a lot like a legend that never happened to me.
Stop believing every stupid thing the catholic church tells you to believe and look for the evidence on you're own. You'll find out there is none.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 18, 2016, 09:10:32 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 18, 2016, 09:10:32 PM
Well, since this is the gospel thread, I venture to share some loving morsels from the bible that maybe some have forgotten already:
"And as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king, bring them in and execute them right in front of me"
Luke 19:27 Always that damn free will!
"So if your eye causes you to lust, cut it out and throw it away."
Matthew 5:29
"You cannot serve both god AND money."
Matthew 5:29 Take heed RCC!
"So if your hand or your foot (!) causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away."
Matthew 18:8
"You must love the lord your god with all your heart, all your souls and all your mind."
Matthew 23:37
"Fear god who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell."
Luke 12:5
" The master will return unannounced and unexpected and he will cut the slave (servant) into pieces and banish him with the unfaithful." (The pieces?)
Luke 13:46
"I have come to divide people against each other."
Luke 13:57
I hope you all can feel the love...
"And as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king, bring them in and execute them right in front of me"
Luke 19:27 Always that damn free will!
"So if your eye causes you to lust, cut it out and throw it away."
Matthew 5:29
"You cannot serve both god AND money."
Matthew 5:29 Take heed RCC!
"So if your hand or your foot (!) causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away."
Matthew 18:8
"You must love the lord your god with all your heart, all your souls and all your mind."
Matthew 23:37
"Fear god who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell."
Luke 12:5
" The master will return unannounced and unexpected and he will cut the slave (servant) into pieces and banish him with the unfaithful." (The pieces?)
Luke 13:46
"I have come to divide people against each other."
Luke 13:57
I hope you all can feel the love...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2016, 09:32:48 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2016, 09:32:48 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 18, 2016, 09:10:32 PMThis few quotes gives me goose bumps of pure love!
Well, since this is the gospel thread, I venture to share some loving morsels from the bible that maybe some have forgotten already:
"And as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king, bring them in and execute them right in front of me"
Luke 19:27 Always that damn free will!
"So if your eye causes you to lust, cut it out and throw it away."
Matthew 5:29
"You cannot serve both god AND money."
Matthew 5:29 Take heed RCC!
"So if your hand or your foot (!) causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away."
Matthew 18:8
"You must love the lord your god with all your heart, all your souls and all your mind."
Matthew 23:37
"Fear god who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell."
Luke 12:5
" The master will return unannounced and unexpected and he will cut the slave (servant) into pieces and banish him with the unfaithful." (The pieces?)
Luke 13:46
"I have come to divide people against each other."
Luke 13:57
I hope you all can feel the love...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 18, 2016, 09:39:40 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 18, 2016, 09:39:40 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:20:20 PMNot necessarily. The ability to re-start life does not follow from its ability to start it. You can start a well-functioning car, but you can't start a car with its engine missing. You can start a solid rocket motor, but you can't re-start it. There are plenty of processes that can only be set in motion once and only once.
"breathing life" = "initiating that process"
Poetry is not your thing, is it?
If God can initiate the process of life, he can re-initiate that process in a dead body.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:20:20 PM
I studied this subject in college (note the avatar?), but it's been awhile.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:20:20 PMWell, first you have to show that he rose from the dead. You haven't even shown the possiblity yet, let alone its plausibility.
If there is no God capable of raising him from the dead exists, the his chances of being raised are decidedly worse. :lol:
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:20:20 PMThe thing is, they didn't even convince all christians of this. The docetics didn't even believe that Jesus was a real man, but rather that his appearances on earth (pre- and post-resurrection) were illusions. The references in John to Jesus being "in the flesh" (a phrase repeated often) is a dig against the docetics.
They did realize this. Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For crying out loud, even some people back in the early days of christianity didn't believe that Jesus was a real person, and you have the gall to call any doubter today devoid of reason?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:36:27 PMYou still lose. Both translations refer to people returning to their proper places of residences. You know, the places where they make their livelihoods and such. People living in the boonies may need to be counted in cities, but if you hail from a town, you don't have to move. According to you, Nazareth was a town, and as such it would be the town where Jesus's father should be counted.
Census Edict for Roman Egypt, 104 C.E.:
Alternate translation:
So, Hakurei Reimu, would you like to run that by me again about how a census would not and could never be conducted as described" in the gospels???
And how the gospel "must be a fabrication by someone who is ignorant of the logistics of running a kingdom or empire"?
Unless Nazareth wasn't a town.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:36:27 PMSure, keep telling yourself that.
Once again, the authors of the New Testament are shown to be accurate in the smallest details. Here are two examples I've provided so far (with more to come):
1. The Pilate Stone confirms the existence of Pontius Pilate.
2. The Edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus confirms the need to travel to Bethlehem.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hydra009 on May 18, 2016, 09:42:56 PM
Post by: Hydra009 on May 18, 2016, 09:42:56 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 18, 2016, 05:04:46 PMSo basically your method is proving Harry Potter is true by quoting Harry Potter. Gotcha. Going to go mow the lawn now. Done here.Well, it was an eyewitness account. An eyewitness account of magic by someone who may or may not have actually been there. I'm sure the courts would be just fine with that.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 19, 2016, 05:56:08 AM
Post by: stromboli on May 19, 2016, 05:56:08 AM
Read 4-5 different articles by historians and others that pretty specifically state that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitness accounts. There is also pretty strong evidence that at least a couple of the Gospels are forgeries
http://news.discovery.com/history/bible-new-testament-forgery-110518.htm
That is, btw, Randy's boy Ehrman- a former Evangelical preacher.
Also contradictions
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id2.html (Long article.)
Apologetics doesn't apparently include comparative research from either neutral or opposing sources.
http://news.discovery.com/history/bible-new-testament-forgery-110518.htm
QuoteAccording to the biblical scholar, at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries, while only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were probably written by him.
"Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon," says Ehrman.
Individuals claiming to be Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians, he adds.
Contradictory views, discrepancies in the language and the choice of words among the books attributed to Paul are all evidence of this forgery, the author asserts.
For example, Ehrman’s analysis of the book of Ephesians shows that the text, filled with long Greek sentences, doesn’t match with Paul’s peculiar Greek writing style, made of short sentences.
Moreover, the content of what the author says "stands at odds with Paul’s own thought, but is in line with the Ephesians," writes Ehrman.
The biblical scholar, who also challenges the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, disputes the assumption that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles of Peter or anything else.
That is, btw, Randy's boy Ehrman- a former Evangelical preacher.
Also contradictions
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id2.html (Long article.)
QuoteThe fraudulent nature of the New Testament is readily apparent to anyone who studies it objectively. The gospels have been shown to be fiction pure and simple while many of the so-called epistles of Paul are obvious counterfeits as are those of Peter and John. (See Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton L. Mack.) In fact, forgery was so rampant throughout the early Christian establishment that Paul taught his followers to recognize his handwriting in an attempt to insure authenticity2. So to point out a few forgeries in this book of forgeries is like prosecuting a serial rapist for jay walking. However, the following stories are among those deserving special attention because they are often presented as factual history, particularly to the young.
In the following I deal almost exclusively with the gospels. Forgeries are rampant, however, throughout the entire New Testament, especially among the so-called epistles of Paul. For more information on this subject see, "The Pauline Epistles," "The First Bible" and "Are the Gospels True?".
The Virgin Birth - With the development in the last half of the twentieth century of the twin medical techniques, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, it became possible for a "virgin," a woman who had never had sexual intercourse with a man, to conceive and bear a child. But, could such a thing have happened two thousand years ago? No way!
In the gospels of Matthew and Luke, whose authors remain unknown, we are told at the beginning of the birth narratives that a young Jewish woman who had never had normal sex relations with a man did in fact become pregnant and after term she delivered a healthy baby boy. It is known euphemistically as "The Virgin Birth." Many Christians take it literally. Ask them why and they will in all probability say it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, Isaiah 7:14 to be exact. Is their interpretation of the prophecy in question valid, or is it not? What follows is derived in part from the writings of Samuel Golding of the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, Jerusalem, Israel.
Throughout all of Christendom the New Testament is considered to be the divinely inspired word of God. Therefore, its message is accepted without question. Messianic Jews have been taught by Christian missionaries that it is the fulfillment of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible). In short, the Old Testament prophets are supposed to have spoken about Jesus thus confirming his claim to be the long awaited Jewish messiah. One of the many "proofs" of this astounding claim comes from a misinterpretation of Isaiah 7.14 (KJV) which reads, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel.
The verse which mentions a virgin can only be found in the KJV which is incorrectly translated. Other Bibles such as the NEB, RSV and the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Version) do not give credence to the belief in a virgin birth. There are a few points worth noting as we compare the original Hebrew with the English translation of the KJV.
a] In Hebrew the verse reads in the present tense, "is with child" and not the future tense as recorded in Christian Bibles (KJV.) In Hebrew it states she is pregnant, not will become pregnant. In fact, the Catholic Bible, Isaiah 7.14 reads as follows: "The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son." Jesus was not born until seven hundred years after this sign was given, which certainly could not be described as "soon." The text reads 'is with child', therefore how could this woman be kept pregnant for seven hundred years until Jesus arrived?
b] This is not a prophecy for some future date, it is a 'ot' (sign ). Whenever 'ot' is used in Hebrew it means something which will come to pass immediately. 'Ot' is used elsewhere in the Bible: This shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord (Isaiah 38.7-8), and "If they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign" (Ex 4.8-9). In each case the sign comes to pass immediately, not seven hundred years later.
c] The name of the child was Emmanuel. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find that Jesus is called Emmanuel. The angel informs Joseph in a dream that Mary will give birth to a son and that he should be called Jesus (Matt. 1:20-21, Luke 2;21.) All the evidence indicates that we are dealing with two different individuals here, Emmanuel and Jesus.
d] The text specifically says, 'the young woman' -'alma' whereas KJV changes the translation to 'a virgin '. The definite article is changed to the indefinite article, whereas the original text is evidently referring to the young woman known to both Isaiah and Ahaz, and not to some unknown person living far in the future. Here the prophet Isaiah is simply relating to the fact that the young woman is having a baby and that will be a sign to king Ahaz.
Apologetics doesn't apparently include comparative research from either neutral or opposing sources.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 19, 2016, 06:42:28 AM
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 19, 2016, 06:42:28 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:08:11 PMIt's just another bullshit thread which you will abandon when you've had your ass handed to you repeatedly.
This is my first thread covering WHO wrote the gospels, and I have presented more information on this topic here than I have posted elsewhere.
Enjoy!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 19, 2016, 06:46:27 AM
Post by: stromboli on May 19, 2016, 06:46:27 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 19, 2016, 06:42:28 AM
It's just another bullshit thread which you will abandon when you've had your ass handed to you repeatedly.
Lol. The derp is strong in our boy Randy.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 06:58:38 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 06:58:38 AM
Apologetics isn't some intellectual branch of investigation independent of a specific religion's tall tales and fallacious reasoning. It is the religion itself. It is nothing more than an attempt at a rehash, an opportunity to present for a second time all of the religion's tall tales and fallacious reasoning used in the original introduction.
The satirical sarcasm of the quip, "Move on. Nothing to see here," is never more appropriate than when people get sucked into religious apologetics. There may be a reordering of words, and change of tone, but the same bullshit is repackaged and regurgitated over and over using the same fallacious mental process that created the original compilation of unsupported myth in the first place. "Nothing to see here, folks." The words may be reordered, but the mental process behind them is exactly the same.
It's like watching creation science be debunked as religion and NOT science, only to have the charlatans repackage the whole sham as "Intelligent Design", and present the same bullshit to the public a second time. The words have changed, but the fallacious reasoning behind the stupid has not.
And why they label this tool of evangelical indoctrination "apologetics" has always made me wonder. If you do something so stupid that it requires an apology, then before you even bother with the apology, you need to stop doing the stupid first. Otherwise, you just keep repeating the mistake and apologizing for it, like a drunk or drug addict keeps apologizing to his wife and kids for his ongoing failure. The behavior doesn't change, nor does the stupid, and those two things are the crux of the problem to begin with. The tactic of apologetics doesn't apologize, it simply repeats the unsupported claims of magic and myth.
The satirical sarcasm of the quip, "Move on. Nothing to see here," is never more appropriate than when people get sucked into religious apologetics. There may be a reordering of words, and change of tone, but the same bullshit is repackaged and regurgitated over and over using the same fallacious mental process that created the original compilation of unsupported myth in the first place. "Nothing to see here, folks." The words may be reordered, but the mental process behind them is exactly the same.
It's like watching creation science be debunked as religion and NOT science, only to have the charlatans repackage the whole sham as "Intelligent Design", and present the same bullshit to the public a second time. The words have changed, but the fallacious reasoning behind the stupid has not.
And why they label this tool of evangelical indoctrination "apologetics" has always made me wonder. If you do something so stupid that it requires an apology, then before you even bother with the apology, you need to stop doing the stupid first. Otherwise, you just keep repeating the mistake and apologizing for it, like a drunk or drug addict keeps apologizing to his wife and kids for his ongoing failure. The behavior doesn't change, nor does the stupid, and those two things are the crux of the problem to begin with. The tactic of apologetics doesn't apologize, it simply repeats the unsupported claims of magic and myth.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 07:50:39 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 07:50:39 AM
Quote from: doorknob on May 18, 2016, 08:46:49 PM
There's virtually no evidence of anything thing you just said. Actually there is much historical evidence that none of it happened and no such person as jesus existed. Jesus was a legend of the time and some one decided to make him a prophet/god. Extensive records were kept by Rome and not a single word was written about said events. That sounds a lot like a legend that never happened to me.
Stop believing every stupid thing the catholic church tells you to believe and look for the evidence on you're own. You'll find out there is none.
I got the information I posted on these four points from Protestant authors and scholars.
Now, my question to you would be this: If there is NO evidence, how do you respond to each of the points I have posted in the OP's?
You are encouraging me to look for the evidence because you believe I'll find none.
I encourage you to look for the evidence because I believe you will find a lot! And many atheists are becoming believers when they come to that realization.
Rather than simply taking what
Good luck!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 08:06:56 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 08:06:56 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 07:50:39 AM
I encourage you to look for the evidence because I believe you will find a lot! And many atheists are becoming believers
Big Whoop! Many theists are becoming atheists, because they see how weak that same evidence is. If you want a statistical pissing contest, you've come to the wrong place. Prove your case or stop jacking off.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 19, 2016, 09:33:05 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 19, 2016, 09:33:05 AM
Apologetics=making shit up and then lying about it. But being sincere about it; and stating belief and faith as FACT. Hypocrite=apologetics; pure and simple.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 09:40:39 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 09:40:39 AM
Quote from: reasonist on May 18, 2016, 09:10:32 PM
Well, since this is the gospel thread
It is.
Do you have a question about the identity of the authors of the gospels at this point?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 09:48:50 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 09:48:50 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 18, 2016, 09:42:56 PM
Well, it was an eyewitness account. An eyewitness account of magic by someone who may or may not have actually been there. I'm sure the courts would be just fine with that.
Has the author, J.K. Rowling, indicated that she was writing actual history in any way? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/no.gif)
Does anyone of sound mind believe that she was? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/no.gif)
I covered the differences between the claims for Jesus and the claims for Peter Pan in another post.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 09:58:54 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 09:58:54 AM
The oldest manuscript of the NT in existence (currently displayed at the U of Manchester) is a papyrus fragment which has been dated to ca. 140 CE. It's possible that it was written (not before) 120 CE. That is at least 90 years after the alleged death of the alleged Jesus. So of course it is ludicrous to talk about eye witnesses of any events during the time of Jesus. Now lets see some of the would be headlines in today's paper about events 90-110 years ago.
"Armundsen discovers North Pole!"
"Radio receiver invented!"
"Wright brothers build first airplane."
"The first talking motion picture in theaters!"
That was already a time of wire communication, printed press and libraries!! Now imagine 1,900 years ago. Primitive desert dwellers who thought the earth was flat "and for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a breath taking example of emerging technology" (S. Harris), wrote about oral tradition from centuries past. To rely on such documents as the basis for our world view today, is to reject 2,000 years of civilizing insights that we achieved through secular politics and scientific progress. It would be equivalent to giving medical students today text books from 1906!
"The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both-and mixes explosively with both. Only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all of the violent crimes in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East (and many other places.sic) Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for this dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. All is changed, changed utterly."
R.Dawkins
"Armundsen discovers North Pole!"
"Radio receiver invented!"
"Wright brothers build first airplane."
"The first talking motion picture in theaters!"
That was already a time of wire communication, printed press and libraries!! Now imagine 1,900 years ago. Primitive desert dwellers who thought the earth was flat "and for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a breath taking example of emerging technology" (S. Harris), wrote about oral tradition from centuries past. To rely on such documents as the basis for our world view today, is to reject 2,000 years of civilizing insights that we achieved through secular politics and scientific progress. It would be equivalent to giving medical students today text books from 1906!
"The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both-and mixes explosively with both. Only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all of the violent crimes in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East (and many other places.sic) Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for this dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. All is changed, changed utterly."
R.Dawkins
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 10:09:25 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 10:09:25 AM
Quote from: stromboli on May 19, 2016, 05:56:08 AM
Read 4-5 different articles by historians and others that pretty specifically state that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitness accounts. There is also pretty strong evidence that at least a couple of the Gospels are forgeries
http://news.discovery.com/history/bible-new-testament-forgery-110518.htm
That is, btw, Randy's boy Ehrman- a former Evangelical preacher.
Yes, and Ehrman's work needs to be combed through carefully.
SOME of what Ehrman says it spot on. For example, I have "Did Jesus Exist?" here on my desk...with lots of passages highlighted in yellow by me. Yes, Jesus did exist.
But he also makes some mistakes...draws some bad conclusions, overlooks or discounts some information while placing too much emphasis on other data.
He's NOT a believer for a REASON (or reasons).
Ehrman has stellar academic credentials (which is why he thinks mythicism is a joke, btw), but Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God must be approached in the same way. Some good, some bad.
Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s Forged: Writing in the Name of Godâ€"Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/book-review-of-bart-d-ehrman%E2%80%99s-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god%E2%80%94why-the-bible%E2%80%99s-authors-are-not-who-we-think-they-are/
Is the New Testament Forged?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-the-new-testament-forged-49605/
It looks to me like an atheist is making a boatload of money selling bad books to folks who want someone to tell them what they want to hear.
QuoteApologetics doesn't apparently include comparative research from either neutral or opposing sources.
Have you READ a lot of books by Christian apologists? There are enough books of this type to fill a library and more than enough YouTube videos to occupy your evenings indefinitely. I'd be willing to bet that for every book by Hitchens or Dawkins or Carrier, half a dozen or more have been written in response.
And there are plenty of online debates between believers and Carrier, Ehrman, Krauss and all your heroes. I think that Christians have more than held their own in these contests. Clearly, the theists had done their homework.
Bart Ehrman's "Forged": fanciful and faulty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUIPWJfPSkY
Maybe the New Atheists got the jump on us initially, but the Christian Church is responding BIG TIME with a flood of new apologetics initiatives.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 10:13:22 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 10:13:22 AM
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 19, 2016, 06:42:28 AM
It's just another bullshit thread which you will abandon when you've had your ass handed to you repeatedly.
Not by you.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 10:34:15 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 10:34:15 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 08:06:56 AM
Big Whoop! Many theists are becoming atheists, because they see how weak that same evidence is. If you want a statistical pissing contest, you've come to the wrong place. Prove your case or stop jacking off.
Some believers lose their faith in God because the evidence that does exist has not been explained to them adequately. This is the fault of the Church.
Other believers lose their faith in God because they have been hurt by other Christians or scandalized by hypocrisy. This, too, is the fault of the Church.
But others lose their faith in God because they would rather enjoy their sins than obey God's law. This is the fault of the atheist.
As for proving my case, see the OP.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 19, 2016, 10:57:11 AM
Post by: stromboli on May 19, 2016, 10:57:11 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 10:34:15 AM
Some believers lose their faith in God because the evidence that does exist has not been explained to them adequately. This is the fault of the Church.
Other believers lose their faith in God because they have been hurt by other Christians or scandalized by hypocrisy. This, too, is the fault of the Church.
But others lose their faith in God because they would rather enjoy their sins than obey God's law. This is the fault of the atheist.
As for proving my case, see the OP.
Personally I'm more inclined to believe somebody like Richard Carrier who has a doctorate from Cambridge, but if you want to present yourself as some kind of final authority, have at it. Carrier maintains Jesus never existed and is a myth. The mere fact that there is an ongoing discussion between historians whether Jesus existed at all ought to be a clue, but apparently not. There is a considerable body of evidence to contradict everything you are saying- which again ought to be a clue, but apparently not.
The advent of Jesus should have been the biggest event in history. Yet is somehow managed to happen so far under the radar that nothing was mentioned until decades later. Regardless of what you maintain about any of this, your sources are mostly apologists with an agenda, which we tend to discount exactly for that reason. You are also an apologist with an agenda. And that is why we don't take you seriously.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 11:31:52 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 11:31:52 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 10:34:15 AM
Some believers lose their faith in God because the evidence that does exist has not been explained to them adequately. This is the fault of the Church.
Other believers lose their faith in God because they have been hurt by other Christians or scandalized by hypocrisy. This, too, is the fault of the Church.
But others lose their faith in God because they would rather enjoy their sins than obey God's law. This is the fault of the atheist.
As for proving my case, see the OP.
1. Most atheists would tell you that the evidence isn't convincing enough to instill a belief in them, but go ahead and make up other reasons that please you more. It would seem that the evidence in favor of God is only convincing to those who believe it. Then it becomes second nature to see evidence where none exists. Your own arguments continually demonstrate this psychological quirk of your own confirmation bias.
2. The hypocrisy of believers, while it does exist, is neither here nor there. Such hypocrisy plays a minor role at best, it only begins the questioning process. The only thing that counts in the end is evidence.
3. That people would turn against God so that they can enjoy sin, is what theists would do. For atheists it's irrelevant, and silly beyond reason.
See, you start with a belief in God as the default. Then all of what you consider to be reasoning proceeds from that premise. Some of it is actually logical if you already accept the unsupported premise. Atheists don't start there. We don't believe in God and need evidence of his existence just to begin any constructive reasoning. Until that becomes self evident or proven to us, you will have to continue to make up reasons why we don't believe you, your church, or your apologists. Everything in your ideology depends on that first premise. Atheists don't take that leap of faith. We could if God could be demonstrated, but then it wouldn't be a leap of faith.
All of your posting exhorts us to reason backwards from your belief in a Holy Father to knowing he exists. That defies logic, but you can never admit to that.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 11:38:17 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 11:38:17 AM
Taking a 'clue' requires rational thought and reason, which is the arch enemy of faith. Our resident illusionist has been bobsmacked a hundred times here and still can't take a clue.
Again, there are only two possibilities: A) Either the 'holy' books are depicting factual, historical events
or B) Religion is a human invention for control and accumulating wealth
If A) then the sheep enslave themselves to a pernicious mass killer
If B) then the sheep waste their time with bronze age fairy tales
However, we do have conclusive proof of the RCC's atrocities over the last 1,500 years. So if you are OK with murder, rape, torture and genocide, by all means defend that blood cult. If you are decent human you must be disgusted by that and find it unworthy of even the slightest consideration.
Again, there are only two possibilities: A) Either the 'holy' books are depicting factual, historical events
or B) Religion is a human invention for control and accumulating wealth
If A) then the sheep enslave themselves to a pernicious mass killer
If B) then the sheep waste their time with bronze age fairy tales
However, we do have conclusive proof of the RCC's atrocities over the last 1,500 years. So if you are OK with murder, rape, torture and genocide, by all means defend that blood cult. If you are decent human you must be disgusted by that and find it unworthy of even the slightest consideration.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:55:15 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:55:15 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 18, 2016, 09:39:40 PM
You still lose. Both translations refer to people returning to their proper places of residences. You know, the places where they make their livelihoods and such. People living in the boonies may need to be counted in cities, but if you hail from a town, you don't have to move. According to you, Nazareth was a town, and as such it would be the town where Jesus's father should be counted.
Nope.
The edict clearly recognizes that people would be leaving the city and that some "peasants" would be needed:
QuoteKnowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before
Where were the country people going, Hakurei? Why this de-population of the cities? Why didn't they simply register for the census in town? Well, we don't know "why" for sure, but we do know that people were expected to return to their ancestral homes for the purposes of the census.
Just as the New Testament suggested.
QuoteUnless Nazareth wasn't a town.
According to the Bible, Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM.
And you denied that a census would be conducted in such a disruptive manner. You wrote:
QuoteDo you admit then that the afforementioned census would not and could never be conducted as described, and as such any such account must be a fabrication by someone who is ignorant of the logistics of running a kingdom or empire, or what the purpose of a census is?
And I have just shown you non-biblical evidence that populations were expected to move just as Luke reported in his gospel.
Now, at some point, the honest person would say, "Damn. I didn't know that. Okay, you made your point."
ARE you an honest person, Hakurei? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:59:38 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 18, 2016, 09:39:40 PM
Not necessarily. The ability to re-start life does not follow from its ability to start it. You can start a well-functioning car, but you can't start a car with its engine missing. You can start a solid rocket motor, but you can't re-start it. There are plenty of processes that can only be set in motion once and only once.
A good mechanic can replace the engine.
God can create a new engine.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:05:48 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:05:48 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 18, 2016, 09:39:40 PM
Well, first you have to show that he rose from the dead. You haven't even shown the possiblity yet, let alone its plausibility.
The possibility is the easy part. After all, an omni God can raise the dead as easily as he can create the living in the first placde.
QuoteThe thing is, they didn't even convince all christians of this. The docetics didn't even believe that Jesus was a real man, but rather that his appearances on earth (pre- and post-resurrection) were illusions. The references in John to Jesus being "in the flesh" (a phrase repeated often) is a dig against the docetics.
True! Good for you.
The Docetics lost because their arguments and evidence were examined, debated determined to be not as strong as those held by the winning side.
QuoteFor crying out loud, even some people back in the early days of christianity didn't believe that Jesus was a real person, and you have the gall to call any doubter today devoid of reason?
They didn't have YouTube.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:12:59 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:12:59 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 09:58:54 AM
The oldest manuscript of the NT in existence (currently displayed at the U of Manchester) is a papyrus fragment which has been dated to ca. 140 CE. It's possible that it was written (not before) 120 CE. That is at least 90 years after the alleged death of the alleged Jesus. So of course it is ludicrous to talk about eye witnesses of any events during the time of Jesus.
But only 25 years after the death of John. And it is not thought to be the original autograph but a copy. Which means that the original was written earlier.
Moreover, the students of Peter, Paul and John were guys like Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement. They were in a position to say, "Yep, that's what John taught me" or "No, Peter never said anything like that to me."
So much for THAT line of thought.
I get the impression, reasonist, that you are arguing on the basis of what you WANT to believe to be true and not on the basis of historical data that is readily available to you.
Why is it that an atheist who esteems science would refuse to actually examine the available data? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 19, 2016, 12:29:01 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 19, 2016, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:12:59 PMTHAT'S rich! That's all you EVER do---just believe and that's a FACT. You would not know a fact if it walked up a slapped you in the face. You'd most likely step back and see what you believed. Belief and faith--that all you have.
I get the impression, reasonist, that you are arguing on the basis of what you WANT to believe to be true and not on the basis of historical data that is readily available to you.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 19, 2016, 12:30:30 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 19, 2016, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:55:15 AMHypocrisy in action--Randy living and breathing his motto for life.
ARE you an honest person, Hakurei? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 19, 2016, 12:40:31 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 19, 2016, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 05:04:28 PMYou are under the mistaken impression that I have a desire to "disprove" anything. I do not. It is not my goal in life to go around disproving every magical claim ever made and, in fact, this would be an impossible task. There are just too many people making ridiculous claims of magic to "disprove" them all.
Oh, you miss the point here completely.
If you really think Catholicism/Christianity are bogus, it seems to me that you ought to study them carefully in order to be able diprove them EVEN BETTER than you already can.
And those claims are often so vaguely stated, any specificity which could prove them wrong instantly downplayed and explained away in their heads. There are several specific examples to show failures of Christianity. Jesus said that "before this generation has passed", 2,000 years ago, "Two will be working in the filed. One will be taken, the other left." This is clearly saying that the "rapture" (I know that word isn't in the Bible, but it is the word used to describe this) will happen 2,000 years ago. It didn't. And he says that you can "move mountains" with just a little bit of faith. You can't. And he lays out signs that will accompany his followers, including the healing of the sick. Some churches even take parts of these lines to heart to such an extent that they handle poisonous snakes. But even they don't claim to have the rest of the magical powers laid out in those lines, such as the power to fix an amputee.
And if you've read to this point you have already made excuses in your head for why none of those words spoken by Jesus are "literally" true.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 05:04:28 PMNo, I don't. I could have the best laid out argument possible. It wouldn't change your mind. You are desperate to hold onto your beliefs. For you, eternity is at stake. To accept that your beliefs aren't real you have to accept your own mortality, a scary thing to most. This makes you desperate to not be wrong. So, you think thusly: "I don't want to think that I'm wrong...so I won't!"
IOW, it makes sense to know your opponent's arguments even better than he does, doesn't it?
But that's only if you care. You don't, so it doesn't matter.
So what's the point of honing my argument, of knowing your religion better than you? There isn't one.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 05:04:28 PMAnd there it is. I saw the lead-up to this coming a mile away. "Well, if you don't care about religion than why do you spend so much time talking about it?" Yet another dishonest argument. Why? Because you secretly changed the subject and pretended you didn't. They're so closely related that one might not notice. What I don't care to do is learn every intricate detail of your religious beliefs. I don't give a fuck about the history of your church. I don't feel the need to prove to you what every first grader should already know, that magic simply isn't real. I do enjoy talking about religion in general, but that's not the same as learning the minutia of what you believe, often something you don't even know until you're confronted with it and simply make up new beliefs on the spot. I sometimes enjoy talking about politics, too, but I have no desire to run for office. I enjoy talking about gay rights, but have no desire to be gay or to learn about every possible gay sexual act. I love to talk about science, but have no intention of devoting the time and money necessary to actually become a scientist. I learn what I'm interested in at the time such knowledge becomes freely available to me and I can spare the time to learn it. I LOVE to learn about science. I love to talk about it. I love to debate it. So why don't I learn everything I can about all science everywhere? That is something I would actually LIKE to do; something I actually DO care about. So why don't I? I don't have the time or money. If I won't take the time to learn everything I can about what I love, why, then, would I feel compelled to learn everything I can about what YOU love?
This is an odd place to spend so much of your free time, though. I don't care about knitting, so I don't post in knitting forums.
But that's just me.
You seem to be under this impression that I have this pressing desire to prove God isn't real, that's why I'm here and, if I don't want that, then I really shouldn't be here. That's a very simplistic view of humanity. I know God isn't real. I know this as surely as you know that he is. Unlike you, however, I'm willing to freely admit that I may be wrong and reevaluate my beliefs should I ever be presented with a compelling reason to do so. I have no vested interest in "being right". But the subject still interests me. How could it not? When my kids go to a chorus concert they sing 10 specifically Christian worship songs and 10 "everything else" songs. It is EXACTLY balanced, TO THE LETTER of the law so that they can't be sued. Christians take from me EVERY INCH they are legally allowed and then try to take more. There is a church opposite the main entrance to the high school in my town with religious sings in their otherwise completely unused back yard RIGHT AT THE EDGE of their property. They just can't help themselves. They have this burning NEED to indoctrinate my kids. They feel it is their RIGHT to push their fucking beliefs on MY kids. Hell, they feel it is their right to PUNISH my kids for not being indoctrinated (as evidenced by the parents pushing back against school anti-bullying rules). How could I NOT have an interest in religious matters? You fuckers won't get the fuck out of my face about it? YOU brought me here; you and those like you. I'm here because YOU won't leave me (and more importantly, my kids) the fuck alone. My only compelling reason for being here is to find a refuge in a world filled with Christian pricks who think it is their right and duty to bully and discriminate against anyone they disagree with.
So, yeah, it's not really a contradiction that I don't give a fuck about your every magical belief, but I still want to hang out in a forum full of atheists. I'm here BECAUSE I don't give a fuck about your magical beliefs and people like you won't leave me the fuck alone about it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 12:43:31 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 12:43:31 PM
Well, if there would be available data, testable, provable or disprovable data, I am in.
But of course if your bronze age friends "were in a position to say" yep or no, then whatever they said must be factual evidence.
The difference between science and faith is simple. Science does not have a pre-conceived outcome and does not defend that outcome at any cost. Any new theory is immediately peer reviewed and dissected for it's probability. So any scientist proposing a new theory, makes damn sure that he crossed all the t's and considered any and all possibilities before allowing public viewing and criticism. If they are proven wrong (by testing their theory) it would seriously damage their reputation. And if a new discovery proves that theory wrong, then science adapts and moves on and uses that discovery for more research.
Religion has no such mechanism. The ancient dogmas have to be defended no matter what. Whenever new discoveries, from fossils to astronomy prove the dogmas wrong, plan B comes into effect: pooh pooh science and point to the 'holy' books as evidence. Since none of the claims of miracles etc. can be tested and the suspension of natural laws proven, it cannot qualify as evidence. It has to be a man made story without merits.
But of course if your bronze age friends "were in a position to say" yep or no, then whatever they said must be factual evidence.
The difference between science and faith is simple. Science does not have a pre-conceived outcome and does not defend that outcome at any cost. Any new theory is immediately peer reviewed and dissected for it's probability. So any scientist proposing a new theory, makes damn sure that he crossed all the t's and considered any and all possibilities before allowing public viewing and criticism. If they are proven wrong (by testing their theory) it would seriously damage their reputation. And if a new discovery proves that theory wrong, then science adapts and moves on and uses that discovery for more research.
Religion has no such mechanism. The ancient dogmas have to be defended no matter what. Whenever new discoveries, from fossils to astronomy prove the dogmas wrong, plan B comes into effect: pooh pooh science and point to the 'holy' books as evidence. Since none of the claims of miracles etc. can be tested and the suspension of natural laws proven, it cannot qualify as evidence. It has to be a man made story without merits.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 19, 2016, 12:49:44 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 19, 2016, 12:49:44 PM
You know, if you get to date the gospels based on what the writers did NOT mention then I'm going to point out that there is NO mention of Herod's "Massacre of the Innocents" outside of the New Testament. Harod was absolutely loathed by some of the writers at the time. Writers like Josephus LOVED to point out how evil he was. But killing a bunch of babies mysteriously never made the list of Harod's most evil and vile acts. So, if we get to use what is NOT written as proof, Josephus proves that this massacre is pure fiction. Find one piece of fiction and the whole thing is not "historically" reliable. Easy enough.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:53:22 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:53:22 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 19, 2016, 10:57:11 AM
Personally I'm more inclined to believe somebody like Richard Carrier who has a doctorate from Cambridge, but if you want to present yourself as some kind of final authority, have at it.
First, I have acknowledged Carrier's academic chops. Second, I have also pointed out that Ehrman, who is arguably MORE credentialed than Carrier, thinks Carrier's mythicism is rubbish, and Ehrman is not alone is his disregard for Carrier. Third, I have not presented myself as "some kind of final authority". I simply know more about these matters than most (if not all) in this forum.
QuoteCarrier maintains Jesus never existed and is a myth. The mere fact that there is an ongoing discussion between historians whether Jesus existed at all ought to be a clue, but apparently not. There is a considerable body of evidence to contradict everything you are saying- which again ought to be a clue, but apparently not.
Uh...no. The mere fact that there is an ongoing discussion about a second shooter on the grassy knoll or whether George Bush knew of 9/11 in advance doesn't make either of these lunatic fringe ideas more credible. The fact that atheists today BELIEVE there is credible evidence to contradict Christianity says more about them than it does about their so-called "evidence". This is warmed over crap simply being served up by the latest batch of authors getting rich by selling you books filled with old arguments long refuted.
QuoteThe advent of Jesus should have been the biggest event in history. Yet is somehow managed to happen so far under the radar that nothing was mentioned until decades later. Regardless of what you maintain about any of this, your sources are mostly apologists with an agenda, which we tend to discount exactly for that reason. You are also an apologist with an agenda. And that is why we don't take you seriously.
If Christianity sprang up "under the radar", then forget Jesus for a moment.
1. Why was Christianity itself mentioned by:
- Suetonius, writing around A.D. 121
- Tacitus, writing around A.D. 116
- Pliny the Younger, writing in A.D. 110 or 111
- The Emperor Trajan, writing back to Pliny in A.D. 110 or 111
- And Josephus, writing around A.D. 93
2. Why did Christianity achieve such a rapid geographic spread as to be mentioned by:
- Josephus writing about events in Judaea, which other sources also indicate was the origin point of the movement.
- Suetonius and Tacitus writing about the movement existing at Rome as well.
- Pliny the Younger indicating that it was widespread in Bithynia (in modern northern Turkey).
3. How old was Christianity at the time it was first mentioned?
- Josephus links Jesus to his “brother†James, who died in A.D. 62 (Antiquities 20:9:1).
- Pliny is at a loss for how to deal with this religious movement, which is so new that the way to deal with its members is still in the process of being established (Letters 96).
- Suetonius specifically says that Christians were a new movement (The Twelve Caesars: Nero 16).
- And Tacitus says that Jesus was “executed during the rule of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate†(Annals 15:44).
All of this points to a first century date for the origin of the movement, but normally, new religions are viewed with some skepticism and "selling" them is a challenge.
4. Was the early movement organized?
- Does the rapid spread of the movement suggest that it was organized and not random?
5. Did it have leaders?
- Is there evidence that the movement had leadership?
- Do we know the names of these early leaders?
6. Did the movement have a founder?
- What does the movement say about its own founder?
- What did other ancient writers say about the movement's founder?
ONE POSSIBILITY:
The earliest accounts we have agree that Jesus of Nazareth founded the Christian movement, recruited and trained its earliest leaders, and then sent them out as his apostles. This is simply what you would expect of an organization that displayed the sudden appearance and growth of the Christian movement, and there is no good reason to reject the movement’s own account of its origins on this point. The sudden appearance and rapid growth of Christianity points to a level of organization and motivation that is most naturally explained by the movement having a single, recent, and charismatic founder.[/list]
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Quote from: widdershins on May 19, 2016, 12:40:31 PM
You are under the mistaken impression that I have a desire to "disprove" anything.about it. I don't.
That's because you want to go on enjoying sinning. I know you wake up every morning planning something nefarious and sinful, like maybe throwing ten pounds of roofing nails on a busy street, or maybe just walking down the road to your neighbor's mail box and finding something that might be interesting to read, like a Victoria's Secrets catalog, or a catalog of knives and Nazi memorabilia, so you could start rumors about him. There might even be a government check you could cash.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: 21CIconoclast on May 19, 2016, 12:58:19 PM
Post by: 21CIconoclast on May 19, 2016, 12:58:19 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 18, 2016, 04:53:36 PM
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
No, seriously. I really appreciate the opportunity to post even MORE explanations of the Christian position for all to see. Keep those questions coming! (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
SIX REASONS TO ACCEPT THE GOSPELS AS EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
I. Eyewitness Authority Is Inherent to the Gospels
The Gospel accounts are written as historical narratives. The life of Jesus is intertwined with historical events locating it geographically and historically. The Gospels repeatedly affirmed their own historical, eyewitness nature, mentioning key figures who served to validate the history of Jesus as eyewitnesses:
John 1:6-7
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
II. Eyewitness Authority Was Commissioned by Jesus
Jesus understood the eyewitness status of the Apostles. In fact, he commissioned them to grow the Kingdom on the basis of their eyewitness observations:
Luke 24:44-49
Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.†Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.â€
Acts 1:6-8
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?†He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.â€
III. Eyewitness Authority Was Affirmed By the Gospel Authors
The authors of the Gospels proclaimed their authority as eyewitnesses (or as chroniclers of the eyewitnesses). While some skeptics have attempted to disassociate the Biblical statements from the Gospel authors to refute the authorship of the Gospels, the earliest believers embraced the traditional authorship of the eyewitnesses (and we can also make good circumstantial cases for the traditional authorship). The Gospel authors (and their sources) repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses:
1 Peter 5:1
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…
2 Peter 1:16-17
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
1 John 1:1-3
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life â€" and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us â€" what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us…
John 21:24-25
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
IV. Eyewitness Authority Was Confirmed By the First Believers
The early believers and Church Fathers accepted the Gospel accounts as eyewitness documents. In fact, many Church fathers wrote about the Gospels. Papias, when describing the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, said, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.†In addition, Papias, Ireneaus, Origen and Jerome affirmed the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel by the tax collector described in the account, written for the Hebrews in his native dialect and translated as he was able.
V. Eyewitness Authority Was Foundational to the Growth of the Church
It really shouldn’t surprise us that the authority of the Gospels was grounded in their eyewitness status. The eyewitness authority of the Apostles was key to the expansion of the early Church. The apostles were unified in the manner in which they proclaimed Christ. They repeatedly identified themselves, first and foremost, as eyewitnesses:
Acts 2:23-24, 32
“This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him… God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.â€
Acts 3:15
“You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.â€
Acts 4:20
“For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heardâ€
Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
Acts 10:39-42
“We are witnesses of everything he (Jesus) did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen â€" by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.â€
VI. Eyewitness Authority Was Used to Validate New Testament Writings
Even Paul understood the importance of eyewitness authority. He continually referred to his own encounter with Jesus to establish the authenticity of his office and writings. Paul also directed his readers to other eyewitnesses who could corroborate his claims:
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
Taken from:
The Case for the Eyewitness Status of the Gospel Authors
by J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-case-for-the-eyewitness-status-of-the-gospel-authors/
Randy,
YOU CANNOT HAVE EYEWITNESS WRITERS OF THE GOSPELS WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN 70 PLUS YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED LIFETIME OF YOUR JESUS CHARACTER WHEN THESE ALLEGED WRITERS OF SAID GOSPELS ONLY LIVED APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS OF AGE TO BEGIN WITH, GET IT? HUH? MAYBE JUST A LITTLE BIT? YES?
I have NEVER seen a pseudo-christian Catholic swallow the the Catholic Kool Aide like you have done! LOL Damn, I have to admit its quite entertaining.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:04:51 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:04:51 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 11:38:17 AM
Taking a 'clue' requires rational thought and reason, which is the arch enemy of faith. Our resident illusionist has been bobsmacked a hundred times here and still can't take a clue.
Again, there are only two possibilities:
A) Either the 'holy' books are depicting factual, historical events or
B) Religion is a human invention
I took out the "wealth" part because it weakened your argument. It is possible for religion to be invented for reasons that have nothing to do with wealth and control. See? I make your own arguments better than you do. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Now, if we were to agree that these are the only two options, then I must defend the first and you must defend the second. Additionally, you must attack the first and I must attack the second.
Now, as a starting point, I have begun by building a case for the reliability of the authors who wrote eyewitnesses accounts of the passion of Jesus in my OP.
Care to address that in any way?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:48:35 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:48:35 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2016, 12:29:01 PM
THAT'S rich! That's all you EVER do---just believe and that's a FACT. You would not know a fact if it walked up a slapped you in the face. You'd most likely step back and see what you believed. Belief and faith--that all you have.
Read my OP. Read all my OP's.
I have laid my evidence before you. They are based on historical evidence and logic.
Go line-by-line and show me the errors in my posts.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:49:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2016, 12:30:30 PM
Hypocrisy in action--Randy living and breathing his motto for life.
Why are most of your posts ad hominem, Mike?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 12:43:31 PM
The difference between science and faith is simple. Science does not have a pre-conceived outcome and does not defend that outcome at any cost.
Science does not have ANY preconceptions at all. Scientists do.
And what they begin with is the idea that this material universe is all that there is. There is no God.
Given those truths, let's begin. And guess what? They discover what they set out to prove. No surprise there.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 19, 2016, 02:29:22 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 19, 2016, 02:29:22 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:55:15 AMSome people. Not all.
Nope.
The edict clearly recognizes that people would be leaving the city and that some "peasants" would be needed:
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:55:15 AMNo matter how much you want to spin it, "it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes [an Egyptian administrative district] be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration" does not mean that they "return to their ancestral homes." I see administrative district, I see customary business of registration, but any references to "ancestertal homes" exist only in your own mind.
Where were the country people going, Hakurei? Why this de-population of the cities? Why didn't they simply register for the census in town? Well, we don't know "why" for sure, but we do know that people were expected to return to their ancestral homes for the purposes of the census.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:55:15 AMPay attention, son. I said it was Jesus's father who lived in Nazereth and had to go Bethlehem for this ridiculous census that absolutely nobody ever performed.
According to the Bible, Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:55:15 AMPerhaps to get to a nearby administrative town where they may be conveniently counted, but not clear across the entire country:
And you denied that a census would be conducted in such a disruptive manner. You wrote:
And I have just shown you non-biblical evidence that populations were expected to move just as Luke reported in his gospel.
(http://www.bible-history.com/maps/Map-Israel-New-Testament-Times-color.jpg)
See where Galilee is, up north, and where Nazareth is located.
Now look down south. That's where Bethlehem is, just south of Jerusalem.
Are you really saying Joseph and his pregnant wife had to trudge all the way across Judea to Bethlehem to be counted in his "ancestral home," when he could have just stopped at any of the cities up north and simply declare that he is of a clan originating in Bethlehem, with both minimal risk and minimal disruption to their lives. There literally no information that can be gained by having Joseph and Mary trudge south all the way to Bethlehem, because they would then have to give their normal place of residence.
And keep in mind, Joseph and Mary wouldn't be the only ones doing this. Many families would have to do this, and again, would result in massive disruption of commerce in the region.
I say again, this notion is fucking retarded.
The impossible census is a flimsy excuse for getting Jesus born in the right place, Bethlehem, so as to become the Jewish Messiah, as per OT prophesy.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:55:15 AMI am. The only dishonest one here is you, because I see in your own "outside sources" that there is nothing about people moving around to their ancestral homes. The only movement talked about are to administrative districts which would undoubtedly be nearby, and visited with minimal disruption.
Now, at some point, the honest person would say, "Damn. I didn't know that. Okay, you made your point."
ARE you an honest person, Hakurei? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
So stop lying.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:59:38 AMFuckssake, Randy. Why are you so insistant on this? This is a true dicotomy: if resurrection is big-I impossible, then it is impossible for anyone to do, including God. If God has that ability, fine, he has that ability and resurrection is not big-I impossible. But if resurrection is big-I impossible, it's big-I impossible.
A good mechanic can replace the engine.
God can create a new engine.
This is non-negotiable, Randy. I will not permit you to make a mockery of reason by allowing God to do the big-I impossible. Your God WILL conform to logic, or you admit that your God is not reasonable. Choose.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 02:32:58 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 02:32:58 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
Science does not have ANY preconceptions at all. Scientists do.
And what they begin with is the idea that this material universe is all that there is. There is no God.
Given those truths, let's begin. And guess what? They discover what they set out to prove. No surprise there.
Straw man!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 19, 2016, 02:38:39 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 19, 2016, 02:38:39 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:05:48 PMI have not allowed your omni-god. Omni-gods are inherently contradictory and logically incoherent. They are not permitted. "God with the ability to raise the dead" is as close as you're going to get here.
The possibility is the easy part. After all, an omni God can raise the dead as easily as he can create the living in the first placde.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:05:48 PMBullshit. The docetics lost because the spirit Jesus wasn't what christianity needed at the moment. Christianity needed a human Jesus to anchor the martyrdom that any christian in those days may be called upon to become. A spirit cannot suffer and cannot resurrect, after all. It's much tougher to identify this being with your own suffering as a christian in the first and second centuries.
True! Good for you.
The Docetics lost because their arguments and evidence were examined, debated determined to be not as strong as those held by the winning side.
TL;DR: Docetism lost on emotional appeal, not any intellectual merit.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 12:05:48 PMThere are christians now who don't believe in Jesus, either. It seems that docetism has made a comeback since the early days. :wink:
They didn't have YouTube.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 04:12:36 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 04:12:36 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
Science does not have ANY preconceptions at all. Scientists do.
And what they begin with is the idea that this material universe is all that there is. There is no God.
Given those truths, let's begin. And guess what? They discover what they set out to prove. No surprise there.
Yes, scientists love to get publicly embarrassed and proven wrong by their peers. You really have no clue.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 04:17:25 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 19, 2016, 04:17:25 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:04:51 PM
I took out the "wealth" part because it weakened your argument. It is possible for religion to be invented for reasons that have nothing to do with wealth and control. See? I make your own arguments better than you do. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Now, if we were to agree that these are the only two options, then I must defend the first and you must defend the second. Additionally, you must attack the first and I must attack the second.
Now, as a starting point, I have begun by building a case for the reliability of the authors who wrote eyewitnesses accounts of the passion of Jesus in my OP.
Care to address that in any way?
Not anymore. I tried a dozen times and it won't enter your skull. So why do it again?
I don't have to defend diddly, that's your part. YOU are the one who kneels and grovels before a mass murderer, not me.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 19, 2016, 06:57:24 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 19, 2016, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
Science does not have ANY preconceptions at all. Scientists do.
And what they begin with is the idea that this material universe is all that there is. There is no God.
Given those truths, let's begin. And guess what? They discover what they set out to prove. No surprise there.
I agree with you, but it doesn't invalidate science. All endeavor, even theology, proceeds within some limits or other. This isn't about the peccadilloes of scientists, but about what they can objectively demonstrate thru observation and experiment. Let us observe the living Jesus, and experiment with his healing of lepers ... and then we have something. But we can't do that. I await Jesus' peer reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 20, 2016, 12:23:15 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 20, 2016, 12:23:15 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:52:41 PMA lot of people make this mistake, but this is actually not true. Science is a method for explaining the material universe and only the material universe. Everybody knows that this means you can't use a supernatural explanation in science, but many people seem to mistake that for meaning that science denies the existence of anything not explainable by science. This is not the case. Science actually has nothing to say about the supernatural. Since a supernatural explanation cannot be given, neither can one be denied. In reality science has nothing whatsoever to say about God or anything supernatural.
Science does not have ANY preconceptions at all. Scientists do.
And what they begin with is the idea that this material universe is all that there is. There is no God.
Given those truths, let's begin. And guess what? They discover what they set out to prove. No surprise there.
Particular beliefs, on the other hand, science can often handily disprove. That there was a global flood, for example. And science can test claims of psychic abilities because the claims of effects on the physical world can be tested. But to outright dismiss the supernatural, science is not actually designed for that.
That being said, most science-minded people do outright dismiss claims of the supernatural simply because every such claim to have ever been tested has been either disproved or inconclusive, the call-sign of something bogus.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 02:54:51 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 02:54:51 PM
Craig Blomberg, Ph.D.
Scholars sometimes talk about a hermeneutic of suspicion. Hermeneutics is just a fancy word for an approach to interpretation, and so a hermeneutic of suspicion would mean that one begins, in the case of the Bible or in the case of some other ancient document, suspecting that what one has in front of one is likely not to be accurate until one finds enough reasons to reverse one’s position.
Hermeneutic of suspicion is not appropriate for ancient historical works in general. If it were followed, our world civilization textbooks would be blank until we reached very recent centuries. One has to develop a global perspective on the likely reliability of a given author, of a given work, and then if there are repeated places where they can be discredited, yes, move to a hermeneutic of suspicion.
But otherwise, one begins with a hermeneutic of trust or one would not have ancient history to write at all. In fact, that’s what historians regularly do…except that some, when they come to the gospels, change the ground rules which is not fair and is not going to lead to the most reliable historical results, either. We want to have a level playing field.
Michael Licona, Ph.D.
If we just allow a methodological skepticism or a hermeneutic of suspicion, typically we allow a world-view to guide our historical investigation, and it’s the world-view of the skeptic that is guiding that historical investigation. The problem is manifest: bad philosophy corrupts good history. And so, that’s why what we should do is approach the text with neutrality and let the facts speak for themselves. If a skeptic says, “Well, I don’t believe in the gospels†and then wants to show that the gospels aren’t historically reliable, then the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that the gospel is not historically reliable.
Craig Evans, Ph.D.
They would never hold these [extremely high] standards against other writers of antiquity; it’s always thrown against New Testament writers.
Scott M. Sullivan, Ph.D.
If general reliability is established, the assumption is that the whole is factual unless there is good reason to think otherwise. This is a way for a document to earn our trust. If that happens, then a historically favorable presumption prevails. Once established as a generally reliable document, a historically favorable presumption prevails at that point, and the burden of proof falls on the deniers.
Scholars sometimes talk about a hermeneutic of suspicion. Hermeneutics is just a fancy word for an approach to interpretation, and so a hermeneutic of suspicion would mean that one begins, in the case of the Bible or in the case of some other ancient document, suspecting that what one has in front of one is likely not to be accurate until one finds enough reasons to reverse one’s position.
Hermeneutic of suspicion is not appropriate for ancient historical works in general. If it were followed, our world civilization textbooks would be blank until we reached very recent centuries. One has to develop a global perspective on the likely reliability of a given author, of a given work, and then if there are repeated places where they can be discredited, yes, move to a hermeneutic of suspicion.
But otherwise, one begins with a hermeneutic of trust or one would not have ancient history to write at all. In fact, that’s what historians regularly do…except that some, when they come to the gospels, change the ground rules which is not fair and is not going to lead to the most reliable historical results, either. We want to have a level playing field.
Michael Licona, Ph.D.
If we just allow a methodological skepticism or a hermeneutic of suspicion, typically we allow a world-view to guide our historical investigation, and it’s the world-view of the skeptic that is guiding that historical investigation. The problem is manifest: bad philosophy corrupts good history. And so, that’s why what we should do is approach the text with neutrality and let the facts speak for themselves. If a skeptic says, “Well, I don’t believe in the gospels†and then wants to show that the gospels aren’t historically reliable, then the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that the gospel is not historically reliable.
Craig Evans, Ph.D.
They would never hold these [extremely high] standards against other writers of antiquity; it’s always thrown against New Testament writers.
Scott M. Sullivan, Ph.D.
If general reliability is established, the assumption is that the whole is factual unless there is good reason to think otherwise. This is a way for a document to earn our trust. If that happens, then a historically favorable presumption prevails. Once established as a generally reliable document, a historically favorable presumption prevails at that point, and the burden of proof falls on the deniers.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 03:05:58 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 03:05:58 PM
The alternative is ... hermeneutic of checking brain at door of church, don't forget to pick it back up after services ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 03:14:38 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 03:14:38 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 02:54:51 PMYou have not even come close to establishing that. You simply assume it is true--for you. But nobody on this site has seen one tiny, microscopic bit of evidence that any reliability has been established or even broached. This is simply the same old shit you have been shoveling............................
If general reliability is established,
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 04:47:52 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 03:14:38 PM
You have not even come close to establishing that. You simply assume it is true--for you. But nobody on this site has seen one tiny, microscopic bit of evidence that any reliability has been established or even broached. This is simply the same old shit you have been shoveling............................
Argumentative doesn't equal persuasive.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:20:46 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:20:46 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 03:14:38 PM
You have not even come close to establishing that. You simply assume it is true--for you. But nobody on this site has seen one tiny, microscopic bit of evidence that any reliability has been established or even broached. This is simply the same old shit you have been shoveling............................
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
It's pretty easy to see that the writers of the gospels were reliable in their reporting - just ask an archaeologist!
A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament
Related to Quirinius
Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census (Luke 2:1â€"3). Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century revealed Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time, and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch.
Related to Erastus
In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.†A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence.
Related to Lysanias
Luke described a tetrarch named Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned over Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Two inscriptions have been discovered that mention Lysanias by name. One of these, dated from AD 14â€"37, identifies Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus.
Related to Iconium
In Acts 13:51, Luke described this city in Phyrigia. Some ancient writers (like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was located in Lycaonia, rather than Phyrigia, but a monument was discovered in 1910 that confirmed Iconium as a city in Phyrigia.
Related to the Pool of Bethesda
John wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1â€"9) and said that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, surrounded by five porticos. In 1888, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side.
Related to Politarchs
For many centuries, Luke was the only ancient writer to use the word Politarch to describe “rulers of the city.†Skeptics doubted that it was a legitimate Greek term until nineteen inscriptions were discovered. Five of these were in reference to Thessalonica (the very city in which Luke was claiming to have heard the term).
Related to the Pool of Siloam
John wrote about the “Pool of Siloam†(John 9:1â€"12) and described it as a place of ceremonial cleansing. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the features of the pool and coins found in the plaster).
Related to Pontius Pilate
For many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a very brief citation by Tacitus. In 1961, however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with Pilate’s name. The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26â€"36), and it describes a building dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar.
Related to the Custom of Crucifixion
While thousands of condemned criminals and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, buried in a proper Jewish “kôkhîmtype†tomb.
Related to Sergius Paulus
In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos. Skeptics doubted the existence of this man and claimed that any leader of this area would be a “propraetor†rather than a proconsul. But an inscription was discovered at Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged Paulus and identified him as a proconsul.
In addition to these archaeological discoveries, there are many other details recorded in the Book of Acts corroborating its historical accuracy. Luke describes features of the Roman world corroborated by other non-Christian historians:
Luke includes a correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)
Luke includes an accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)
Luke includes a correct depiction of invoking one’s roman citizenship, including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)
Luke includes a accurate description of being in Roman custody and the conditions of being imprisoned at one’s own expense (Acts 28:16 and Acts 28:30-31)
Excerpted from:
A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament
by J. Warner Wallace, Former Atheist
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/a-brief-sample-of-archaeology-corroborating-the-claims-of-the-new-testament/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 21, 2016, 05:28:59 PM
Post by: aitm on May 21, 2016, 05:28:59 PM
For the rest of you tl:dr… perfectly acceptable to make up shit to justify your stupidity using the age old method of denying reason, logic, truth and proven evidence in favor of your delusions based on your ignorant superstitious beliefs that make you feel better.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 05:31:16 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 05:31:16 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:20:46 PM
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament
Related to Quirinius
Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census (Luke 2:1â€"3). Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century revealed Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time, and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch.
Related to Erastus
HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...........................................(busting a gut!!!!)
That is 'proof'??????????????????????
It has been written that The Muppets were in New York. Therefore, The Muppets are real creatures! Yep--no shit, they are real; not fictional. And I have proof. It's a FACT!
From chew toy, to clown, to buffoon. :)))))) You are entertaining, anyway.
In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.†A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence.
Related to Lysanias
Luke described a tetrarch named Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned over Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Two inscriptions have been discovered that mention Lysanias by name. One of these, dated from AD 14â€"37, identifies Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus.
Related to Iconium
In Acts 13:51, Luke described this city in Phyrigia. Some ancient writers (like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was located in Lycaonia, rather than Phyrigia, but a monument was discovered in 1910 that confirmed Iconium as a city in Phyrigia.
Related to the Pool of Bethesda
John wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1â€"9) and said that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, surrounded by five porticos. In 1888, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side.
Related to Politarchs
For many centuries, Luke was the only ancient writer to use the word Politarch to describe “rulers of the city.†Skeptics doubted that it was a legitimate Greek term until nineteen inscriptions were discovered. Five of these were in reference to Thessalonica (the very city in which Luke was claiming to have heard the term).
Related to the Pool of Siloam
John wrote about the “Pool of Siloam†(John 9:1â€"12) and described it as a place of ceremonial cleansing. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the features of the pool and coins found in the plaster).
Related to Pontius Pilate
For many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a very brief citation by Tacitus. In 1961, however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with Pilate’s name. The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26â€"36), and it describes a building dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar.
Related to the Custom of Crucifixion
While thousands of condemned criminals and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, buried in a proper Jewish “kôkhîmtype†tomb.
Related to Sergius Paulus
In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos. Skeptics doubted the existence of this man and claimed that any leader of this area would be a “propraetor†rather than a proconsul. But an inscription was discovered at Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged Paulus and identified him as a proconsul.
In addition to these archaeological discoveries, there are many other details recorded in the Book of Acts corroborating its historical accuracy. Luke describes features of the Roman world corroborated by other non-Christian historians:
Luke includes a correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)
Luke includes an accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)
Luke includes a correct depiction of invoking one’s roman citizenship, including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)
Luke includes a accurate description of being in Roman custody and the conditions of being imprisoned at one’s own expense (Acts 28:16 and Acts 28:30-31)
Excerpted from:
A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament
by J. Warner Wallace, Former Atheist
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/a-brief-sample-of-archaeology-corroborating-the-claims-of-the-new-testament/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:39:40 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:39:40 PM
Here is just one shining example of your inability to understand the concepts:
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 05:31:16 PMRelated to Erastus
HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...........................................(busting a gut!!!!)
That is 'proof'??????????????????????
It has been written that The Muppets were in New York. Therefore, The Muppets are real creatures! Yep--no shit, they are real; not fictional. And I have proof. It's a FACT!
Now, take a second look at what I wrote:
QuoteRelated to Erastus
In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.†A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence.
IOW, Mike...for 1900 years, there WAS no reason to believe that Erastus ever served as city treasurer. For brain-dead skeptics, this point in the gospel was very much in doubt.
Then, archaeology proved Paul wrote reliably.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:43:25 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:43:25 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 21, 2016, 05:28:59 PM
For the rest of you tl:dr… perfectly acceptable to make up shit to justify your stupidity using the age old method of denying reason, logic, truth and proven evidence in favor of your delusions based on your ignorant superstitious beliefs that make you feel better.
Hard to make up facts in the ground, you twit.
Archaeology has proven that the gospel writers knew what they were talking about and wrote reliably.
Now, why don't you stop displaying your ignorance and educate yourself?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:02:22 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:02:22 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 19, 2016, 02:29:22 PM
Some people. Not all.
Well, duh. Because not everyone was from somewhere else.
See, you have to really WANT to deny this evidence in order to go through such extreme mental gymnastics. And as an atheist, you really, really do, don't you.
Let's review:
1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for the census.
2. You asserted that this proves the NT to be a complete fabrication because you simply assumed that no government would disrupt its population like that.
3. I have shown you an extra-biblical edict from a Roman province in Egypt clearly indicating that a census did require people to travel to their ancestral homes.
4. The archaeological proof that the NT author was a reliable historian is unimpeachable.
5. Consequently, you must completely re-think your understanding of the gospels as eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.
6. If true, if Jesus was raised from the dead, then God does exist.
7. Atheism is a false belief-system.
That's a lot to process. I'll let you have some time to get your bearings again.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 06:14:34 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 06:14:34 PM
Yes, Rome did exist. Yes, we know a few factual things about Romans. I have Roman coins, so I know that they used money. But this doesn't prove anything about the Bible ... it just shows that the authors didn't make everything up. In good story telling, it is important to have some ars verity.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 19, 2016, 02:29:22 PM
Are you really saying Joseph and his pregnant wife had to trudge all the way across Judea to Bethlehem to be counted in his "ancestral home," when he could have just stopped at any of the cities up north and simply declare that he is of a clan originating in Bethlehem, with both minimal risk and minimal disruption to their lives. There literally no information that can be gained by having Joseph and Mary trudge south all the way to Bethlehem, because they would then have to give their normal place of residence.
Yes. I am saying that. She got to ride the donkey, remember?
Can you prove that Joseph and Mary did not travel to Bethlehem? NO, you have no proof. All you have is a deep, burning desire to discredit Luke so that you don't have to face the possibility that God is real.
See, if Luke was right about this, then he earns the respect of people who study ancient literature for a living. He is viewed with a hermeneutic of trust by professional historians. That's just "the benefit of the doubt" to laymen like you and me.
If Luke can be trusted, then what will you do with the resurrection of Jesus? Claim that he was telling the truth on everything BUT the magic?
Isn't that special pleading?
QuoteThe impossible census is a flimsy excuse for getting Jesus born in the right place, Bethlehem, so as to become the Jewish Messiah, as per OT prophesy.
I am. The only dishonest one here is you, because I see in your own "outside sources" that there is nothing about people moving around to their ancestral homes. The only movement talked about are to administrative districts which would undoubtedly be nearby, and visited with minimal disruption.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Have you thought about what you are saying???
If the gospels are all bullshit, then why not simply put Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem in the first place? Why did they have to be from Nazareth if this was going to create such a major problem in the plot of the story? Seriously, if you were writing the story, would you have put yourself into the position of having anyone question the narrative like this?
And that's kinda the whole point of the archaeological corroboration of the NT...Skeptics have been doubting various points of the NT accounts for YEARS...only to have science prove that the gospel writers knew what they were talking about, after all.
QuoteSo stop lying.
Fuckssake, Randy. Why are you so insistant on this? This is a true dicotomy: if resurrection is big-I impossible, then it is impossible for anyone to do, including God. If God has that ability, fine, he has that ability and resurrection is not big-I impossible. But if resurrection is big-I impossible, it's big-I impossible.
This is non-negotiable, Randy. I will not permit you to make a mockery of reason by allowing God to do the big-I impossible. Your God WILL conform to logic, or you admit that your God is not reasonable. Choose.
Why is resurrection impossible for an all-powerful God?
Because it is inconvenient to your belief system?
That's called a presupposition, isn't it?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:23:42 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:23:42 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 19, 2016, 02:32:58 PM
Straw man!
There is no magic. We're all agreed on this.
Now, let's come up with explanations for all this "God" stuff.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:25:29 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:25:29 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 19, 2016, 02:38:39 PM
There are christians now who don't believe in Jesus, either. It seems that docetism has made a comeback since the early days. :wink:
YES!
Is this a surprise?
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 06:31:21 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 06:31:21 PM
"Because it is inconvenient to your belief system?" ... exactly ... you have a belief system, but good science isn't a belief system, based on hearsay evidence that can't be cross-examined.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 06:33:58 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 06:33:58 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:02:22 PMThis is where you keep tripping over yourself--or as your favorite poster says--you're twisting yourself into a pretzel. Atheism does not promote the 'belief' in anything. You keep insisting that atheism is simply another religion, and has a set of beliefs that those who are atheist must adhere to to be atheist. You have it backwards and upside down. As an atheist I don't 'believe' in anything. I have reasons for my thoughts and I arrived at those reasons by critical thinking. Belief and faith do not exist in my universe. Other atheists may be different--in fact most likely they are. Trying to encapsulate a set of thoughts that all atheists think, much less adhere to is like trying to herd cats. Can't be done. You need to learn this--to understand this if you really want productive dialogue with anybody here.
7. Atheism is a false belief-system.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 06:36:19 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 21, 2016, 06:36:19 PM
In solipcism, Internet flaming is just playing with yourself in public .. eww!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:39:40 PMMason Weems wrote a biography about George Washington. We know that both Weems and Washington were real. But the minister Weems wanted to present the young Washington as being a young model of virtue (and early Character Counts apparently) and created the story of Washington chopping down a cherry tree and fessing up to it when asked about it. Washington never lied. This has been clearly shown that it is false. A total made up story. Just because we know a person lived and could even be writing about another person who lived does not mean he is writing the truth. And later down the line when a grade school teacher taught me this story she thought she was tell me the truth--history. So, even when my teacher was trying to be truthful, she was not teaching me a true story. The bible is full of stuff like this. Just because a particular person or place is mentioned in the bible does not prove that what that person is reporting is true. Back in the days of Paul, novels were being written and read all the time. And they had historical novels back in those days as well.
Here is just one shining example of your inability to understand the concepts:
Now, take a second look at what I wrote:
IOW, Mike...for 1900 years, there WAS no reason to believe that Erastus ever served as city treasurer. For brain-dead skeptics, this point in the gospel was very much in doubt.
Then, archaeology proved Paul wrote reliably.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 21, 2016, 07:21:43 PM
Post by: stromboli on May 21, 2016, 07:21:43 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:43:25 PM
Hard to make up facts in the ground, you twit.
Archaeology has proven that the gospel writers knew what they were talking about and wrote reliably.
Now, why don't you stop displaying your ignorance and educate yourself?
1. every source you describe is from a Roman. Luke was Jewish? He's describing Roman people that would certainly have been known about. Doesn't change the fact that no census from Caesar Augustus was issued- also, even a tax from a Syrian governor would be of Roman origin.
Your source is still the bible. A book written by Romans in Greek under the guise of Judeans, yet all of the people and places mentioned are specifically Roman without any reference to what would have been to them unknown Jews. And still no narrative from the time of Jesus. And your source material still comes almost completely from apologetic sources, and you yourself disqualified Ehrman after using him as one of your sources.
You haven't proven anything and you are still beating the same drum. Read the website. Disprove all of it. You'll be a hero.
http://www.kyroot.com/
Oh, just for your information this site started out as 52 reasons. I posted it at 1187. It's up to 1188. Better hurry. Because if you can't disprove all of it and you can't prove every other aspect of the bible and your religion, Old Testament and new, we can comfortably call it false. Big picture, Randy. Garden of Eden, Noahs's Ark, Exodus- if even one of those is demonstrably false, it calls all the rest into question. And they are all false. Hav a nice day there, Kemosabe.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 08:52:37 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 08:52:37 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 06:33:58 PM
This is where you keep tripping over yourself--or as your favorite poster says--you're twisting yourself into a pretzel. Atheism does not promote the 'belief' in anything. You keep insisting that atheism is simply another religion, and has a set of beliefs that those who are atheist must adhere to to be atheist. You have it backwards and upside down. As an atheist I don't 'believe' in anything. I have reasons for my thoughts and I arrived at those reasons by critical thinking. Belief and faith do not exist in my universe. Other atheists may be different--in fact most likely they are. Trying to encapsulate a set of thoughts that all atheists think, much less adhere to is like trying to herd cats. Can't be done. You need to learn this--to understand this if you really want productive dialogue with anybody here.
I could quote or link to lots of websites where this is discussed, but why bother? Suffice it to say that those who aren't up to their necks in the mire recognize the atheist worldview for what it is. Here are some common core elements of the atheist worldview:
1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.
7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative.
But hey, I can leave that point out of my list. Try dealing with the other six:
1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for the census.
2. You asserted that this proves the NT to be a complete fabrication because you simply assumed that no government would disrupt its population like that.
3. I have shown you an extra-biblical edict from a Roman province in Egypt clearly indicating that a census did require people to travel to their ancestral homes.
4. The archaeological proof that the NT author was a reliable historian is unimpeachable.
5. Consequently, you must completely re-think your understanding of the gospels as eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.
6. If true, if Jesus was raised from the dead, then God does exist.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
Mason Weems wrote a biography about George Washington. We know that both Weems and Washington were real. But the minister Weems wanted to present the young Washington as being a young model of virtue (and early Character Counts apparently) and created the story of Washington chopping down a cherry tree and fessing up to it when asked about it. Washington never lied. This has been clearly shown that it is false. A total made up story. Just because we know a person lived and could even be writing about another person who lived does not mean he is writing the truth. And later down the line when a grade school teacher taught me this story she thought she was tell me the truth--history. So, even when my teacher was trying to be truthful, she was not teaching me a true story. The bible is full of stuff like this. Just because a particular person or place is mentioned in the bible does not prove that what that person is reporting is true. Back in the days of Paul, novels were being written and read all the time. And they had historical novels back in those days as well.
LOL.
Mike, you really, really, really want to deny Christianity any credibility, don't you? You must if you're willing to go to such extremes to avoid God.
Historians have read the accounts like the one you cite, AND YET, they have managed to sort out the fact and the fiction about Washington. But no one denies that Washington really existed.
Jesus mythicists, apparently, are not that "bright".
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:08:53 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:08:53 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 21, 2016, 07:21:43 PM
1. every source you describe is from a Roman. Luke was Jewish?
What does this even mean? Every source is a from a Roman? Luke was Jewish? (Luke was a Greek-speaking Gentile.)
Not sure what you have tried to ask here. Sorry.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 09:12:21 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 09:12:21 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:05:19 PMI guess if christianity had earned any credit I'd give it some credibility. It is simply one more locus of power established by humans to allow some to control the masses. It's claim to fame is based on woo-woo and magic and belief--and fear. Other than that, it is just one way to keep the people in line.
LOL.
Mike, you really, really, really want to deny Christianity any credibility, don't you? You must if you're willing to go to such extremes to avoid God.
I don't have to go to any extreme at all to avoid god--that would be like 'trying' to avoid the Tooth Fairy. I don't avoid or seek that which is fictional. If your god wants my attention he/she/it knows what to do--so, god, get it on!!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:17:11 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:17:11 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 21, 2016, 07:21:43 PM
Your source is still the bible.
Not entirely. There is non-biblical corroboration of Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, etc.
Your fellow atheist, Bart Ehrman, again:
"If historians want to know what Jesus said and did, they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasonsâ€"for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple."
QuoteA book written by Romans in Greek under the guise of Judeans, yet all of the people and places mentioned are specifically Roman without any reference to what would have been to them unknown Jews.
Paul was a Roman? James was a Roman? Jude was a Roman? John was a Roman? Where do you get these "facts"?
QuoteAnd still no narrative from the time of Jesus.
Jesus' death and resurrection are found in the proto-creed of 1 Cor. 15:3-8 which can be traced to AD 35-38. As a professional historian how stunning that is.
QuoteAnd your source material still comes almost completely from apologetic sources, and you yourself disqualified Ehrman after using him as one of your sources.
My material generally comes from scholars or those who have read them...including Ehrman whom I disagree with on some points.
The truth of the gospel really makes you nervous, doesn't it? I mean, it is really essential that you try to explain it away so that you don't have to actually consider it.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 09:22:05 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 09:22:05 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 08:52:37 PMThis atheist thinks the first 4 points are accurate, since I have seen not one shred of evidence that they exist or occur. Point 5 is defended by the scientific method; as is 6 and 7. I agree with point 8; that does not mean other atheists do. That is not what I would describe as my world view; the points I agree with are simply what I regard as facts to be understood.
I could quote or link to lots of websites where this is discussed, but why bother? Suffice it to say that those who aren't up to their necks in the mire recognize the atheist worldview for what it is. Here are some common core elements of the atheist worldview:
1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.
7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:33:08 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 09:22:05 PM
This atheist thinks the first 4 points are accurate, since I have seen not one shred of evidence that they exist or occur. Point 5 is defended by the scientific method; as is 6 and 7. I agree with point 8; that does not mean other atheists do. That is not what I would describe as my world view; the points I agree with are simply what I regard as facts to be understood.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 09:36:54 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:02:22 PMPsychoanalyzing me over the internet, huh? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You shamelessly psychoanalyze people long dead about what motivates them to write the gospels.
Well, duh. Because not everyone was from somewhere else.
See, you have to really WANT to deny this evidence in order to go through such extreme mental gymnastics. And as an atheist, you really, really do, don't you.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:02:22 PMNobody ever had to register for a census clear across an entire country to do this.
Let's review:
1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for the census.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:02:22 PMThere's no mention of ancestral homes in your citation. Anywhere. What is talked about are administrative districts. Districts are part of cities, Randy.
2. You asserted that this proves the NT to be a complete fabrication because you simply assumed that no government would disrupt its population like that.
3. I have shown you an extra-biblical edict from a Roman province in Egypt clearly indicating that a census did require people to travel to their ancestral homes.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:02:22 PMIt's nothing of the sort. I read your reference. It talks about nomes â€" administrative districts. Parts of cities. Specifically, the parts of cities you report to pay your taxes.... which is one of the reasons why you do censuses in the first place: to have an estimate on how much money you're going to raise in taxes. It also estimates how big an army you can raise from those areas.
4. The archaeological proof that the NT author was a reliable historian is unimpeachable.
Neither of these two objectives, the most important objectives of a census, is served by having people "go to their ancestoral homes." It's just not there.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:02:22 PM:histerical:
5. Consequently, you must completely re-think your understanding of the gospels as eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.
6. If true, if Jesus was raised from the dead, then God does exist.
7. Atheism is a false belief-system.
That's a lot to process. I'll let you have some time to get your bearings again.
I like it how you make these grand pronouncements of the death of atheism, or calling a single reference to a census that didn't even take place in Judea "unimpeachable." I repeat, it's just not there. Even in the reference you produced, it's just not there.
So your chain of "reasoning" stops dead at #3. You have failed to produce the required evidence that anyone has ever been instructed to report to any sort of ancestral home during a census. Thanks for playing.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMYou've never ridden a donkey, have you?
Yes. I am saying that. She got to ride the donkey, remember?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMMore armchair psychoanalysis, and shifting of the burden of proof for the double. Not only have you failed to produce the evidence that any census has been carried out in the way described in Luke, but you are demanding that I prove otherwise. That's not how this works, cupcake.
Can you prove that Joseph and Mary did not travel to Bethlehem? NO, you have no proof. All you have is a deep, burning desire to discredit Luke so that you don't have to face the possibility that God is real.
What I have a "deep, burning desire" to do, Randy, is to stamp out idiocy. If the stories you tell of Jesus was attributed to George of the Jungle, you would think them just as ridiculous.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMRandy, even careful schollars make mistakes, and Luke isn't even that. There could have been any number of reasons why Joseph and Mary might have been in Bethlehem, but Luke chose a ginned-up story that shows his ignorance of what censuses are for, let alone how they are conducted.
See, if Luke was right about this, then he earns the respect of people who study ancient literature for a living. He is viewed with a hermeneutic of trust by professional historians. That's just "the benefit of the doubt" to laymen like you and me.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMWhy not? Why couldn't Luke have been a starry-eyed believer who was carried away by the promise of Jesus's resurrection? People are not Smulyanian knights and knaves. They're more complicated than that.
If Luke can be trusted, then what will you do with the resurrection of Jesus? Claim that he was telling the truth on everything BUT the magic?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMNo. It's simply apportioning belief to the evidence. Luke getting pissant little historical details right that he should have gotten right is not extraordinary. They're the bare minimum of acceptance that he isn't a complete, utter lunatic. There's still a long way to go before he becomes a Smulyanian knight.
Isn't that special pleading?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMYes. Have you?
This doesn't make any sense at all. Have you thought about what you are saying???
I hesitate to psychoanalyze you through the interwebs, but you seem have this psychological need to prove every little piddling fact of the NT right because you think that if the small things are right, then nobody can argue with the big things. Except that you deploy your apologetic against us and we do not respond like your script tells you we should respond. Why? It's because the apologetic is not for us. It's for you. It allows you to pretend that the doctrine of your church has a sound intellectual foundation. But it doesn't. It's a cargo cult of a sound intellectual foundation.
I don't assume that any particular claim of the bible is true. I assign a threshold for which I will accept that the bible got a claim historically right. So far, you have not met or exceeded this threshold, even with midly extraordinary claims like the thrice-damned census, let alone the resurrection. You have not provided anything that I would call a proof that anyone had ever done similar (you provide, at best a reference that is apples-to-oranges to the claim of the TD census). There's no reason why any other census would be done in such a manner, nor is there any consideration of what to do with crops and livestock that are left to their own devices for weeks on end, and unguarded with strangers hanging around. And there's no historical record that any such census was ever conducted, let alone in such an unorthodox manner. It's ridiculous on all levels.
And the sadest part is that it doesn't even matter really that Jesus was born in Bethlahem or Nazareth. That part was added to try to bring the Jews into the fold, and I don't have to tell you how well that worked.
You haven't done ANYTHING to prove the one claim that you really need to prove: the resurrection. Nothing at all. Instead, you try to distract me with this rellevant prattle about the nativity, but I'm keeping score of what is really important.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMRandy, I'm not going to psychoanalyze a person millennia dead, nor guess at his competences. I'm certain that the story, as the author of Luke told, seemed sensible to him, and to other people similarly ignorant. I'm quite sure that peasants in general never knew why they were being counted, so they made up any number of reasons why it was done. But to anyone with a solid grounding in what censuses are for would have laughed in Luke's face.
If the gospels are all bullshit, then why not simply put Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem in the first place? Why did they have to be from Nazareth if this was going to create such a major problem in the plot of the story? Seriously, if you were writing the story, would you have put yourself into the position of having anyone question the narrative like this?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMNot here. Not with the census. And you have still failed to provide the kind or quality of proof that would prove either the TD census or the resurrection. We might not have known for sure that Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Judea before the Pilate stone, but we knew for a for damn certain that Judea had a prefect, and... well, Pontius Pilate was as good as anyone. The same could be said for any number of individual, small, piddly little facts that the bible got right, because it would be extraordinary if they were gotten wrong â€" they only prove that the authors weren't complete and utter lunatics. You don't have to be utterly insane to be swayed by a comforting lie, especially if you were mentally weakened by tragedy.
And that's kinda the whole point of the archaeological corroboration of the NT...Skeptics have been doubting various points of the NT accounts for YEARS...only to have science prove that the gospel writers knew what they were talking about, after all.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMIf you assume the impossible (an all-powerful God â€" yes, such a thing is impossible) is possible, then logic goes casters-up and starts spewing nonsense.
Why is resurrection impossible for an all-powerful God?
Again, this is non-negotiable.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMNope, it's a basic consistency requirement. A logical system that is inconsistent can prove any proposition, including that I am the pope. You don't want me as your pope, Randy.
Because it is inconvenient to your belief system?
That's called a presupposition, isn't it?
Again, this is non-negotiable.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 09:38:20 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 21, 2016, 09:38:20 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:33:08 PMYou are welcome. Hope you learned something.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:42:40 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 09:36:54 PM
Nobody ever had to register for a census clear across an entire country to do this.
1. What archaeological or manuscript evidence do you have which supports this "travel limit"? Or did you just make this up all by yourself because you don't want to believe Luke?
2. How far is it from Nazareth to Bethlehem on your map? How long would it take for a physically fit man to walk leading a donkey carrying his pregnant wife?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:44:58 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:44:58 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 09:36:54 PM
Again, this is non-negotiable.
So, you begin with the presupposition that the supernatural does not exist. This is non-negotiable.
Correct?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 10:16:34 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 10:16:34 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:42:40 PMYou're the one who wants to prove that anyone did what you claim Joseph and Mary did. You prove that they did. I've already given my reasons to put the prior probability of such a census happening the way Luke describes quite low. That's what makes your claim an extraordinary one.
1. What archaeological or manuscript evidence do you have which supports this "travel limit"? Or did you just make this up all by yourself because you don't want to believe Luke?
Why are you having so much trouble with this?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:42:40 PMI estimate 55 miles as the crow flies. Seeing as Joseph's wife is pregnant, he would want to keep the donkey's walk to a liesurely 2 mph, given that you don't want to jostle Mary too much. That's 27.5 hours nonstop along a well-traveled road.
2. How far is it from Nazareth to Bethlehem on your map? How long would it take for a physically fit man to walk leading a donkey carrying his pregnant wife?
They're not going to walk nonstop. They're going to have frequent rests along the way, and they have to sleep. This would easily quadruple or quintuple the time. Now, you're up to five days and a bit. But of course, you need water, because you're marching across the fucking desert. You're probably going to be swinging by the coast, along well-traveled roads dotted by oases and towns where you can get water. This easily doubles the distance. Of course, there's going to be much traffic in both directions (because of the TD census) which means lengthy stays at the watering hole, so another doubling. And then you have to get back, which also doubles the distance.
Total time: about 40 days. I don't think this is unreasonable.
Or they (or better, just Joseph â€" there's no reason at all for Mary to tag along) could just hike over Cana, Bethsaida or any of the other cities up there and register there. Easy.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:44:58 PMIncorrect. I begin with well-defined, obviously non-contradictory sets of premises ("supernatural" is not well-defined; "all-powerful" is right out logically inconsistent). If you don't want resurrection to be big-I impossible, just say so, but you'll still have to prove that it was likely in Jesus's case. Right now you're using a logical incongruity to justify a physical impossibility. Nothing about that is reasonable.
So, you begin with the presupposition that the supernatural does not exist. This is non-negotiable.
Correct?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 21, 2016, 10:21:29 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 21, 2016, 10:21:29 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 06:16:28 PMYou mean exactly like Matthew did?
If the gospels are all bullshit, then why not simply put Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem in the first place?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 10:40:07 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 10:40:07 PM
Let me point out that Joseph had Mary riding his ass all the way to Bethlehem. That's why they were so slow to get there. :braceface:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 22, 2016, 07:45:39 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 22, 2016, 07:45:39 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 02:54:51 PM
Craig Blomberg, Ph.D.
except that some, when they come to the gospels, change the ground rules which is not fair and is not going to lead to the most reliable historical results, either. We want to have a level playing field.
Some may change the ground rules, so by all means, imply that some means all, and create yet another straw man to argue against. But before you start attacking the playing field, stop trying to tilt it yourself. If you want to play the game of logic, learn the rules. If you want to play the game of fantasy, go play with the little kids.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 22, 2016, 07:59:13 AM
Post by: marom1963 on May 22, 2016, 07:59:13 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:20:46 PMAnd what does any of this prove about Jesus - and especially about Jesus being the Son of God? So, Cicero messed up his geography - or maybe there were two cities w/the same name - like that's never happened before! None of this proves a single thing about Jesus. It's as though you are saying someone wrote the name "Jesus" on an ancient restaurant's recently discovered menu, so, there, the fact that they served stuffed fig leaves proves that Jesus was the Son of God. Nonsense.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
It's pretty easy to see that the writers of the gospels were reliable in their reporting - just ask an archaeologist!
A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament
Related to Quirinius
Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census (Luke 2:1â€"3). Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century revealed Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time, and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch.
Related to Erastus
In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.†A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence.
Related to Lysanias
Luke described a tetrarch named Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned over Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Two inscriptions have been discovered that mention Lysanias by name. One of these, dated from AD 14â€"37, identifies Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus.
Related to Iconium
In Acts 13:51, Luke described this city in Phyrigia. Some ancient writers (like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was located in Lycaonia, rather than Phyrigia, but a monument was discovered in 1910 that confirmed Iconium as a city in Phyrigia.
Related to the Pool of Bethesda
John wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1â€"9) and said that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, surrounded by five porticos. In 1888, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side.
Related to Politarchs
For many centuries, Luke was the only ancient writer to use the word Politarch to describe “rulers of the city.†Skeptics doubted that it was a legitimate Greek term until nineteen inscriptions were discovered. Five of these were in reference to Thessalonica (the very city in which Luke was claiming to have heard the term).
Related to the Pool of Siloam
John wrote about the “Pool of Siloam†(John 9:1â€"12) and described it as a place of ceremonial cleansing. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the features of the pool and coins found in the plaster).
Related to Pontius Pilate
For many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a very brief citation by Tacitus. In 1961, however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with Pilate’s name. The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26â€"36), and it describes a building dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar.
Related to the Custom of Crucifixion
While thousands of condemned criminals and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, buried in a proper Jewish “kôkhîmtype†tomb.
Related to Sergius Paulus
In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos. Skeptics doubted the existence of this man and claimed that any leader of this area would be a “propraetor†rather than a proconsul. But an inscription was discovered at Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged Paulus and identified him as a proconsul.
In addition to these archaeological discoveries, there are many other details recorded in the Book of Acts corroborating its historical accuracy. Luke describes features of the Roman world corroborated by other non-Christian historians:
Luke includes a correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)
Luke includes an accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)
Luke includes a correct depiction of invoking one’s roman citizenship, including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)
Luke includes a accurate description of being in Roman custody and the conditions of being imprisoned at one’s own expense (Acts 28:16 and Acts 28:30-31)
Excerpted from:
A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament
by J. Warner Wallace, Former Atheist
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/a-brief-sample-of-archaeology-corroborating-the-claims-of-the-new-testament/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:49:09 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:49:09 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
You had me right up until "gLuke had to have been written before Acts." No. You don't know that. You don't know what order these books were written in. That's what fucks up your timeline.
I can't remember if I responded to this point previously or not...it just caught my eye (again?):
QuoteActs 1
1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
What was the name of Luke's "former book" that contained an account of "all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen"?
Would that be the Gospel of Luke, perhaps?
That's at least two points on which you have been proven wrong. We could continue this dance OR you might consider buying some decent commentaries reading them. Here are some recommendations:
Mary Healy is a friend of my wife. In fact, Mary autographed the flyleaf of this book just this week when she was in town giving a talk:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MHzB1jRnL._AC_US240_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)
Fr. Francis Martin officiated the wedding ceremony when my wife and I were married.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dCUtJV3cL._AC_US240_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)
Fr. Bill Kurz lived in my home for several months when he was studying in Washington, DC.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ysnl4BF-L._AC_US240_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:51:52 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:51:52 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 10:16:34 PM
You're the one who wants to prove that anyone did what you claim Joseph and Mary did.
Sorry, chief.
You made the positive assertion that "Nobody ever had to register for a census clear across an entire country to do this."
You know the rules of debate. The person holding the positive position has the burden of proof.
Got anything?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:55:50 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:55:50 AM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 21, 2016, 10:21:29 PM
You mean exactly like Matthew did?
Exactly. That's a literary technique known as "compression".
Matthew begins his account of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem whereas Luke goes back a bit further in time to Nazareth. This is different but not contradictory.
One sports reporter might begin his article on the Super Bowl with the opening kickoff whereas another might actually start by describing what happened in the locker room before the game.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:03:13 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:03:13 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 21, 2016, 10:16:34 PM
You're the one who wants to prove that anyone did what you claim Joseph and Mary did. You prove that they did. I've already given my reasons to put the prior probability of such a census happening the way Luke describes quite low. That's what makes your claim an extraordinary one.
Why are you having so much trouble with this?
I estimate 55 miles as the crow flies. Seeing as Joseph's wife is pregnant, he would want to keep the donkey's walk to a liesurely 2 mph, given that you don't want to jostle Mary too much. That's 27.5 hours nonstop along a well-traveled road.
They're not going to walk nonstop. They're going to have frequent rests along the way, and they have to sleep. This would easily quadruple or quintuple the time. Now, you're up to five days and a bit. But of course, you need water, because you're marching across the fucking desert. You're probably going to be swinging by the coast, along well-traveled roads dotted by oases and towns where you can get water. This easily doubles the distance. Of course, there's going to be much traffic in both directions (because of the TD census) which means lengthy stays at the watering hole, so another doubling. And then you have to get back, which also doubles the distance.
Total time: about 40 days. I don't think this is unreasonable.
Let's use your figure of 55 miles. Make it 60.
Let's say they traveled at two miles an hour for ten hours per day (they had more daylight than that probably, but sure...they had stops for rest and food, etc.)
Three days then? One way? If they aren't hustling?
And this is a problem HOW exactly???
YOUR APPROACH:
1. God does not exist.
2. The Bible is crap.
3. I can prove it contains errors.
4. I will overlook evidence that contradicts what I already presupposed in #1, #2 & #3.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:13:23 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:13:23 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 22, 2016, 07:45:39 AM
Some may change the ground rules, so by all means, imply that some means all, and create yet another straw man to argue against. But before you start attacking the playing field, stop trying to tilt it yourself. If you want to play the game of logic, learn the rules. If you want to play the game of fantasy, go play with the little kids.
Noted.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:26:21 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 22, 2016, 07:59:13 AM
And what does any of this prove about Jesus - and especially about Jesus being the Son of God? So, Cicero messed up his geography - or maybe there were two cities w/the same name - like that's never happened before! None of this proves a single thing about Jesus. It's as though you are saying someone wrote the name "Jesus" on an ancient restaurant's recently discovered menu, so, there, the fact that they served stuffed fig leaves proves that Jesus was the Son of God. Nonsense.
That is a good question, marom, though I'm not saying anything like you have suggested.
Consider the visual of walking down a path. Here are the steps taken in various threads so far:
1. The texts of the gospels that we have today are reliable reconstructions of what the authors originally wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been penned by actual eyewitnesses or their companions.
3. The gospels were written by eyewitnesses: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (And this is not essential, btw - it's icing on the cake!)
4. The gospels are corroborated on important points by enemy attestation from non-biblical sources such as Jewish and Roman historians.
5. The gospels contain historical, geographic, cultural and other details that have been corroborated by archaeological discovery.
6. The gospels are sufficiently corroborated as to warrant approaching them with a hermeneutic of trust.
None of this proves that Jesus was God, marom. It does suggest very strongly, however, that the gospels can be viewed as historically reliable documents.
Now, we have to deal with what these trustworthy men actually said about Jesus of Nazareth.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 10:26:31 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 10:26:31 AM
John Dominic Crossan is a new testemant and early christianity scholar former Catholic priest. He is the founder of Jesus Seminar which is an 'organization of revisionist biblical scholars'.
Jesus Seminar:
LOL
When it comes to Bart Ehrman, his basic logic is the that for an 'ancient' figure this amount of mention is so outstanding and certainly there is something behind it. And based on that he is 'estimating' what happened in a more likley situation. He is also a new testament 'historian'. This is pretty much saying something like Sheakespare is so fucking good for his age, he cannot be one man, but should be a dozen. OR ancient Egyptian monuments are so advanced for its day, aliens must have done it.
--------------------
Modern history follows that the rational explanation of historical events are shaped by centripetal and centrifugal forces -which create countless dynamics- which are not independent, nor take place in a consecutive or an alternate manner in a linear development. They do NOT occur or happen to achieve certain consequences; inspire results as if the whole world is supposed to stand up to watch them to shape humanity. Reality does not conform to beliefs and ideals, fantasies of intelligent animals.
History doesn't go "this was written before us, so it must have happened." Humans tried that approach in many fields as almost social science are historical disciplines. That's what we call 19th century. It's a mess. It doesn't work. We are still paying its price and we'll pay for a long time. (That last part could be too advanced for you.) In the end it's not rational, reasonable...not scientific.
Historical value of a historian is not determined by other historians born ages later agreeing on his opinions on a specific event. It's determined by the interpretation of those events defined as 'historical' according to the ever growing accumulation of knowledge; in which concepts and events defined over and over again by pradigm shifts which in return determines the whole OUTLOOK.
The question of "DID JESUS EXIST AS A PERSON?" is not a historical question as the modern history goes. It's chit chat. The reasons for that as in reasonable are:
1. There have been countless 'revolutionists' rising up against authority in every corner of the planet through out human history since the dawn of human. We don't need a detailed historical evidence for this. The moment a primate learned to hold a stick or a bone and hit with it, figured out that it can kill/scare the 'others' with it...it started to happen.
2. Almost all people who rose up against brutal power were executed or killed consciously in traditional manners of their times. Their executions were almost always made public, because that's the whole point: "Don't do that, the authority will kill you." Doesn't matter what is the authority here or when it happened. Every power zone is programmed to eliminate any possible threat to itself or use it if it's convenient. These politics do not belong to modern ages. They are so ancient, have been going around since humans developed a society and a leader; means of authority responsible from order.
3. Why some 'revolutions' and 'revolutionists' seem to be successful and some are not? First of all this is MORE about the culture we have now, rather than what might have happened in history. As Western culture is dictating the world politicaly and culturally we are familiar with characters and events overtold word of the mouth stories in many mediums. So this is actually about the series events that HAPPENED many times later before Jesus or Christianity. If Persians had managed to maintain that economical, militaristic and political power over the world, the dominant collective; the dictating culture would be in theirs and in terms of their myths and beliefs. It's Ancient Roman and ancient Greek because Western culture accepts and defines them as their roots.
4. Why something like this did happen in Roman Empire? This has two parts. And this goes between the Empire being Roman (as in culture) and the empire being an Empire. When we say the word 'Empire' today we automatically understand something negative, a power zone that rules over different ethnic groups and nations in a vast geography generally, because we were born roughly 200 years after the French Revolution. And before empire is pretty much something like kingdom. There are no nations, national cultures-languages, national armies to talk of before French Rev., let alone a couple of thousand years ago. Because THRE IS NO STANDARD before French Revolution. (For example, if we jump into a Delorian and travel back in time to Constantinapolis in Middle Ages, knock the door of a moderate citizen and ask him who is he and where is he from, he would say 'I am a Roman'. ) Classification of Empires we have today is a modern one. Doesn't work back in the day.
So Empires were pretty much like Kingdoms that rules over many different 'ethnic' groups. What's a kingdom or an empire? It's Centralised power. What are the forces that leads to the accumulation of this power? How does it occur?
*Resources. The technology to process those resources. From steel to stone and marble, food. A certain demography. Being able to provide for that demography as in basics and social life orders. What does this mean?
i. Water. The most important resource for human on the planet. While most ancient cities were founded close to some kind of water source and had a certain natural borders according to the capacity of that specific source and so a capacity to sustain a certain demographic, Roman did not have that handicap. Because they re-invented the ARCH (we know its far more ancient, just don't know who or when specifically) and an architecture that enabled them to carry water long distances; build aqueducts and resorvoirs. Roads, bridges to for armies to travel. Huge temples, administration centers..etc. These are all CENTRIPETAL froces themselves to centralisation and also the results of those very forces. Architecture is over all by itself a perfect projection of the law, religion nd order in a culture. Esp. before the sopranational; ideal standarads. Meaning 'modern age'.
ii. On the other hand the diversity of conquered lands and people -which mostly with myopic posmodern look most modern people can't get how different countless opposing cultures and sub cultures pagan world had- and different religious and ethnic groups are the natural means of CENTRIFUGAL forces themselves against the empire and between them also. Just the set of dynamics here is enough to create a dozen christian revolutions with the 'right' condition. It's natural 'opposition' by demographics and culture to be put under rule and control.
Romans did not just force other cultures into religious assimilation because they are more civilised or just because they can. They did it because different religious systems had rituals and traditions; way of life that would make it impossible to maintain an order under their standards. For example, things like ritual killings as human sacrifice or other violent collective rituals; tarditions rendered 'punishments' and 'sanctions' of Roman State virtually useless which was crucial to miantain the order. They even prohibited the consumption of certain herbs that they believed made people violent and enforce that wine should be used in rituals...etc.
*Slavery. Very important and not just because it organizes people because it is inhumaine and unjust. While the slavery in ancient Greek and Roman cultures are very the same with what we had in near future and now today -there are estimated 30 million slaves today on the planet- it is also very different. Many slaves are very highly educated in ancient Rome. From lawyers to physicians. And needlessly to say, they are the cheapest labour which lieaves nothing to work for ordinary citizens while nobles have almost all the land and resources. These are again the organic caus nd effects creating CENTRIFUGAL forces constaly moving to every way and angle.
*Military. The biggest and last force to make Christianity the official big.
While the empire is getting bigger and bigger with the demographic; people being slapped on the rope between these opposing forces you can be sure that there WERE MANY MEN WHO ROSE UP AGAINST TO STOP THE TYRANNY. The thing is tyranny were the only regime available that day, today it is the subtle version of this regime ruling over by modern state.
So there is no need, has never been a need for one special superhero that will die for everyone's sin and come back for Christianity to be born. There is no god needed for Christianity to happen.Because in a vast land with huge demographics; huge immigration that gets fragmented constantly; unites and breaks into groups chaning like a freaking kaleidoscope and then gives birth to new groups over and over again, crushed under famine and war is a fertile bed for any revolution to happen.
And it FINALLY BROKE UP, naturally it couldn't hold the weight. But that didn't happen suddenly. It took a very long time. Hundreds of years. And that process is the centrifugal forces reaching to a tipping point to create the ground for a new centripetal force. Christianity. One god, one religion opposed to many other. Unity. And they have carried on the making of the religion after 400 years because it was crucial for the Empire to go on.
Who started it; there was a really a charismatic man going around bestowing people some wisdom? Did they listen to him? How many friends he had? Was he executed at some point because people started to listen to him? DOESN'T HOLD ANY WEIGHT. Sparthacus was him. Buddha was him. Countless men we haven't even heard of were him. The question that 'who started it or could it be one person caused it' is INVALID. It's the same old story. What jesus supposedly taught has been known tens of thousands of years before him....probably far more.
Randy, doesn't matter which part of the 'discussion' rises up we are always back to YOUR PERSONAL PERCEPTION of HISTORY which is only a belief of attributing super powers and divinity to a standard concept of a revolutionist; more like a collective wish of humanity expressed in ideals of a Bronze Age mentality.
You need to learn what is history and what is myth. What is theological knowledge, what is mythical knowledge and what is historical knowledge and while they all exist, why they are so different in terms of what is knowledge today at the point we reached. We can discuss all these kind of knowledges, their nature; everything about them. But that doesn't change the fact that there is only one type of knowledge that matters in human life in reality and that is based rationality and reason and science. (No this doesn't mean we worship science, don't come to me with that please.)
Jesus Seminar:
QuoteMethodology[edit]
The first findings of the Jesus Seminar were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.[4]
The Fellows used a voting system to evaluate the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. For certain high-profile passages the votes were embodied in beads, the color of which represented the degree of confidence that a saying or act was or was not authentic:
Red beads â€" indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
Pink beads â€" indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
Grey beads â€" indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
Black beads â€" indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passageâ€"it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)
A confidence value was determined from the voting using a weighted average of the points given for each bead; the text was color-coded from red to black (with the same significance as the bead colors) according to the outcome of the voting.[25]
Criteria for authenticity[edit]
The Jesus Seminar treats the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, containing both authentic and inauthentic material. The Seminar fellows used several criteria for determining whether a particular saying or story is authentic, including the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment. Among additional criteria used by the fellows are the following:.[4]
Orality: According to current estimates, the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' death. Parables, aphorisms, and stories were passed down orally (30 â€" 50 CE). The fellows judged whether a saying was a short, catchy pericope that could possibly survive intact from the speaker's death until decades later when it was first written down. If so, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "turn the other cheek".
Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies".
Trust in God: A long discourse attested in three gospels has Jesus telling his listeners not to fret but to trust in the Father. Fellows looked for this theme in other sayings they deemed authentic. For example, "Ask â€" it'll be given to you".
Criteria for inauthenticity[edit]
The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as inauthentic, including self-reference, leadership issues, and apocalyptic themes.[4]
Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself? For example, "I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life" (John 14:1â€"14).
Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame other material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the "red" parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' framing words in these scenes to be "black".
Community Issues: Do the verses refer to the concerns of the early Christian community, such as instructions for missionaries or issues of leadership? For example, Peter as "the rock" on which Jesus builds his church (Matthew 16:17â€"19).
Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31â€"46) was voted black[clarification needed] because the fellows saw it as representing Matthew's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community.
LOL
When it comes to Bart Ehrman, his basic logic is the that for an 'ancient' figure this amount of mention is so outstanding and certainly there is something behind it. And based on that he is 'estimating' what happened in a more likley situation. He is also a new testament 'historian'. This is pretty much saying something like Sheakespare is so fucking good for his age, he cannot be one man, but should be a dozen. OR ancient Egyptian monuments are so advanced for its day, aliens must have done it.
--------------------
Modern history follows that the rational explanation of historical events are shaped by centripetal and centrifugal forces -which create countless dynamics- which are not independent, nor take place in a consecutive or an alternate manner in a linear development. They do NOT occur or happen to achieve certain consequences; inspire results as if the whole world is supposed to stand up to watch them to shape humanity. Reality does not conform to beliefs and ideals, fantasies of intelligent animals.
History doesn't go "this was written before us, so it must have happened." Humans tried that approach in many fields as almost social science are historical disciplines. That's what we call 19th century. It's a mess. It doesn't work. We are still paying its price and we'll pay for a long time. (That last part could be too advanced for you.) In the end it's not rational, reasonable...not scientific.
Historical value of a historian is not determined by other historians born ages later agreeing on his opinions on a specific event. It's determined by the interpretation of those events defined as 'historical' according to the ever growing accumulation of knowledge; in which concepts and events defined over and over again by pradigm shifts which in return determines the whole OUTLOOK.
The question of "DID JESUS EXIST AS A PERSON?" is not a historical question as the modern history goes. It's chit chat. The reasons for that as in reasonable are:
1. There have been countless 'revolutionists' rising up against authority in every corner of the planet through out human history since the dawn of human. We don't need a detailed historical evidence for this. The moment a primate learned to hold a stick or a bone and hit with it, figured out that it can kill/scare the 'others' with it...it started to happen.
2. Almost all people who rose up against brutal power were executed or killed consciously in traditional manners of their times. Their executions were almost always made public, because that's the whole point: "Don't do that, the authority will kill you." Doesn't matter what is the authority here or when it happened. Every power zone is programmed to eliminate any possible threat to itself or use it if it's convenient. These politics do not belong to modern ages. They are so ancient, have been going around since humans developed a society and a leader; means of authority responsible from order.
3. Why some 'revolutions' and 'revolutionists' seem to be successful and some are not? First of all this is MORE about the culture we have now, rather than what might have happened in history. As Western culture is dictating the world politicaly and culturally we are familiar with characters and events overtold word of the mouth stories in many mediums. So this is actually about the series events that HAPPENED many times later before Jesus or Christianity. If Persians had managed to maintain that economical, militaristic and political power over the world, the dominant collective; the dictating culture would be in theirs and in terms of their myths and beliefs. It's Ancient Roman and ancient Greek because Western culture accepts and defines them as their roots.
4. Why something like this did happen in Roman Empire? This has two parts. And this goes between the Empire being Roman (as in culture) and the empire being an Empire. When we say the word 'Empire' today we automatically understand something negative, a power zone that rules over different ethnic groups and nations in a vast geography generally, because we were born roughly 200 years after the French Revolution. And before empire is pretty much something like kingdom. There are no nations, national cultures-languages, national armies to talk of before French Rev., let alone a couple of thousand years ago. Because THRE IS NO STANDARD before French Revolution. (For example, if we jump into a Delorian and travel back in time to Constantinapolis in Middle Ages, knock the door of a moderate citizen and ask him who is he and where is he from, he would say 'I am a Roman'. ) Classification of Empires we have today is a modern one. Doesn't work back in the day.
So Empires were pretty much like Kingdoms that rules over many different 'ethnic' groups. What's a kingdom or an empire? It's Centralised power. What are the forces that leads to the accumulation of this power? How does it occur?
*Resources. The technology to process those resources. From steel to stone and marble, food. A certain demography. Being able to provide for that demography as in basics and social life orders. What does this mean?
i. Water. The most important resource for human on the planet. While most ancient cities were founded close to some kind of water source and had a certain natural borders according to the capacity of that specific source and so a capacity to sustain a certain demographic, Roman did not have that handicap. Because they re-invented the ARCH (we know its far more ancient, just don't know who or when specifically) and an architecture that enabled them to carry water long distances; build aqueducts and resorvoirs. Roads, bridges to for armies to travel. Huge temples, administration centers..etc. These are all CENTRIPETAL froces themselves to centralisation and also the results of those very forces. Architecture is over all by itself a perfect projection of the law, religion nd order in a culture. Esp. before the sopranational; ideal standarads. Meaning 'modern age'.
ii. On the other hand the diversity of conquered lands and people -which mostly with myopic posmodern look most modern people can't get how different countless opposing cultures and sub cultures pagan world had- and different religious and ethnic groups are the natural means of CENTRIFUGAL forces themselves against the empire and between them also. Just the set of dynamics here is enough to create a dozen christian revolutions with the 'right' condition. It's natural 'opposition' by demographics and culture to be put under rule and control.
Romans did not just force other cultures into religious assimilation because they are more civilised or just because they can. They did it because different religious systems had rituals and traditions; way of life that would make it impossible to maintain an order under their standards. For example, things like ritual killings as human sacrifice or other violent collective rituals; tarditions rendered 'punishments' and 'sanctions' of Roman State virtually useless which was crucial to miantain the order. They even prohibited the consumption of certain herbs that they believed made people violent and enforce that wine should be used in rituals...etc.
*Slavery. Very important and not just because it organizes people because it is inhumaine and unjust. While the slavery in ancient Greek and Roman cultures are very the same with what we had in near future and now today -there are estimated 30 million slaves today on the planet- it is also very different. Many slaves are very highly educated in ancient Rome. From lawyers to physicians. And needlessly to say, they are the cheapest labour which lieaves nothing to work for ordinary citizens while nobles have almost all the land and resources. These are again the organic caus nd effects creating CENTRIFUGAL forces constaly moving to every way and angle.
*Military. The biggest and last force to make Christianity the official big.
While the empire is getting bigger and bigger with the demographic; people being slapped on the rope between these opposing forces you can be sure that there WERE MANY MEN WHO ROSE UP AGAINST TO STOP THE TYRANNY. The thing is tyranny were the only regime available that day, today it is the subtle version of this regime ruling over by modern state.
So there is no need, has never been a need for one special superhero that will die for everyone's sin and come back for Christianity to be born. There is no god needed for Christianity to happen.Because in a vast land with huge demographics; huge immigration that gets fragmented constantly; unites and breaks into groups chaning like a freaking kaleidoscope and then gives birth to new groups over and over again, crushed under famine and war is a fertile bed for any revolution to happen.
And it FINALLY BROKE UP, naturally it couldn't hold the weight. But that didn't happen suddenly. It took a very long time. Hundreds of years. And that process is the centrifugal forces reaching to a tipping point to create the ground for a new centripetal force. Christianity. One god, one religion opposed to many other. Unity. And they have carried on the making of the religion after 400 years because it was crucial for the Empire to go on.
Who started it; there was a really a charismatic man going around bestowing people some wisdom? Did they listen to him? How many friends he had? Was he executed at some point because people started to listen to him? DOESN'T HOLD ANY WEIGHT. Sparthacus was him. Buddha was him. Countless men we haven't even heard of were him. The question that 'who started it or could it be one person caused it' is INVALID. It's the same old story. What jesus supposedly taught has been known tens of thousands of years before him....probably far more.
Randy, doesn't matter which part of the 'discussion' rises up we are always back to YOUR PERSONAL PERCEPTION of HISTORY which is only a belief of attributing super powers and divinity to a standard concept of a revolutionist; more like a collective wish of humanity expressed in ideals of a Bronze Age mentality.
You need to learn what is history and what is myth. What is theological knowledge, what is mythical knowledge and what is historical knowledge and while they all exist, why they are so different in terms of what is knowledge today at the point we reached. We can discuss all these kind of knowledges, their nature; everything about them. But that doesn't change the fact that there is only one type of knowledge that matters in human life in reality and that is based rationality and reason and science. (No this doesn't mean we worship science, don't come to me with that please.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 10:50:52 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 10:50:52 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 10:26:31 AM
You need to learn what is history and what is myth.
Everyone does. Some more than others.
"Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.†(John Dominic Crossan, Co-founder of The Jesus Seminar, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography,145.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 10:51:30 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 10:51:30 AM
Archeology works with solid evidence and facts pointed by that evidence. Theological knowledge is not archeological material. Neither religious scripture, nor philosopphy.
Hermeneutics is a methodology for interpretation of texts. We can use it for any text produced in human culture in any period.
I can make up an imaginary text -anything- in a several hours and present a solid case of Hermeneutic of Suspicion with it about anything I choose.
Hermeneutics is a methodology for interpretation of texts. We can use it for any text produced in human culture in any period.
I can make up an imaginary text -anything- in a several hours and present a solid case of Hermeneutic of Suspicion with it about anything I choose.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 10:54:09 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 10:54:09 AM
People write stories ... it is called literature. Myth, history, hagiography and biography are different genres of literature, some with more realism. The dynamics of literature is very involved ... particularly ancient writings. With ancient writings we usually don't know who wrote them or why ... and popular literature that has been read by many generations of people ... have a vast and varied audience, how can we deconstruct? What did the first hearers (most people couldn't read back then) think of it? We usually don't know. What we do know is what later educated commentators thought about it ... but for me that is uninteresting, scholars writing about other scholars.
I am curious about the creative process, the psychology, then and now. How does one create a Bible story and why? Meaning, could one create another one today? In what ways would the process of creating one today, given one's introspection, give us any insight into why these old stories were written in the first place? In what ways are we the same as people long ago, and in what ways are we different?
I am curious about the creative process, the psychology, then and now. How does one create a Bible story and why? Meaning, could one create another one today? In what ways would the process of creating one today, given one's introspection, give us any insight into why these old stories were written in the first place? In what ways are we the same as people long ago, and in what ways are we different?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 10:55:36 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 10:55:36 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 10:51:30 AM
Archeology works with solid evidence and facts pointed by that evidence.
Agreed. And when archaeology corroborates what an ancient writer says, we have some cause to respect the author as a trustworthy source of information.
QuoteTheological knowledge is not archeological material. Neither religious scripture, nor philosopphy.
Correct.
QuoteHermeneutics is a methodology for interpretation of texts. We can use it for any text produced in human culture in any period.
Correct.
QuoteI can make up an imaginary text -anything- in a several hours and present a solid case of Hermeneutic of Suspicion with it about anything I choose.
Okay. Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:02:23 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 10:50:52 AM
Everyone does. Some more than others.
"Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.†(John Dominic Crossan, Co-founder of The Jesus Seminar, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography,145.)
Is that the line you pulled from that post?
I am very familiar with those names, Randy. And many others you even haven't heard of. I spend most of my time translating studies on history, cultural history, anthropology, archeology...pretty much like anything from social sciences in Oxford or Cambridge calibre. Christianity and history of Western culture is a crucial part of it. It's my fucking job. Oddly enough -lol- I am never given books like yours even in a country like where I live when it comes to 'academic studies' and 'PhD's. They are considered hogwash and nothing else.
And you don't know the first thing about history, esp. considering your claims. That is far worse than what everyone knows or not.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:36:02 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:36:02 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:02:23 AM
Is that the line you pulled from that post?
My point was simply that Jesus is not a myth.
QuoteI am very familiar with those names, Randy. And many others you even haven't heard of. I spend most of my time translating studies on history, cultural history, anthropology, archeology...pretty much like anything from social sciences in Oxford or Cambridge calibre. Christianity and history of Western culture is a crucial part of it. It's my fucking job. Oddly enough -lol- I am never given books like yours even in a country like where I live when it comes to 'academic studies' and 'PhD's. They are considered hogwash and nothing else.
And you don't know the first thing about history, esp. considering your claims. That is far worse than what everyone knows or not.
Then prove me wrong. My threads contain the arguments. See ya there.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:37:42 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:37:42 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 10:55:36 AM
And when archaeology corroborates what an ancient writer says, we have some cause to respect the author as a trustworthy source of information.
Wrong. Writing is not evidence. Or support. No, we don't have any cause to respect or disrespect a historian or a writer who lived hundreds years ago or even just in 19th century.
See, again, you do not get what historical knowledge is.
Here is an example for you.
Any domestic policy that was enforced by some state before French Revolution does not accepted by historians as a 'policy', doesn't matter how benign or even good they are for the people of the country in question. Some of them are expressed in so modern manners and proper in language; context; purpose you'd think they were written today. And there are many other texts that supports these main ones. Countless in fact.
But reality is, they are just bollocks. Because any policy that was enforced before modern state aims to protect the soveriegn's power; his benefits and profits and nothing else. But the text of the legislations can be perfect and for a long time they were taken as they were. Until the modern history comes.
An entertaining example, in a completely different field with a different type of 'evidence'.
When the West discovered what we define as Dutch Renaissance today for the first time, and classified the paintings recently a hundred years ago, one particular type of painting took their attention because the scene was painted repeatedly.
The painting was simple. There was a young woman in some sofa and a man in the secene and scattered jewelry around, an upturned shoe and a sock depicted in a 3d sensation. Important details as its iconography goes, but there are many others. Now, they thought that this was the picture a father telling his daughter that she should turn away from worldly riches, giving fatherly advice of prudence and dangers of profane life..sometimes this pics included another man who was thought as a husband candidate which in this case fathers lectured both youngters...etc.
The thing is, the young women in the paintings were actually meant as prostitutes and the man was her pimp, others were clients. In Dutch iconogpraphy; more like in collective memory of the culture, the sock is pussy and upturned shoe is the deed of a prostitute...a woman who is not a virgin.
There are some other paintings of the sort, interpretated in the same religious manner while they were just depicting a simple bargain between a pimp and a client and a chat with prostitutes. Why the Dutch had so many of them, what was 'wrong' with them? Prostitution was so common? Dutch women were mostly 'whores'? No. Dutch had very important ports and sea trade which made a LOT of money in that industry -sailors- and their culture was evolved enough to accept this trade as a fact of life and they were also evolved enough to depict daily human life as it occured in 17th century while other European cultures were conservative and oppressive about it, pretending that it doesn't happen. Edit: This has lot to do with Dutch legalising prostitution earlier than any other country. And their general liberal culture among others in continental Europe.
:lol:
And if I wasn't bored as hell I could have given you countless of examples how some 'historical knowledge' known as solid just until a hundred years ago turned out to be bollocks in far more important fields. But it is not worth it. You are here to preach your delusion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:39:44 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:39:44 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:36:02 AM
My point was simply that Jesus is not a myth.
Then prove me wrong. My threads contain the arguments. See ya there.
No, it is a waste of time. You are not here to exchange opinions or even to discuss. You are here to preach your delusion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:54:27 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:54:27 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:37:42 AM
Wrong. Writing is not evidence. Or support. No, we don't have any cause to respect or disrespect a historian or a writer who lived hundreds years ago or even just in 19th century.
When it can be demonstrated that an author is reliable and accurate, then his work may be approached with a hermeneutic of trust rather than suspicion.
QuoteSee, again, you do not get what historical knowledge is.
Here is an example for you.
Any domestic policy that was enforced by some state before French Revolution does not accepted by historians as a 'policy', doesn't matter how benign or even good they are for the people of the country in question. Some of them are expressed in so modern manners and proper in language; context; purpose you'd think they were written today. And there are many other texts that supports these main ones. Countless in fact.
But reality is, they are just bollocks. Because any policy that was enforced before modern state aims to protect the soveriegn's power; his benefits and profits and nothing else. But the text of the legislations can be perfect and for a long time they were taken as they were. Until the modern history comes.
Interesting but irrelevant. We're not discussing whether an ancient policy is binding upon a modern state; we're discussing whether an ancient document contains an eyewitness report. The credibility of the author is the issue.
QuoteAn entertaining example, in a completely different field with a different type of 'evidence'.
When the West discovered what we define as Dutch Renaissance today for the first time, and classified the paintings recently a hundred years ago, one particular type of painting took their attention because the scene was painted repeatedly.
The painting was simple. There was a young woman in some sofa and a man in the secene and scattered jewelry around, an upturned shoe and a sock depicted in a 3d sensation. Important details as its iconography goes, but there are many others. Now, they thought that this was the picture a father telling his daughter that she should turn away from worldly riches, giving fatherly advice of prudence and dangerous of profane life..sometimes this pics included another man who was thought as a husband candidate which in this case fathers lectured both youngters...etc.
The thing is, the young women in the paintings were actually meant as prostitutes and the man was her pimp, others were clients. In Dutch iconogpraphy; more like in collective memory of the culture, the sock is pussy and upturned shoe is the deed of a prostitute...a woman who is not a virgin.
There are some other paintings of the sort, interpretated in the same religious manner while they were just depicting a simple bargain between a pimp and a client and a chat with prostitutes. Why the Dutch had so many of them, what was 'wrong' with them? Prostitution was so common? Dutch women were mostly 'whores'? No. Dutch had very important ports and sea trade which made a LOT of money in that industry -sailors- and their culture was evolved enough to accept this trade as a fact of life and they were also evolved enough to depict daily human life as it occured in 17th century while other European cultures were conservative and oppressive about it, pretending that it doesn't happen. Edit: This has lot to do with Dutch legalising prostitution earlier than any other country. And their general liberal culture among others in continental Europe.
Irrelevant to whether the authors of the New Testament were writing fiction or historical fact.
QuoteAnd if I wasn't bored as hell I could have given you countless of examples how some 'historical knowledge' known as solid just until a hundred years ago turned out to be bollocks in far more important fields. But it is not worth it. You are here to preach your delusion.
If any of your examples actually apply to discussion, do let us know, okay?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 11:39:44 AM
No, it is a waste of time. You are not here to exchange opinions or even to discuss. You are here to preach your delusion.
Nope. This ain't preaching, brother.
This is a presentation of what can be known about Jesus from the evidence that is available.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
Evidence that doesn't pass muster. Idle speculation all the way down. Bring G-d down from the heavens .. and if he speaks Hebrew, you are toast ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 12:02:07 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 12:02:07 PM
She operates well above your educational level ... she can even teach me a few things ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 22, 2016, 12:18:10 PM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 22, 2016, 12:18:10 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:55:50 AMAnd if one sports writer said that the winning team returned home after the game and the other said they flew to Canada to hide out until the mayor of Santa Clara died?
One sports reporter might begin his article on the Super Bowl with the opening kickoff whereas another might actually start by describing what happened in the locker room before the game.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 12:44:05 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 22, 2016, 12:18:10 PM
And if one sports writer said that the winning team returned home after the game and the other said they flew to Canada to hide out until the mayor of Santa Clara died?
Then both could be true.
They could have flown to Canada to hide out until the mayor of Santa Clara died and then returned home (which was obviously "after the game").
There are differences in the gospel accounts. There are no contradictions.
If you have based your atheism on this misunderstanding, perhaps it's time to give the gospels another read.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 22, 2016, 02:58:34 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 22, 2016, 02:58:34 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:56:45 AMYou are so full of bullshit it is coming out of your fingers.
Nope. This ain't preaching, brother.
This is a presentation of what can be known about Jesus from the evidence that is available.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 04:52:40 PM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 04:52:40 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
Nope. This ain't preaching, brother.
This is a presentation of what can be known about Jesus from the evidence that is available.
Oh yes it is. A very ordinary one we have seen many times before here in this forum. I have been here for 6 years, Randy. You are not doing something special. There are a few members left who has been around more and they'll confirm this for a longer period.
And I am a sister, not a brother. *Waves.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 04:59:21 PM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 04:59:21 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 11:54:27 AM
When it can be demonstrated that an author is reliable and accurate, then his work may be approached with a hermeneutic of trust rather than suspicion.
Interesting but irrelevant. We're not discussing whether an ancient policy is binding upon a modern state; we're discussing whether an ancient document contains an eyewitness report. The credibility of the author is the issue.
Irrelevant to whether the authors of the New Testament were writing fiction or historical fact.
If any of your examples actually apply to discussion, do let us know, okay?
They are just a few little examples. And they are perfectly relevant. But then you need to know whatt historical knowledge is to get that.
By the way, just out of curiosity, who is 'us'? You realise you are one person who came to this forum to teach and preach, right. You'll run your course, leave and a new Randy will come. And then he'll leave too.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 12:02:07 PM
She operates well above your educational level ... she can even teach me a few things ;-)
Is that supposed to be some good hearted provocation to push posts above Randy level? :lol: Nobody has time for that. :)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 05:25:54 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 05:25:54 PM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 22, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
Is that supposed to be some good hearted provocation to push posts above Randy level? :lol: Nobody has time for that. :)
Given the passage of time, and Randy't repetitiveness ... I read his posts less and less. Yours remain worth reading, if only to exercise the mind ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 22, 2016, 05:51:12 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 22, 2016, 05:51:12 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:49:09 AMWhat you say is pure speculation. Luke could have wrote books unknown before his gospel. Also, even if true, this does nothing to fix your dating. The scholarly consensus still puts gLuke behind gMark (AD 75), so your Acts would be after that and still not in the lifetime of Jesus. Just because Paul died in AD 67 doesn't mean that things written about him had to be written earlier.
I can't remember if I responded to this point previously or not...it just caught my eye (again?):
What was the name of Luke's "former book" that contained an account of "all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen"?
Would that be the Gospel of Luke, perhaps?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:49:09 AMNope. You're simply grasping.
That's at least two points on which you have been proven wrong.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:49:09 AMOh, please tell me your unbiased sources.
We could continue this dance OR you might consider buying some decent commentaries reading them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:49:09 AMYou realize all three images are borked, right? Also, given that you know all three of these people, I'm not quite sure of the quality of your "decent commentaries." Smells of nepotism.
Here are some recommendations:
Mary Healy is a friend of my wife. In fact, Mary autographed the flyleaf of this book just this week when she was in town giving a talk:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MHzB1jRnL._AC_US240_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)
Fr. Francis Martin officiated the wedding ceremony when my wife and I were married.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dCUtJV3cL._AC_US240_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)
Fr. Bill Kurz lived in my home for several months when he was studying in Washington, DC.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ysnl4BF-L._AC_US240_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:51:52 AM:histerical:
Sorry, chief.
You made the positive assertion that "Nobody ever had to register for a census clear across an entire country to do this."
You are the only one proposing an entirely new type and manner of census procedure, champ. No, dearheart, the burden of proof is on you to prove this new element. I'm just the one calling bullshit on it.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:51:52 AMYes, the one who is proposing that there is this hitherfore unknown and unpracticed form of census is you and your bible, cupcake. The burden of proof is on you, and if you had an actual case of such a census (your previous citation notwithstanding), then you can prove me wrong immediately. Unfortunately for you, you don't have one.
You know the rules of debate. The person holding the positive position has the burden of proof.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:51:52 AMYour complete inability to produce a single reference of a census conducted in this manner speaks for itself.
Got anything?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:03:13 AMI outlined every step of my reasoning, you slippery little toad!
Let's use your figure of 55 miles. Make it 60.
Let's say they traveled at two miles an hour for ten hours per day (they had more daylight than that probably, but sure...they had stops for rest and food, etc.)
Three days then? One way? If they aren't hustling?
Did you account for the fact that Mary had an eight-pound bowling ball sitting on her bladder? What about the fact that all three would have to drink water along the way? Did you figure in three days of water for Mary, Joseph and the donkey? That beast can only carry so much. What about the fact that you want to stick to a well-traveled road for this, both because the road would be better supplied and you wouldn't get lost on the way, which the direct route is not? What about the other travelers on the road that need to return to their "ancestral homes", which will mean longer stops at restovers?
Nope, no allowances for those. You simply assume that everything will be perfect and the donkey is powered by nuclear fusion. There's a fucking reason why your average peseant didn't move around much in ancient times, Randy!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:51:52 AMYeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that. Thing is, you haven't been doing a good job on presenting the "evidence" that contradicts any one of #1, #2, or #3. Like your most recent citation fail. The existence of god has to be established by STRONG evidence, like experimental physics five-sigma grade A quality evidence. Same with the resurrection. I very STRONGLY doubt any of the bible was written by people who would know what "experimental physics five-sigma grade A quality evidence" would even mean, let alone take it down.
YOUR APPROACH:
1. God does not exist.
2. The Bible is crap.
3. I can prove it contains errors.
4. I will overlook evidence that contradicts what I already presupposed in #1, #2 & #3.
So, when are you going to give me the experimental physics five-sigma grade A quality evidence of either God or the resurrection, like we ask every other theist who comes along? We still wait.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 22, 2016, 06:05:08 PM
Post by: aitm on May 22, 2016, 06:05:08 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 08:55:50 AMRandys approach:
YOUR APPROACH:
1. God does not exist.
2. The Bible is crap.
3. I can prove it contains errors.
4. I will overlook evidence that contradicts what I already presupposed in #1, #2 & #3.
1 The babble is absolutely the word of god
2 The babble has a lot of inconsistencies that were made by mortal men
3 The babble is truthful in every part that I say it is.
4 Parts of the babble that are not true are not true but doesn't mean the rest is not true, you need to be able to tell the difference……you can do that when you accept god and jebus.
5. I will overlook all the inconsistencies, fallacies, lies, and everything that god did that is horrendous and abhorrent because ……jebus loves me this I know, for the babble tells me so,little one to he belong..blah blah blah blah blah I'm not wrong.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 07:17:41 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 07:17:41 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 22, 2016, 05:51:12 PM
What you say is pure speculation. Luke could have wrote books unknown before his gospel. Also, even if true, this does nothing to fix your dating. The scholarly consensus still puts gLuke behind gMark (AD 75), so your Acts would be after that and still not in the lifetime of Jesus. Just because Paul died in AD 67 doesn't mean that things written about him had to be written earlier.
What was Luke's stated purpose for writing?
QuoteLuke 1
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Acts 1
1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
Two books written by Luke and sent to Theophilus so that he might know the truth.
QuoteYou are the only one proposing an entirely new type and manner of census procedure, champ. No, dearheart, the burden of proof is on you to prove this new element. I'm just the one calling bullshit on it.
You asserted that no one would ever conduct a census in the manner reported in the Word of God, but another edict from Egypt confirms Luke's account.
Perhaps you should take a fresh look at Luke-Acts. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: sdelsolray on May 22, 2016, 09:04:56 PM
Post by: sdelsolray on May 22, 2016, 09:04:56 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 22, 2016, 06:05:08 PM
Randys approach:
1 The babble is absolutely the word of god
2 The babble has a lot of inconsistencies that were made by mortal men
3 The babble is truthful in every part that I say it is.
4 Parts of the babble that are not true are not true but doesn't mean the rest is not true, you need to be able to tell the difference……you can do that when you accept god and jebus.
5. I will overlook all the inconsistencies, fallacies, lies, and everything that god did that is horrendous and abhorrent because ……jebus loves me this I know, for the babble tells me so,little one to he belong..blah blah blah blah blah I'm not wrong.
Carson's claims and apologies are narrow, vacuous, myopic and hollow and are based on self flagellating religious indoctrination and related peer pressure. The resulting irrationality, Dunning-Kruger effect and demonstrated frustration is only to be expected.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 22, 2016, 09:04:56 PM
Carson's claims and apologies are narrow, vacuous, myopic and hollow and are based on self flagellating religious indoctrination and related peer pressure. The resulting irrationality, Dunning-Kruger effect and demonstrated frustration is only to be expected.
Then it should be relatively easy for you to present a coherent argument against my claims.
Pick any thread that I have started and take your best shot.
See ya there.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 07:12:07 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 07:12:07 AM
Can we trust the authors of the gospels? Do we have any reasons not to trust them?
"Section 105 of the Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction (2006) instructs jurors to set aside “any bias or prejudice [they] may have,†including any based on the witness’s gender, race, religion, or national origin. In addition, jurors are instructed: “If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character for truthfulness is goodâ€.
"In essence, witnesses are to be trusted unless you’ve got a specific reason not to."
Taken from:
Why Should We Trust the Gospels When Eyewitness Testimony Is So Unreliable?
by J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/why-should-we-trust-the-gospels-when-eyewitness-testimony-is-so-unreliable/
"Section 105 of the Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction (2006) instructs jurors to set aside “any bias or prejudice [they] may have,†including any based on the witness’s gender, race, religion, or national origin. In addition, jurors are instructed: “If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character for truthfulness is goodâ€.
"In essence, witnesses are to be trusted unless you’ve got a specific reason not to."
Taken from:
Why Should We Trust the Gospels When Eyewitness Testimony Is So Unreliable?
by J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/why-should-we-trust-the-gospels-when-eyewitness-testimony-is-so-unreliable/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2016, 08:37:08 AM
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2016, 08:37:08 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 05:43:25 PM
Hard to make up facts in the ground, you twit.
Thousands of live affected by the so called "parting of the seas" lie and not one single world from anyone...anyone....yeah you got facts LOLOL
QuoteArchaeology has proven that the gospel writers knew what they were talking about and wrote reliably.
Thousands of people witnessed the so called "'crucifixtion" of jebus and yet not one single word EVER is mentioned in any other book, fer crying out loud, dead people walked the streets, I am pretty sure that would be something worthy of a mention somewhere......nope...NOT ONE SINGLE WORD....yeah your archaeologist haven't proven shit.....reliable...HAHAHAHAHA....twit
QuoteNow, why don't you stop displaying your ignorance and educate yourself?I have read the babble, it is pure lies, and filled with the hatred of what would be an evil, vile, disgusting god. People that follow such crap can only be of the same caliber. The is not one single truth in the babble that can prove the existence of your jebus much less a god and thousands of things that proof the opposite. Go preach your retarded shit to your brainless mindless twits in your church. That you have spent most of your life trying to prove to yourself the babble is true is all the evidence I need to know you have to force yourself to believe.. the babble wasn't enough for you twit, you had to go outside it to find justification.....truth is where you can find someone to agree with you...HAHAHA yer quite the fucking scholar.....twit.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 23, 2016, 09:13:19 AM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 23, 2016, 09:13:19 AM
"Fat one balances the two skinny ones."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iXNJtNZbds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iXNJtNZbds
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 09:23:56 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 09:23:56 AM
Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, argues for what he calls "the principle of testimony" - that in the absence of counter evidence, we should believe what others tells us they have done or seen. Swinburne's argument has much in favor of it. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. I am confident that Beijing exists...even though I have never been there. Others have. Did Julius Caesar really cross the Rubicon? That's been tougher to nail down. However, we have to rely on others because we cannot possibly verify EVERYTHING in life personally.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to accept the testimony of reliable people when they tell us about what they have seen, heard and done when we cannot verify this information for ourselves.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to accept the testimony of reliable people when they tell us about what they have seen, heard and done when we cannot verify this information for ourselves.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 09:30:24 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 09:30:24 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 07:12:07 AM
Can we trust the authors of the gospels? Do we have any reasons not to trust them?
"Section 105 of the Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction (2006) instructs jurors to set aside “any bias or prejudice [they] may have,†including any based on the witness’s gender, race, religion, or national origin. In addition, jurors are instructed: “If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character for truthfulness is goodâ€.
"In essence, witnesses are to be trusted unless you’ve got a specific reason not to."
Why distrust gospel witnesses? Well, they reported that a guy walked on water and died but came to life. So there's that. Let's see, what else? Hmmm. The gospels appear in a book of mythology and magic?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 09:37:34 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 09:37:34 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 09:23:56 AM"Swinburne's argument has much in favor of it. "----Of course it does for it suits you. No other reason.
Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, argues for what he calls "the principle of testimony" - that in the absence of counter evidence, we should believe what others tells us they have done or seen. Swinburne's argument has much in favor of it. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. I am confident that Beijing exists...even though I have never been there. Others have. Did Julius Caesar really cross the Rubicon? That's been tougher to nail down. However, we have to rely on others because we cannot possibly verify EVERYTHING in life personally.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to accept the testimony of reliable people when they tell us about what they have seen, heard and done when we cannot verify this information for ourselves.
"Did Julius Caesar really cross the Rubicon? That's been tougher to nail down. "---So what; that has little import to the world or the people who live on it. God's or jesus' existence is of paramount importance to all of mankind and for all time, if it is not a fiction. If either of those entities existed their presence would not be tangled in a bunch of nitpicking details, but broadcast across each and every society in each and every era of history for all time and for all to see and understand!! There would be no need for Randy or his kind, for any church, for any one to explain anything to anyone else. It would be easily noted, like noting the sun was up (or down) or that trees grew from the ground, or anything else in the natural environment, for god would be THE driving factor of it all--and very easy to see that. But that is not so, for it takes the tangled web of fictions to create the supernatural (also know as fictional) god and all of its manifestations that we have today.
".............it is not unreasonable to accept the testimony of reliable people when they tell us about what they have seen, heard and done when we cannot verify this information for ourselves."---Yes, yes it is, Randy. But then you would not know reasonable if it stepped up and clubbed you in the head. You are so deeply buried in the bowels of the catholic church that you have suffocated from the lack of air and apparently love the stink of it all from you vantage point. I've heard of brown nosing, but you have your entire body into it!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 09:53:25 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 09:53:25 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 09:30:24 AM
Why distrust gospel witnesses? Well, they reported that a guy walked on water and died but came to life. So there's that. Let's see, what else? Hmmm. The gospels appear in a book of mythology and magic?
I understand what you're trying to imply, but why is this necessarily true?
Do you have someone in your life whom you would trust with your life? Someone of sound mind and sober judgment whom you know to be a straight shooter?
Now, if that person said that he or she had seen something completely unbelievable, how would you respond?
Would you tell your trustworthy, reliable, truthful friend that he or she is lying simply because of the nature of the claim? Or would it occur to you to suspend your judgment because of his or her reputation in order to examine the claim more closely?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 09:58:49 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 09:58:49 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 09:37:34 AM
"Swinburne's argument has much in favor of it. "----Of course it does for it suits you. No other reason.
No other reason? And not because Swinburne's argument is true and evident from your own daily experience?
How much of what you "know" and "believe" in life is based upon your own empirical research and how much is based upon your trust of reliable people?
For example, what do you know of your family history? You probably know at least one of your parents...how about your grandparents? Did you know them personally? How about your great-grandparents? Do you have any details of their lives? If so, do you believe it? Or is everything your mom may have told you about her grandmother "pure fiction produced by a bronze-age goat-herder?"
See my point? If reliable people who are in a position to know things that we cannot disprove ourselves describe what they have seen, heard and done, it is more reasonable to assume that what they are telling us is the truth than it is to assume they are lying.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 10:06:41 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 10:06:41 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 09:37:34 AM
".............it is not unreasonable to accept the testimony of reliable people when they tell us about what they have seen, heard and done when we cannot verify this information for ourselves."---Yes, yes it is, Randy. But then you would not know reasonable if it stepped up and clubbed you in the head. You are so deeply buried in the bowels of the catholic church that you have suffocated from the lack of air and apparently love the stink of it all from you vantage point. I've heard of brown nosing, but you have your entire body into it!
How many undergraduate chemistry students have taken the time to replicate all of the experiments of the past 1,000 years or so in order to confirm for themselves that the information contained in their textbooks is true?
NONE.
They base their acceptance of the basic facts of chemistry upon their belief that their professors are reliable and trustworthy men.
My point is that MOST of what we know in life is based upon our willingness to accept that what others have told is true as long as there is no evidence to the contrary.
But you aren't willing to accept the testimony of the writers of the gospels...not because you have proof they were lying but because in your estimation, the probability of them telling the truth is low relative to what you believe about the way the natural world works.
Now, there are two points in what I have just written, so let's begin with the first since it is the subject of the thread.
Were the authors of the gospels knowingly lying about the resurrection of Jesus?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Poison Tree on May 23, 2016, 11:12:35 AM
Post by: Poison Tree on May 23, 2016, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 12:44:05 PMyou want the gospels to be true and reliable so you suspend the critical investigation and skepticism you would apply anywhere else. If you had two books telling the story of Super Bowl 50 and one failed to mention that the government forced the Super Bowl to change venues and the other skipped over the mayor of Santa Clara becoming so enraged by the Broncos victory that the police were sent to murder children and the Broncos had to hide out in Canada until the mayor died I am extremely doubtful that such omissions would not be seen, even by you, as strikes against the reliability of the authors. If these two books copied large portions of their text directly from a third book neither you nor the courts would consider them independent.
There are differences in the gospel accounts. There are no contradictions.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 12:44:05 PMMy atheism is not based on only such a minor point. Rather Raphael Lataster expresses it better then I can when he writes "The Bible contradicts itself, history, archeology, science, and just about everything else it can contradict. For a book that tells us how to live our lives, that asks us to kill and die in god's name, this simply isn't good enough."
If you have based your atheism on this misunderstanding, perhaps it's time to give the gospels another read.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 11:35:03 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Poison Tree on May 23, 2016, 11:12:35 AM
you want the gospels to be true and reliable so you suspend the critical investigation and skepticism you would apply anywhere else.
It's not that I want the gospels to be true - it's that I am not convinced that they are. Converts don't usually begin with the assumption that the Bible is true nor do they "suspend the critical investigation". However, having done that homework, we become convinced that the authors were reliable.
QuoteMy atheism is not based on only such a minor point. Rather Raphael Lataster expresses it better then I can when he writes "The Bible contradicts itself, history, archeology, science, and just about everything else it can contradict. For a book that tells us how to live our lives, that asks us to kill and die in god's name, this simply isn't good enough."
The Bible does not tell you to kill in God's name. You are not a Jew living prior to Jesus' day, are you?
Moreover, I disagree with Lataster's assertion that the Bible contradicts itself. Because I have done the research and I am satisfied with the answers. At least for the biggest questions.
I'd be happy to discuss any "contradiction" that you find damaging to the Christian message.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 09:53:25 AM
Would you tell your trustworthy, reliable, truthful friend that he or she is lying simply because of the nature of the claim? Or would it occur to you to suspend your judgment because of his or her reputation in order to examine the claim more closely?
I'd tell him that an impossible event defies logic, no matter how honest his intentions.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 02:12:14 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 02:12:14 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 10:06:41 AM
My point is that MOST of what we know in life is based upon our willingness to accept that what others have told is true as long as there is no evidence to the contrary.
But you aren't willing to accept the testimony of the writers of the gospels...not because you have proof they were lying but because in your estimation, the probability of them telling the truth is low relative to what you believe about the way the natural world works.
Now, there are two points in what I have just written, so let's begin with the first since it is the subject of the thread.
Were the authors of the gospels knowingly lying about the resurrection of Jesus?
Well, hell. The forum must believe in god. I had a 6 paragraph essay get eaten by the 'save' process. I will not invest another 20 min. trying to recreate it--damn it!!!!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2016, 02:19:11 PM
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2016, 02:19:11 PM
Why bother Mike, the twit claims the babble is true but when you bring up any of hundreds of contradictions or outright falsehoods, he scampers for someone else to provide a re-invented interpretation of the verse because, "only the true believer gets it", "you are misinterpreting it". The same dodge we used to do when WE were mentally incapacitated with religion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: 21CIconoclast on May 23, 2016, 03:21:52 PM
Post by: 21CIconoclast on May 23, 2016, 03:21:52 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 11:35:03 AM
It's not that I want the gospels to be true - it's that I am not convinced that they are. Converts don't usually begin with the assumption that the Bible is true nor do they "suspend the critical investigation". However, having done that homework, we become convinced that the authors were reliable.
The Bible does not tell you to kill in God's name. You are not a Jew living prior to Jesus' day, are you?
Moreover, I disagree with Lataster's assertion that the Bible contradicts itself. Because I have done the research and I am satisfied with the answers. At least for the biggest questions.
I'd be happy to discuss any "contradiction" that you find damaging to the Christian message.
THE EVER SO IGNORANT RANDY QUOTE: "The Bible does not tell you to kill in God's name. You are not a Jew living prior to Jesus' day, are you?"
Randy Carson allegedly has me on "ignore" for obvious reasons because I easily make him an ignorant fool relative to his primitive Christian faith!
That being said, the token Catholic Randy stepped in the proverbial poo once once again when he proffered that the bible never tells one to kill in Yahweh/Jesus’ name. For the sake of brevity, and not to embarrass Randy once again to turn himself into another pretzel, I’ll only include one biblical narrative, of many, below that states with specificity that you are to KILL IN YAHWEH/JESUS’ NAME!
ACT ONE: "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone them to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
ACT TWO: Now, the ignorant Randy’s of Christianity will shout out; “WAIT, Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament, we don’t follow that anymore!†When a Christian uses this insidious “get out of jail cardâ€, in turn, they are in fact admitting that their Bronze and Iron Age Yahweh/Jesus did tell others to kill in his name! Then you ask, why did Jesus have such a turnabout from being a brutal serial killer in the Old Testament, to him now being of all love and understanding, as shown below:
JESUS SAID: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you†“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other alsoâ€â€œBlessed are the peacemakersâ€â€œBlessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy†“But love your enemies, and do good.†(Matthew 5:43-48)
ACT THREE: Wait a minute, now Randy’s Jesus changes once again! The book of Revelation shows that Jesus’ modus operandi changes from “ever loving and forgiving,†as stated in Matthew 5:43-48, to becoming a brutal serial killer god again like he was in the Old Testament by his alleged Second Coming in Jesus KILLING all non-believers of Christianity! LOL
(http://i2.wp.com/www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Jesus-Returns.jpg?resize=480%2C286)
In Jesus’ return, he will have white hair, eyes of fire, feet of brass, and a sword sticking out of his mouth! (Rev.1:13-16) Jesus is gonna put those Hollywood monster-movie producers to shame with His ghoulish creations when He returns with a bunch of horse-like locusts with human heads, women’s hair, lion’s teeth, and scorpion’s tails. They’re gonna be stinging people straight for a whole 5 months! Ouch! (Rev.9:7-10)
Then the loving and ever forgiving Jesus will send four blessed angels, with an army of 200 million, to KILL a third of the earth’s population. Way to go Jesus! (Rev.9:15-19)
Jesus’ loving and forgiving nature will have people killed by fire, plagues, and beasts. There will be dead bodies rotting and unburied everywhere. Those that are not killed by Jesus will “rejoice over them (nonchristians) and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another.†(Rev.11:5-10) One must wonder what Randy will be giving his fellow pseudo-christians subsequent to Jesus’ carnage of non-believers? Maybe some anti-anxiety medication to calm his fellow Christians from remembering what Jesus did in killing his creation in a brutal and horrific manner! LOL
It is so frightful for the future in that inept minds like the Randy Carson's of this world still believe in this fairy tale.
WILL THE REAL JESUS PLEASE STAND UP! LOL
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 03:49:33 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 03:49:33 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
I'd tell him that an impossible event defies logic, no matter how honest his intentions.
Of course you would.
But then you observe that his life is transformed by this event, that he gives up everything to pursue it, and he would rather be jailed, suffer persecution and even die rather than deny it.
You also notice large crowds forming at his home every week, CNN camera trucks with satellite dishes on top parked in front of his house, and his YouTube video has like 30 million views.
At some point, you might be willing to take a closer look.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 03:50:51 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 03:50:51 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 02:12:14 PM
Well, hell. The forum must believe in god. I had a 6 paragraph essay get eaten by the 'save' process. I will not invest another 20 min. trying to recreate it--damn it!!!!
Save yourself the trouble. It's a yes or no question: Were the disciples knowingly lying when they claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 03:49:33 PM
Of course you would.
But then you observe that his life is transformed by this event, that he gives up everything to pursue it, and he would rather be jailed, suffer persecution and even die rather than deny it.
You also notice large crowds forming at his home every week, CNN camera trucks with satellite dishes on top parked in front of his house, and his YouTube video has like 30 million views.
At some point, you might be willing to take a closer look.
Getting a little carried away with your scenarios, are you?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 04:18:55 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 04:18:55 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
Getting a little carried away with your scenarios, are you?
Just the modern day equivalents of what happened to the original apostles of Jesus.
They gave up lucrative careers in the seafood industry.
Crowds gathered for prayer meetings where they were the headliners, Josephus, Tacitus and others reported on the events, and their gospels and epistles got millions of views.
(Admittedly, Al Gore had not yet invented the Internet.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 23, 2016, 09:00:33 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 23, 2016, 09:00:33 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 07:17:41 PMTwo books out of how many?
What was Luke's stated purpose for writing?
Two books written by Luke and sent to Theophilus so that he might know the truth.
And what about the fact that schollars date gLuke to AD 80-100? If anything, assuming Acts came earlier helps you, for fuck's sake.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 07:17:41 PMNo matter how many times you tell me otherwise, your reference does not confirm Luke's account. That's because I read, and understand.
You asserted that no one would ever conduct a census in the manner reported in the Word of God, but another edict from Egypt confirms Luke's account.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 23, 2016, 09:17:04 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 23, 2016, 09:17:04 PM
Where's the grade A quality five-sigma experimental evidence of the existence of god or the resurrection, Randy?
Every particle physicist on earth thought that the Higgs particle was a shoo-in for existing, yet they still demanded five-sigma experimental evidence, culled from untold trillions of collision results in the LHC, collected by two separate experiments performed at the same time, for the consensus to be reached that it is real.
A god and the resurrection would need evidence at least as good.
Every particle physicist on earth thought that the Higgs particle was a shoo-in for existing, yet they still demanded five-sigma experimental evidence, culled from untold trillions of collision results in the LHC, collected by two separate experiments performed at the same time, for the consensus to be reached that it is real.
A god and the resurrection would need evidence at least as good.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: doorknob on May 23, 2016, 09:29:16 PM
Post by: doorknob on May 23, 2016, 09:29:16 PM
Is this some kind of trick question?
Why should we trusts authors from thousands of years ago? And we don't even know who they were. We do know they were written about 200 years after the death of jesus. Reliable witnesses who weren't even alive when jesus was. Sounds real trust worthy to me. :P
Why should we trusts authors from thousands of years ago? And we don't even know who they were. We do know they were written about 200 years after the death of jesus. Reliable witnesses who weren't even alive when jesus was. Sounds real trust worthy to me. :P
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2016, 09:46:53 PM
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2016, 09:46:53 PM
Quote from: doorknob on May 23, 2016, 09:29:16 PMPlease doorknob , this boob believes we have the full truth of he vietnam war as …well…..heck man, we have some writings about it so therefore…we have a book here that tells us he truth about Harry Pot…..er…I mean jebus…so……yeah..Harry Potter is a really COOL story though….
Is this some kind of trick question?
Why should we trusts authors from thousands of years ago? And we don't even know who they were. We do know they were written about 200 years after the death of jesus. Reliable witnesses who weren't even alive when jesus was. Sounds real trust worthy to me. :P
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2016, 09:53:08 PM
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2016, 09:53:08 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
Then it should be relatively easy for you to present a coherent argument against my claims.
Pick any thread that I have started and take your best shot..
Not that he can defend any of them, he lies. Simply put, he lies. He is a lier. He has no choice. Ya kinda feel bad for a person who has to turn into a pretzel to defend their "faith". Still….it IS a simple lie. He can't defend any of it without outside help. The babble is easily destroyed by 5th graders. He needs PHD's to help him even swing at the birdie. Get it? Badmitton. HA!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 23, 2016, 11:31:06 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 23, 2016, 11:31:06 PM
Yes, similar to books about Vietnam. Isn't one called "Bright Shining Lie"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 03:11:43 AM
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 03:11:43 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 22, 2016, 09:26:21 AMNo, they are not. They are badly translated and full of interpolations.
That is a good question, marom, though I'm not saying anything like you have suggested.
1. The texts of the gospels that we have today are reliable reconstructions of what the authors originally wrote.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2016, 06:49:02 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2016, 06:49:02 AM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 03:11:43 AM
No, they are not. They are badly translated and full of interpolations.
The translations are based around pre-existing theologies, which might be different from the author's. They are not unbiased ... nor were the original documents in their original languages, which we only approximately have. Finding something unbiased, when humans are involved, ls like Capt Ahab seeking Moby Dick.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:21:40 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:21:40 AM
Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Sceptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of sceptical critics.
But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:
1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.
2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.
Taken from:
Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus
William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus
But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:
1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.
2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.
Taken from:
Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus
William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2016, 07:22:18 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2016, 07:22:18 AM
Randy ... can you hear the crickets?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:26:53 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:26:53 AM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 03:11:43 AM
No, they are not. They are badly translated and full of interpolations.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and I have covered this here:
Point #1: The Text of the New Testament is Accurate
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.0
Now, when one of your foundational beliefs about Christianity is demonstrably false, shouldn't you re-examine your conclusions about the faith?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:29:26 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 23, 2016, 09:00:33 PM
Two books out of how many?
And what about the fact that schollars date gLuke to AD 80-100? If anything, assuming Acts came earlier helps you, for fuck's sake.
No matter how many times you tell me otherwise, your reference does not confirm Luke's account. That's because I read, and understand.
Okay, Hakurei.
You're probably right.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 09:23:36 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 09:23:36 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:29:26 AMNo, Hakurei IS right. You are not.
Okay, Hakurei.
You're probably right.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 09:26:04 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:26:53 AMJesus H. Christ!! Repeater Randy at it still. If you repeat this tripe 500 more times then it becomes accepted truth everywhere---right?
Nothing could be further from the truth, and I have covered this here:
Point #1: The Text of the New Testament is Accurate
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.0
Now, when one of your foundational beliefs about Christianity is demonstrably false, shouldn't you re-examine your conclusions about the faith?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 24, 2016, 09:44:28 AM
Post by: stromboli on May 24, 2016, 09:44:28 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 09:26:04 AM
Jesus H. Christ!! Repeater Randy at it still. If you repeat this tripe 500 more times then it becomes accepted truth everywhere---right?
Can you say obsessive compulsive?
Shoulda kept all my psych notes......
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 09:59:17 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 09:59:17 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 09:23:36 AM
No, Hakurei IS right. You are not.
Hakurei is 0 for 3.
But whatever.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 10:05:40 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 10:05:40 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 09:26:04 AM
Jesus H. Christ!! Repeater Randy at it still. If you repeat this tripe 500 more times then it becomes accepted truth everywhere---right?
It is necessary to continue pointing out the material contained in that and other posts for two reasons:
1. Not everyone who joins these thread mid-stream is familiar with the fact that I have already provided the very evidence that they claim is missing and necessary,
2. Not everyone who has read the material (and precious few have) has fully understood it as is evidenced by the silly questions that continue to pop up, and
3. No one has refuted the material presented in the OP's.
Now, I actually don't expect everyone to accept these OP's as truth because of (1) and (2) but also because some people (and this includes you, I think) simply don't want to acknowledge that Christianity has some valid points that any objective person could admit.
Fact is, you simply don't WANT Christianity to be credible, so you set out to prove to yourself that it isn't. That's why you hang out in this forum...to have a chorus of like-minded people confirming what you already believe. That's comforting to you, because in your heart, you have doubts about atheism.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 10:07:52 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 10:07:52 AM
Quote from: stromboli on May 24, 2016, 09:44:28 AM
Can you say obsessive compulsive?
Shoulda kept all my psych notes......
If your undergraduate-level psychology is no better than your grade school comprehension of Christianity, the notes would be of little value to you.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 11:11:19 AM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 10:05:40 AMMakes sense. Since you can read god's fictional mind, you can, of course, read the mind of anybody you want. I don't 'believe' anything, Repeater Randy. I don't have faith in anything, Repeater Randy. You don't know how to speak the language of the sane--you think repeating your fictional insanity will make you sane. Sadly, Repeater Randy, it doesn't work that way.
Fact is, you simply don't WANT Christianity to be credible, so you set out to prove to yourself that it isn't. That's why you hang out in this forum...to have a chorus of like-minded people confirming what you already believe. That's comforting to you, because in your heart, you have doubts about atheism.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 24, 2016, 11:17:01 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 24, 2016, 11:17:01 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:21:40 AM
Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable?
If you want to prove that they are reliable or unreliable, it doesn't make any difference. You start with zero assumptions and work from there.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:21:40 AM
Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?
One of the reasons your attempt to link PROOF to courts of law is so lame is because courts of law do not prove anything. Their purpose is to render opinions. Even the Supreme Court renders explanations of verdict in their mandatory supporting and dissenting opinions. In lower courts, a jury of lay people listen to prejudiced oratorical experts, upon which they render an opinion. There is no proof.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 07:21:40 AM
Sceptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of sceptical critics.
Nice try at a bad metaphor. Now try it backwards. Religious scholars almost always assume that the gospels are innocent until proven guilty. Why is this way superior to the reverse? It's a legally sounding bad metaphor, as well as a perfectly shitty way of finding proof about anything. Proof is independent of what you assume. What you assume is opinion. And that's what your religious scholars render in the end.
Skeptics don't assume guilt. That's not the definition of skeptic. The people you refer to might be better identified as axe grinders. Skeptics are skeptical. They don't assert anything. If they did, they wouldn't be skeptics.
We also need to clear up your apparent misconceptions of burden of proof. This has nothing to do with one's beginning assumptions, guilty or innocent. It rests with those offering a positive claim. You make a positive claim, you prove it. If you proceed to support it with scholarly opinions, you end up with an opinion, not a proof and you fail to meet the burden of proof.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:18:29 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:18:29 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 11:11:19 AM
Makes sense. Since you can read god's fictional mind, you can, of course, read the mind of anybody you want. I don't 'believe' anything, Repeater Randy. I don't have faith in anything, Repeater Randy. You don't know how to speak the language of the sane--you think repeating your fictional insanity will make you sane. Sadly, Repeater Randy, it doesn't work that way.
Do you hang out in forums dedicated to Unicorns ranting endlessly about how you don't believe in them? No? How about bigfoot forums? You belong to many of those? No? How many posts have you put up in UFO forums? None?
Why not?
Fact is, you post in an anti-theist forum like this because you have issues with God, and this is as close as you can get to hitting him in your anger.
It's no good. You're arms are too short to box with God, Mike.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:20:40 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:20:40 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2016, 11:17:01 AM
If you want to prove that they are reliable or unreliable, it doesn't make any difference. You start with zero assumptions and work from there.
Man, I wish that WERE the starting point. But most of you folks have decided LOOOOOOOOONG ago that God does not exist, the Bible is fiction, and (more recently) that Jesus never existed.
Now, with those presuppositions firmly in place, let's talk about the Bible. Objectively.
Heh. Right.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:24:11 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:24:11 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2016, 11:17:01 AM
One of the reasons your attempt to link PROOF to courts of law is so lame is because courts of law do not prove anything. Their purpose is to render opinions. Even the Supreme Court renders explanations of verdict in their mandatory supporting and dissenting opinions. In lower courts, a jury of lay people listen to prejudiced oratorical experts, upon which they render an opinion. There is no proof.
Fair enough. All we can know about History is what probably happened.
So, I present evidence that an objective person might reasonably conclude to be probable. More probable than not.
Lots of people are of that opinion. Including scientists with stellar academic credentials who were raised in non-religious homes.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 11:30:30 AM
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 11:30:30 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:24:11 AMDo you by any chance work in advertising? You seem to have that business' faith in numbers?
Fair enough. All we can know about History is what probably happened.
So, I present evidence that an objective person might reasonably conclude to be probable. More probable than not.
Lots of people are of that opinion. Including scientists with stellar academic credentials who were raised in non-religious homes.
Not many atheists are impressed by numbers, unless they have been vetted by mathematical analysis. Atheists are never impressed by statements, such as "Ten trillion people believe" - who cares? - especially since ten trillion people are as likely to be morons. You CANNOT impress a BB full of atheists w/claims about how many believe. We are not the folks at home who are likely to buy this or that brand of garbage bag b/c so many numbskulls have found it reliable in holding in their trash all the way to the curb.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:31:10 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:31:10 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2016, 11:17:01 AM
Nice try at a bad metaphor. Now try it backwards. Religious scholars almost always assume that the gospels are innocent until proven guilty. Why is this way superior to the reverse? It's a legally sounding bad metaphor, as well as a perfectly shitty way of finding proof about anything. Proof is independent of what you assume. What you assume is opinion. And that's what your religious scholars render in the end.
SGOS, I'd like to point out that many Christians have personal experiences of God that impact their approach to their study of the scriptures. If you have come face to face with God or had an experience of the Holy Spirit moving in your life, then OF COURSE that may have some impact on your study. But I have endeavored to NOT rely on the subjective in my arguments with folks in this forum, because they are not empirical.
That said, scholars (on both sides, btw!) can be aware of their biases and still do good research, can't they?
And, finally, in the Five Minimal Facts approach that I presented elsewhere, the resurrection is put forward as the best explanation of the facts that scholars on both sides of the argument accept!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:36:15 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:36:15 AM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 11:30:30 AM
Do you by any chance work in advertising? You seem to have that business' faith in numbers?
Not many atheists are impressed by numbers, unless they have been vetted by mathematical analysis. Atheists are never impressed by statements, such as "Ten trillion people believe" - who cares? - especially since ten trillion people are as likely to be morons. You CANNOT impress a BB full of atheists w/claims about how many believe. We are not the folks at home who are likely to buy this or that brand of garbage bag b/c so many numbskulls have found it reliable in holding in their trash all the way to the curb.
I understand. Really.
The point, however, is that there are LOTS of smart people who have examined the same evidence that is scoffed at here and found it convincing.
I realize that the confirmation bias in forums like this is strong (and may be the reason for its existence!), but it is my hope that one or two folks here...maybe only the lurkers...will find that the evidence presented on behalf of Christianity is stronger than is believed by the fundamentalists among your ranks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 03:39:57 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 03:39:57 PM
January 11, 49 B.C. is one of the most famous dates in the history of ancient Rome, even of the ancient world. On that date Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, committing himself and his followers to civil war. Few, if any, historians doubt that the event happened. On the other hand, numerous skeptics claim that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are myth and have no basis in historical fact. Yet, as historian Paul Merkley pointed out two decades ago in his article, "The Gospels as Historical Testimony," far less historical evidence exists for the crossing of the Rubicon than does for the events depicted in the Gospels:
Merkley observed that those skeptics who either scoff at the historical reliability of the Gospels or reject them outright as "myth" do so without much, if any, regard for the nature of history in general and the contents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in particular.
Taken from:
Myths, Lies, or Truth: Can We Really Trust the Gospels?
by Carl Olson
http://www.strangenotions.com/myths-lies-or-truth-can-we-really-trust-the-gospels/
Quote"There are no firsthand testimonies to Caesar’s having crossed the Rubicon (wherever it was). Caesar himself makes no mention in his memoirs of crossing any river. Four historians belonging to the next two or three generations do mention a Rubicon River, and claim that Caesar crossed it. They are: Velleius Paterculus (c.19 B.C.â€"c.A.D. 30); Plutarch (c.A.D. 46â€"120); Suetonius (75â€"160); and Appian (second century). All of these evidently depended on the one published eyewitness account, that of Asinius Pollio (76 B.C.â€"c. A.D. 4)â€"which account has disappeared without a trace. No manuscript copies for any of these secondary sources is to be found earlier than several hundred years after their composition." (The Evangelical Quarterly 58, 319-336)
Merkley observed that those skeptics who either scoff at the historical reliability of the Gospels or reject them outright as "myth" do so without much, if any, regard for the nature of history in general and the contents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in particular.
Taken from:
Myths, Lies, or Truth: Can We Really Trust the Gospels?
by Carl Olson
http://www.strangenotions.com/myths-lies-or-truth-can-we-really-trust-the-gospels/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 03:47:37 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 03:47:37 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 03:39:57 PM"Crossing the Rubicon" might well be a literary device. Point remains - Caesar defied a direct order of the Senate - that his army remain in Gaul, while he came alone to Rome. Instead, he crossed into Italy at the head of an army - which it was against Roman law for any general to do. He was committing the same crime that both of his uncles had committed, Marius and Sulla. He crossed into Italy and marched on Rome itself ... The Rubicon - if it existed - may have been a small river in northern Italy that he would have had to cross. It may have been at the boundary between what was considered his province and Italy proper. It makes little difference. The River is gone. What is important is that he did in fact cross into Italy from Gaul. He did march on Rome. He did undertake war against the Senate of Rome, if not its people.
January 11, 49 B.C. is one of the most famous dates in the history of ancient Rome, even of the ancient world. On that date Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, committing himself and his followers to civil war. Few, if any, historians doubt that the event happened. On the other hand, numerous skeptics claim that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are myth and have no basis in historical fact. Yet, as historian Paul Merkley pointed out two decades ago in his article, "The Gospels as Historical Testimony," far less historical evidence exists for the crossing of the Rubicon than does for the events depicted in the Gospels:
Merkley observed that those skeptics who either scoff at the historical reliability of the Gospels or reject them outright as "myth" do so without much, if any, regard for the nature of history in general and the contents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in particular.
Taken from:
Myths, Lies, or Truth: Can We Really Trust the Gospels?
by Carl Olson
http://www.strangenotions.com/myths-lies-or-truth-can-we-really-trust-the-gospels/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 04:34:18 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 04:34:18 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 03:47:37 PM
"Crossing the Rubicon" might well be a literary device. Point remains - Caesar defied a direct order of the Senate - that his army remain in Gaul, while he came alone to Rome. Instead, he crossed into Italy at the head of an army - which it was against Roman law for any general to do. He was committing the same crime that both of his uncles had committed, Marius and Sulla. He crossed into Italy and marched on Rome itself ... The Rubicon - if it existed - may have been a small river in northern Italy that he would have had to cross. It may have been at the boundary between what was considered his province and Italy proper. It makes little difference. The River is gone. What is important is that he did in fact cross into Italy from Gaul. He did march on Rome. He did undertake war against the Senate of Rome, if not its people.
And Jesus may have risen from the dead. There are lots of reasons to believe this to be true.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 04:51:02 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 04:51:02 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 04:34:18 PMSuch as?
And Jesus may have risen from the dead. There are lots of reasons to believe this to be true.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:07:01 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:07:01 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 04:51:02 PM
Such as?
You're ready for the reasons to believe in the resurrection now?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 24, 2016, 05:17:52 PM
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 24, 2016, 05:17:52 PM
I trust anyone as far as I can throw them.... and I can't trust someone that was born a minimum of 20-40 years after it was said Jesus died, but seems to know all about him.... you know. Because they're dead and rotted away.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 24, 2016, 05:19:17 PM
Post by: drunkenshoe on May 24, 2016, 05:19:17 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2016, 02:19:11 PM
Why bother Mike, the twit claims the babble is true but when you bring up any of hundreds of contradictions or outright falsehoods, he scampers for someone else to provide a re-invented interpretation of the verse because, "only the true believer gets it", "you are misinterpreting it".
Exactly like imams and mullahs. Word for word.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:33:08 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 24, 2016, 05:17:52 PM
I trust anyone as far as I can throw them.... and I can't trust someone that was born a minimum of 20-40 years after it was said Jesus died, but seems to know all about him.... you know. Because they're dead and rotted away.
Who are you speaking of?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 05:35:14 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2016, 02:19:11 PMYeah, you are right. This guy is so lost in his insanity that nothing will bring him back into the land of the living or the sane. I think I've about chewed up my end of this chew toy.
Why bother Mike, the twit claims the babble is true but when you bring up any of hundreds of contradictions or outright falsehoods, he scampers for someone else to provide a re-invented interpretation of the verse because, "only the true believer gets it", "you are misinterpreting it". The same dodge we used to do when WE were mentally incapacitated with religion.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:50:17 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:50:17 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2016, 05:35:14 PM
Yeah, you are right. This guy is so lost in his insanity that nothing will bring him back into the land of the living or the sane. I think I've about chewed up my end of this chew toy.
Insanity, eh? Is it insane to understand that archaeology has corroborated many details from the gospels? Here are a few:
1. Related to Nazareth
In 1961 a mosaic from the third century was found in Caesarea Maritima that had the name "Nazareth" in it. This is the first known ancient non-biblical reference to Nazareth.
2. Related to Herod
Coins with the names of the Herod family have been discovered, including the names of Herod the king, Herod the tetrarch of Galilee (who killed John the Baptist), Herod Agrippa I (who killed James Zebedee), and Herod Agrippa II (before whom Paul testified).
3. Related to Caiaphas
In 1990 an ossuary was found inscribed with the Aramaic words, "Joseph son of Caiaphas," believed to be a reference to the high priest Caiaphas.
4. Related to Pontius Pilate
In June 1961 Italian archaeologists excavating an ancient Roman amphitheater near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) uncovered a limestone block. On its face is an inscription (part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar) that reads: "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea."
None of these facts were known outside of the gospels before archaeologists made their discoveries. Skeptics like you would have doubted the accuracy of the gospels because there "was no evidence".
Now, there is. The gospel writers have been proven reliable again and again and again.
So, why is it foolhardy to trust that they were telling the truth about what they recorded concerning Jesus when they have been so meticulous and accurate in other details?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 06:11:48 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 06:11:48 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:50:17 PMWhat?!
Insanity, eh? Is it insane to understand that archaeology has corroborated many details from the gospels? Here are a few:
1. Related to Nazareth
In 1961 a mosaic from the third century was found in Caesarea Maritima that had the name "Nazareth" in it. This is the first known ancient non-biblical reference to Nazareth.
2. Related to Herod
Coins with the names of the Herod family have been discovered, including the names of Herod the king, Herod the tetrarch of Galilee (who killed John the Baptist), Herod Agrippa I (who killed James Zebedee), and Herod Agrippa II (before whom Paul testified).
3. Related to Caiaphas
In 1990 an ossuary was found inscribed with the Aramaic words, "Joseph son of Caiaphas," believed to be a reference to the high priest Caiaphas.
4. Related to Pontius Pilate
In June 1961 Italian archaeologists excavating an ancient Roman amphitheater near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) uncovered a limestone block. On its face is an inscription (part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar) that reads: "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea."
None of these facts were known outside of the gospels before archaeologists made their discoveries. Skeptics like you would have doubted the accuracy of the gospels because there "was no evidence".
Now, there is. The gospel writers have been proven reliable again and again and again.
So, why is it foolhardy to trust that they were telling the truth about what they recorded concerning Jesus when they have been so meticulous and accurate in other details?
Capiti censi! The Romans did not tax by head count! They did not conduct censuses such as the one described in the NT. That was a complete invention! It was a fabrication to get the pregnant Mary to Bethlehem, so that Jesus' birth could fit the prophecy of the Messiah being born there! For crying out loud!
What other lies were we told? How about the 100 or so other men named "Jesus" that the Romans nailed to a plank at roughly the same time? What about them? Several of them had followings. Several of them were reputed "messiahs" - what about them? Bits and pieces of their stories somehow got wrapped into Joshua's story. Joshua bin Joseph - your Christ's real name. He wasn't the only one crucified on a charge of heresy at roughly the same time, under roughly the same circumstances. And, yes - we have the archaeological evidence for this. Everyone's so quick to tout Josephus - well, he mentions a lot of this. The Romans nailed up rabble rousing messiahs left and right for nearly a century till they got so sick of the crap that they burned Jerusalem and knocked the Temple over, tearing it down to its foundations.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 24, 2016, 06:20:26 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 24, 2016, 06:20:26 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 09:59:17 AMYes, because your scoring is what counts here. Muppet.
Hakurei is 0 for 3.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:50:17 PMHerod the Great existed. First, he was a client king of Cleopatra, then of Antony, then of Caesar Augustus.
Insanity, eh? Is it insane to understand that archaeology has corroborated many details from the gospels? Here are a few:
1. Related to Nazareth
In 1961 a mosaic from the third century was found in Caesarea Maritima that had the name "Nazareth" in it. This is the first known ancient non-biblical reference to Nazareth.
2. Related to Herod
Coins with the names of the Herod family have been discovered, including the names of Herod the king, Herod the tetrarch of Galilee (who killed John the Baptist), Herod Agrippa I (who killed James Zebedee), and Herod Agrippa II (before whom Paul testified).
3. Related to Caiaphas
In 1990 an ossuary was found inscribed with the Aramaic words, "Joseph son of Caiaphas," believed to be a reference to the high priest Caiaphas.
4. Related to Pontius Pilate
In June 1961 Italian archaeologists excavating an ancient Roman amphitheater near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) uncovered a limestone block. On its face is an inscription (part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar) that reads: "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea."
None of these facts were known outside of the gospels before archaeologists made their discoveries. Skeptics like you would have doubted the accuracy of the gospels because there "was no evidence".
Now, there is. The gospel writers have been proven reliable again and again and again.
So, why is it foolhardy to trust that they were telling the truth about what they recorded concerning Jesus when they have been so meticulous and accurate in other details?
Caiaphas - yes, a tomb has been found, so, probably he existed. So?
Pontius Pilate existed. So?
Nazareth existed. So?
Jesus as a human being may have existed - so? That does NOT prove that he was the son of God. It just doesn't. Caesar existed - he wasn't the son of God - yet he was proclaimed a God by Rome's Senate - and worshiped as a God for centuries. Doesn't mean he was one.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2016, 06:31:43 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2016, 06:31:43 PM
"Fact is, you post in an anti-theist forum like this because you have issues with God, and this is as close as you can get to hitting him in your anger."
Yes, I do have issues with G-d, who isn't even your god. If I hit my daughter in anger, I have hit G-d ... which is not a nice thing to do to my daughter or to G-d. If ontological theology is correct, G-d can't even help Himself to not be a terrible person. But in that case, logic is superior to G-d ;-)
Yes, I do have issues with G-d, who isn't even your god. If I hit my daughter in anger, I have hit G-d ... which is not a nice thing to do to my daughter or to G-d. If ontological theology is correct, G-d can't even help Himself to not be a terrible person. But in that case, logic is superior to G-d ;-)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 06:37:59 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 24, 2016, 06:20:26 PM
Yes, because your scoring is what counts here. Muppet.
Why not open your mind and objectively examine what evidence there is for Christianity? See if you may have overlooked anything...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 06:40:17 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 06:40:17 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
Herod the Great existed. First, he was a client king of Cleopatra, then of Antony, then of Caesar Augustus.
Caiaphas - yes, a tomb has been found, so, probably he existed. So?
Pontius Pilate existed. So?
Nazareth existed. So?
Jesus as a human being may have existed - so? That does NOT prove that he was the son of God. It just doesn't. Caesar existed - he wasn't the son of God - yet he was proclaimed a God by Rome's Senate - and worshiped as a God for centuries. Doesn't mean he was one.
Are you conceding that the Gospels are meticulously written, reliable in their details, and appear to be the work of men who sought to write accurate accounts?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
Used Torah salesmen, all the way down.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 06:40:17 PMOh, yes - to the extent that I concede that Santa Claus is real because the North Pole exists.
Are you conceding that the Gospels are meticulously written, reliable in their details, and appear to be the work of men who sought to write accurate accounts?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 24, 2016, 07:07:35 PM
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 24, 2016, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 05:33:08 PMI'm talking about every gospel writer. They were all born way past the time it was said Jesus died. Which also means they are dead and rotted away.
Who are you speaking of?
So in addition to not being able to trust their texts from being separated by such a time span between their life and the time Jesus was said to have lived... I quite literally cannot throw them. Because they died long long ago and their bodies are all rotted away.
As straightforward as I thought that joke was, I had a feeling it would blow over your head...
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 24, 2016, 07:23:07 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 24, 2016, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 06:37:59 PMYour problem is that I have.
Why not open your mind and objectively examine what evidence there is for Christianity? See if you may have overlooked anything...
For instance, since your objective for serving apologetics for Luke is to make it seem like Joseph and Mary did make the trip, those apologetics have ignored a very important side of the argument: the Romans.
Why would the Romans issue such a census? What purpose did it serve? Did it apply to the entire empire, whose span meant months of travel to get to their various "ancestral homes"? If that were so, then a lot of Romans living out in the empire (ordinary citizens, mind) would have to come back to Rome and surrounding cities â€" including the tradesmen and merchants that kept the empire going and the natives peaceful, and at the same time taxing the local stores. And if the soldiers come along (again, to be counted), then it would leave that captured territory in the hands of the natives, and they would be reluctant in giving it back. The Romans would have to go out and reconquer that territory. They're not going to do that.
Or did that part just apply to Judea/Israel, in which case, why them? After all, to the locals, the Roman conquest of Judea /Israel was the most important event of their lives, but to the Romans, it was Tuesday. Why would the Romans be interested in the ancestry of a bunch of barbarians at the edge of their empire?
And again, what purpose does actually moving to their "ancestral homes" serve, over simply telling a local administrative center in a nearby city of this (assuming the Romans would even care)?
Why does Mary have to ride Joseph's ass all the way to Bethlehem (or even Cana) for this? Isn't Joseph's presence enough, given that he's the head of the household? And why take her along rather than leaving her with friends if she was so damned close to giving birth?
'Cause if Joseph really took Mary along on a three day trip across the desert on a nuclear-powered donkey when she was that close to giving birth, then it proves that Joseph is a total dumbass... which explains why he believed the cockamayme tale about her pregnancy being an "immaculate conception." Sure, Mary, tell another one.
No, Randy, the tale simply doesn't make any sense from any perspective, except as a plot device to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and not Nazareth.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 05:05:46 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 05:05:46 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:24:11 AM
Fair enough. All we can know about History is what probably happened.
So, I present evidence that an objective person might reasonably conclude to be probable. More probable than not.
Remember back when you first started posting? Your original position was that there may not be a single piece of evidence that proves Jesus existed, but that several weak pieces of evidence taken together might. Well congratulations. You are no longer making that grandiose claim and are saying some
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 11:24:11 AM
Lots of people are of that opinion. Including scientists with stellar academic credentials who were raised in non-religious homes.
But you still cling to logical fallacies as if they actually strengthen your argument.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 24, 2016, 07:23:07 PM
Your problem is that I have.
Can you provide some examples of books you have read, your familiarity with scripture, church attendance, etc.?
QuoteFor instance, since your objective for serving apologetics for Luke is to make it seem like Joseph and Mary did make the trip, those apologetics have ignored a very important side of the argument: the Romans.
Why would the Romans issue such a census? What purpose did it serve? Did it apply to the entire empire, whose span meant months of travel to get to their various "ancestral homes"? If that were so, then a lot of Romans living out in the empire (ordinary citizens, mind) would have to come back to Rome and surrounding cities â€" including the tradesmen and merchants that kept the empire going and the natives peaceful, and at the same time taxing the local stores. And if the soldiers come along (again, to be counted), then it would leave that captured territory in the hands of the natives, and they would be reluctant in giving it back. The Romans would have to go out and reconquer that territory. They're not going to do that.
This argument is weaker than the last. First you asserted that a Roman census would NEVER be conducted in the manner Luke described. Now, you are saying that you don't understand the purpose?
These are not the correct questions to be answered. We know from both Luke and the Edict of what's his name in Egypt that such censuses (censii?) were conducted. Why does the US conduct a census every 10 years? Does it matter? What does matter is the bigger picture, and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Luke has been shown to be a reliable author who took pains to record accurate accounts of the events he described in Luke and later in Acts.
And as for a plot device, wouldn't it have been easier to simply put your main characters in Bethlehem and avoid the complications? After all, if no census was ever conducted in the manner described, wouldn't the first readers of Luke have rejected it because they were still living under Roman occupation? After 2,000 years, are you really in a position to question Luke simply because you don't know WHY certain things occurred? Not credibly. But more importantly, there was no way that Luke would pull the wool over the eyes of his first-century audience. Your arguments are bankrupt.
Here's the bottom line: if Luke is a conscientious, reliable man accurately recording all that he learned in the course of his research, then what will you do with his account of the resurrection of Jesus?
Will you simply dismiss it? CAN you dismiss it and remain objectively honest?
Is that how science is done? By simply ignoring inconvenient data?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 08:23:22 AM
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 08:23:22 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMA Roman census counted ONLY those who OWNED land. Those who did not own land were not counted.Therefore, unless Joseph owned land, there was no need for him to report for any census. The Bible makes no mention of his being a land owner. It says he was a carpenter ... Oh, yes - the land had to be considerable, too - not some little scrap that his shack was sitting on. It had to be land large enough for him to be collecting rents from. Was he a rich landlord?
Can you provide some examples of books you have read, your familiarity with scripture, church attendance, etc.?
This argument is weaker than the last. First you asserted that a Roman census would NEVER be conducted in the manner Luke described. Now, you are saying that you don't understand the purpose?
These are not the correct questions to be answered. We know from both Luke and the Edict of what's his name in Egypt that such censuses (censii?) were conducted. Why does the US conduct a census every 10 years? Does it matter? What does matter is the bigger picture, and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Luke has been shown to be a reliable author who took pains to record accurate accounts of the events he described in Luke and later in Acts.
And as for a plot device, wouldn't it have been easier to simply put your main characters in Bethlehem and avoid the complications? After all, if no census was ever conducted in the manner described, wouldn't the first readers of Luke have rejected it because they were still living under Roman occupation? After 2,000 years, are you really in a position to question Luke simply because you don't know WHY certain things occurred? Not credibly. But more importantly, there was no way that Luke would pull the wool over the eyes of his first-century audience. Your arguments are bankrupt.
Here's the bottom line: if Luke is a conscientious, reliable man accurately recording all that he learned in the course of his research, then what will you do with his account of the resurrection of Jesus?
Will you simply dismiss it? CAN you dismiss it and remain objectively honest?
Is that how science is done? By simply ignoring inconvenient data?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 08:30:31 AM
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 08:30:31 AM
Unless Joseph was a Roman citizen, he was not a part of the capiti censi - the head count, meaning that he was counted, regardless of owning land, so that he could get his share of Rome's free grain supply. He was not a Roman citizen. So, if he was to be counted, he had to own land - a big piece of it that accumulated rents that the Romans wanted a cut of. Otherwise, his existence was of no interest to Rome. The Romans taxed him indirectly either by taxing things he bought and sold or else - if he lived in the tetrarchy - by taking money from Herod, who taxed Joseph as he pleased.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 10:00:02 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 24, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
Oh, yes - to the extent that I concede that Santa Claus is real because the North Pole exists.
If you go to the North Pole, what evidence will you find for the existence of Santa Claus?
If you go to Israel, what evidence will you find for the accuracy of the gospels?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 10:02:20 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 10:02:20 AM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 24, 2016, 07:07:35 PM
I'm talking about every gospel writer. They were all born way past the time it was said Jesus died. Which also means they are dead and rotted away.
So in addition to not being able to trust their texts from being separated by such a time span between their life and the time Jesus was said to have lived... I quite literally cannot throw them. Because they died long long ago and their bodies are all rotted away.
As straightforward as I thought that joke was, I had a feeling it would blow over your head...
NONE of the gospel writers were born after Jesus died and rose again.
Mark was the traveling companion of Peter, the apostle.
Luke was the companion of Paul who was present at the stoning of Stephen.
Matthew was an Apostle.
John was an Apostle.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 10:05:25 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 10:05:25 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 05:05:46 AM
Remember back when you first started posting? Your original position was that there may not be a single piece of evidence that proves Jesus existed, but that several weak pieces of evidence taken together might. Well congratulations. You are no longer making that grandiose claim and are saying someobjectivepeople may conclude it may be probable. You've come a long way.
I think that the indirect evidence for the resurrection including the historically reliable accounts contained in the gospels should provide a objective person with enough information to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person and that he rose from the dead.
QuoteBut you still cling to logical fallacies as if they actually strengthen your argument.
I hope not. Please point them out when you come across them.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 10:37:36 AM
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 10:37:36 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 10:00:02 AMNot much in either case, as the Israeli archaeological survey sadly reported to the government of Israel after a decades long study undertaken at the behest of David ben Gurion ("find the title deed to this land").
If you go to the North Pole, what evidence will you find for the existence of Santa Claus?
If you go to Israel, what evidence will you find for the accuracy of the gospels?
That's not well-written ... The Israeli archaeological survey reported not on the North Pole but on Israel. Not one scrap of evidence in support of the Bible was found. Period. Figures such as King David were consigned to - legend, not history, less historically likely than King Arthur.
And, yet we are assured that this non-existent king was Jesus' ancestor in the maternal line!
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:10:19 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:10:19 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 10:37:36 AM
Not much in either case, as the Israeli archaeological survey sadly reported to the government of Israel after a decades long study undertaken at the behest of David ben Gurion ("find the title deed to this land").
That's not well-written ... The Israeli archaeological survey reported not on the North Pole but on Israel. Not one scrap of evidence in support of the Bible was found. Period. Figures such as King David were consigned to - legend, not history, less historically likely than King Arthur.
And, yet we are assured that this non-existent king was Jesus' ancestor in the maternal line!
WE're not talking about King David at present. We are talking about Jesus.
And whether Luke and the boys got their stories straight when they wrote about Him.
Archaeology overwhelms the skeptic on this point.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 12:31:21 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 12:31:21 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:10:19 PMIt was the "boys" who gave Jesus a royal ancestry that was bogus! - yet we are trust the rest of their story?!
WE're not talking about King David at present. We are talking about Jesus.
And whether Luke and the boys got their stories straight when they wrote about Him.
Archaeology overwhelms the skeptic on this point.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:38:43 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:38:43 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 12:31:21 PM
It was the "boys" who gave Jesus a royal ancestry that was bogus! - yet we are trust the rest of their story?!
Why do you believe it to be bogus?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:38:43 PMAs I pointed out - archeology says that there was NO KING DAVID. So, how could Jesus have been his descendant?!
Why do you believe it to be bogus?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 12:45:28 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 12:45:28 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 10:05:25 AM
I think that the indirect evidence for the resurrection including the historically reliable accounts contained in the gospels should provide a objective person with enough information to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person and that he rose from the dead.
You think so? Surprise, surprise.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:47:39 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:47:39 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
As I pointed out - archeology says that there was NO KING DAVID. So, how could Jesus have been his descendant?!
I see.
How does archaeology go about proving that someone never existed? By arguing from silence?
And if true, does the fact that King David did not exist prove that Jesus did not exist?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:48:39 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:48:39 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 12:45:28 PM
You think so? Surprise, surprise.
More importantly, what do you think?
But first, are you certain that you have examined all of the evidence carefully?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:53:28 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:53:28 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
As I pointed out - archeology says that there was NO KING DAVID. So, how could Jesus have been his descendant?!
Why does the Tel Dan Stele, discovered in 1993 reference the "House of David" if there was NO KING DAVID to establish a house?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/JRSLM_300116_Tel_Dan_Stele_01.jpg/375px-JRSLM_300116_Tel_Dan_Stele_01.jpg)
The Mesha Stele appears to mention David twice (though this is less certain than the Tel Dan Stele).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/P1120870_Louvre_st%C3%A8le_de_M%C3%A9sha_AO5066_rwk.JPG/300px-P1120870_Louvre_st%C3%A8le_de_M%C3%A9sha_AO5066_rwk.JPG)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 25, 2016, 01:06:31 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 25, 2016, 01:06:31 PM
Ha! There it is in a nutshell! Repeater Randy is a COWARD!! He is all about popularity and not taking any risks. If he were to spend some actual time using critical thinking he may find that he can't believe in his fiction--but he is too frightened to do that. So, just in case, he will say he is a christian, a believer in the fictional jesus just so he can go to heaven--if it exists. If not, nothing lost. Except his self respect and his ability to critically think. For him, being the coward he is, he finds that acceptable. Hypocrite is far far better for him to be than a candidate for hell, even if it is fictional. Just thinking of it makes his knees quake and his eyes tear in horror!!! Poor Repeater Randy--scared out of a reasoning mind--settling for an insanity, a fiction. Yes, the one word I have for Repeater Randy is PITY. I do pity the poor insane christian.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 25, 2016, 01:07:44 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 25, 2016, 01:07:44 PM
Ha! There it is in a nutshell! Repeater Randy is a COWARD!! He is all about popularity and not taking any risks. If he were to spend some actual time using critical thinking he may find that he can't believe in his fiction--but he is too frightened to do that. So, just in case, he will say he is a christian, a believer in the fictional jesus just so he can go to heaven--if it exists. If not, nothing lost. Except his self respect and his ability to critically think. For him, being the coward he is, he finds that acceptable. Hypocrite is far far better for him to be than a candidate for hell, even if it is fictional. Just thinking of it makes his knees quake and his eyes tear in horror!!! Poor Repeater Randy--scared out of a reasoning mind--settling for an insanity, a fiction. Yes, the one word I have for Repeater Randy is PITY. I do pity the poor insane christian.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 25, 2016, 01:08:11 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 25, 2016, 01:08:11 PM
David = beloved ... so House of Beloved ... could have been a red light district ;-) Well the way David and Solomon collected girls, it might as well have been ;-))
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 01:14:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 25, 2016, 01:07:44 PM
Ha! There it is in a nutshell! Repeater Randy is a COWARD!! He is all about popularity and not taking any risks. If he were to spend some actual time using critical thinking he may find that he can't believe in his fiction--but he is too frightened to do that. So, just in case, he will say he is a christian, a believer in the fictional jesus just so he can go to heaven--if it exists. If not, nothing lost. Except his self respect and his ability to critically think. For him, being the coward he is, he finds that acceptable. Hypocrite is far far better for him to be than a candidate for hell, even if it is fictional. Just thinking of it makes his knees quake and his eyes tear in horror!!! Poor Repeater Randy--scared out of a reasoning mind--settling for an insanity, a fiction. Yes, the one word I have for Repeater Randy is PITY. I do pity the poor insane christian.
Does anyone else see the irony in Mike repeatedly posting this in every thread?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 01:15:12 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 01:15:12 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 25, 2016, 01:06:31 PM
Ha! There it is in a nutshell! Repeater Randy is a COWARD!! He is all about popularity and not taking any risks. If he were to spend some actual time using critical thinking he may find that he can't believe in his fiction--but he is too frightened to do that. So, just in case, he will say he is a christian, a believer in the fictional jesus just so he can go to heaven--if it exists. If not, nothing lost. Except his self respect and his ability to critically think. For him, being the coward he is, he finds that acceptable. Hypocrite is far far better for him to be than a candidate for hell, even if it is fictional. Just thinking of it makes his knees quake and his eyes tear in horror!!! Poor Repeater Randy--scared out of a reasoning mind--settling for an insanity, a fiction. Yes, the one word I have for Repeater Randy is PITY. I do pity the poor insane christian.
Does anyone else see the irony in Mike repeatedly posting this in every thread?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 01:25:58 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:53:28 PMWhy not ask the Israeli archaeological survey team? They had a vested interest in finding an historical King David - yet could not find one. Professional scientists w/all the best equipment and the full backing of their government. "King David was no more real than King Arthur" was their conclusion.
Why does the Tel Dan Stele, discovered in 1993 reference the "House of David" if there was NO KING DAVID to establish a house?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/JRSLM_300116_Tel_Dan_Stele_01.jpg/375px-JRSLM_300116_Tel_Dan_Stele_01.jpg)
The Mesha Stele appears to mention David twice (though this is less certain than the Tel Dan Stele).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/P1120870_Louvre_st%C3%A8le_de_M%C3%A9sha_AO5066_rwk.JPG/300px-P1120870_Louvre_st%C3%A8le_de_M%C3%A9sha_AO5066_rwk.JPG)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 01:36:59 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 01:36:59 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 01:25:58 PM
Why not ask the Israeli archaeological survey team? They had a vested interest in finding an historical King David - yet could not find one. Professional scientists w/all the best equipment and the full backing of their government. "King David was no more real than King Arthur" was their conclusion.
New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed
Dec 26, 2014
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-biblical-kings-david-solomon-02371.html
(http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2014/12/image_2371-Khirbet-Summeily.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 02:45:10 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 02:45:10 PM
Well, if a David existed, he was no more than a very local nabob - no mention of him at foreign courts - very telling - meaning that he was a nobody in diplomatic circles. Certainly not the great empire builder of the Bible. A small-town somebody - IF he ever existed. IF.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 04:05:15 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:48:39 PM
More importantly, what do you think?
I don't know if a Jesus person existed or not. but I'd give a magician Jesus has less than a 1% probability.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 12:48:39 PM
But first, are you certain that you have examined all of the evidence carefully?
Not as certain as you think you have. But nothing new has been added to the debate, except for an occasional rehash of some unsupported "evidence" that's been offered before. If some scientist has landed a slam dunk that proves it's all real, he hasn't made it public. Until that time, I'm not going to get too excited.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 25, 2016, 08:03:10 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 25, 2016, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 25, 2016, 02:45:10 PM
Well, if a David existed, he was no more than a very local nabob - no mention of him at foreign courts - very telling - meaning that he was a nobody in diplomatic circles. Certainly not the great empire builder of the Bible. A small-town somebody - IF he ever existed. IF.
If you read the story as if it is a new story, not thru theology, David was a bandit chief and traitor, who liked to collect extra wives off of their still living but shortly dead husbands. A real sinner and warlord once King Saul and Prince Jonathan were conveniently dead. All part of early Jewish tribal rivalry and warfare. Solomon and his stage mother, pulled a coup while David was still breathing (but that is what real politic was like). Then Solomon did what G-d didn't want ... build a temple. Why not redo the Tabernacle?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 25, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 25, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMI could read nothing and be more well versed on the bible than you are.
Can you provide some examples of books you have read, your familiarity with scripture, church attendance, etc.?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMIt's a hypothetical, tweedledum. I did assert that the Roman census would not be conducted in such a manner, and I stand by that assertion. Why? Because it would serve no purpose to carry out the census in such a manner. The Romans have their extravagances, but this is not one of them.
This argument is weaker than the last. First you asserted that a Roman census would NEVER be conducted in the manner Luke described. Now, you are saying that you don't understand the purpose?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMAre you certain you know how to read, Randy? I catagorically didn't argue that the Romans would never carry out a census at all. I argued that a census would not involve any person returning to their "ancestral home". Joseph may have taken part in a census, but he would not have to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to do it. Not in any real census.
These are not the correct questions to be answered. We know from both Luke and the Edict of what's his name in Egypt that such censuses (censii?) were conducted. Why does the US conduct a census every 10 years? Does it matter? What does matter is the bigger picture, and you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Fuckssake, I at least try to understand where you're coming from. If you don't grasp this basic point, then I don't see what point there is in arguing with you, given that you seem to be either unable or unwilling understand my points as presented.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMIn a pig's eye. Your red herring proves nothing.
Luke has been shown to be a reliable author who took pains to record accurate accounts of the events he described in Luke and later in Acts.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMYou're STILL assuming that people are still alive 80 years later to argue this point, assuming anyone would remember a point of administration. Again, your red herring proves nothing.
And as for a plot device, wouldn't it have been easier to simply put your main characters in Bethlehem and avoid the complications? After all, if no census was ever conducted in the manner described, wouldn't the first readers of Luke have rejected it because they were still living under Roman occupation?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMWhat, like you do with the gospel authors?
After 2,000 years, are you really in a position to question Luke simply because you don't know WHY certain things occurred? Not credibly.
And YES, I do think that we can say something about how censuses were carried out in the ancient world. We know the logistics of how the Roman empire worked, and we can catagorically say that the kind of census you propose, which involved people going to their "ancestral homes", didn't happen on the scale of the Roman empire. It's too damn big for that kind of thing to work.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMAgain, the credible date of Luke puts it 80 years after the event in question. No one would be alive to challenge it.
But more importantly, there was no way that Luke would pull the wool over the eyes of his first-century audience.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMThe irony is killing me.
Your arguments are bankrupt.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMI would conclude that Luke, as well as the other gospel writers, must be mistaken. Period. Even honest, consciencious, reliable, honest men trying their darnedest to record history accurately will have their moments where they just fuck up, or get swept along with the fancy of the moment, or are simply relying on unreliable sources. And of course, this guy has to be working from sources, because he was writing 40 years after the fact at the very least.
Here's the bottom line: if Luke is a conscientious, reliable man accurately recording all that he learned in the course of his research, then what will you do with his account of the resurrection of Jesus?
Because science is true, even in history class.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 25, 2016, 07:47:03 AMWhat "inconvenient data"? Do you have grade A quality five-sigma experimental data that the resurrection happened? If so, I'd like to see it. No, the gospels are not that kind of data. They're hardly data, even. They're anecdotes, fit only for saying that there was something interesting going on and no more, and I have no doubt that something interesting was going on in that time â€" just not the same interesting things you think were happening. But to say that the resurrection happened on such poor quality observations is simply absurd.
Will you simply dismiss it? CAN you dismiss it and remain objectively honest?
Is that how science is done? By simply ignoring inconvenient data?
Because data quality matters.
There's no "inconvenient data" to explain away or ignore. You only think it's "data" because it comes from your holy book that can state no untrue thing in your limited opinion.
Now, are you going to produce the grade A five-sigma expermental evidence of the resurrection or your god? I'm getting tired of having to ask you again and again for this.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 25, 2016, 09:09:15 PM
Post by: aitm on May 25, 2016, 09:09:15 PM
Don't know bout you folks, but due to the new rules you have to send PM's to the "council" to flush the toilet. Jes saying..
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:13:44 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:13:44 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2016, 04:05:15 PM
I don't know if a Jesus person existed or not. but I'd give a magician Jesus has less than a 1% probability.
Not as certain as you think you have. But nothing new has been added to the debate, except for an occasional rehash of some unsupported "evidence" that's been offered before. If some scientist has landed a slam dunk that proves it's all real, he hasn't made it public. Until that time, I'm not going to get too excited.
Why are scientists the only ones qualified to provide you with the evidence you require? Doesn't that say more about you and your understanding of what constitutes "evidence"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:17:44 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 25, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
I could read nothing and be more well versed on the bible than you are.
Well, I look forward to reading your exegesis over the coming months.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:21:44 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:21:44 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 25, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
It's a hypothetical, tweedledum. I did assert that the Roman census would not be conducted in such a manner, and I stand by that assertion. Why? Because it would serve no purpose to carry out the census in such a manner. The Romans have their extravagances, but this is not one of them.
Right. You are asserting this based on nothing more than your own opinion.
QuoteAre you certain you know how to read, Randy? I catagorically didn't argue that the Romans would never carry out a census at all. I argued that a census would not involve any person returning to their "ancestral home". Joseph may have taken part in a census, but he would not have to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to do it. Not in any real census.
I not only know how to read but I can spell, too. And I categorically deny saying that the issue was about whether the Romans EVER conducted a census. The issue is about HOW they conducted them, and all of the evidence suggests that Luke was more familiar with the particulars of the Roman government than you are.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:27:44 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:27:44 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 25, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
You're STILL assuming that people are still alive 80 years later to argue this point, assuming anyone would remember a point of administration. Again, your red herring proves nothing.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Luke is conservatively dated around AD 80. Which is only 50 years after Jesus' resurrection. Not 80.
Moreover, Luke's gospel is chock-full of very precise names, titles, dates, cities and so forth. All of which have been verified archaeologically...so there is NO DOUBT that Luke got each "point of administration" correct.
Man, you're like 0 for 4 at this point.
See, my signature? It sort of applies now.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 10:35:17 AM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 10:35:17 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:13:44 AMThey follow the scientific method. Simple as that.
Why are scientists the only ones qualified to provide you with the evidence you require? Doesn't that say more about you and your understanding of what constitutes "evidence"?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 11:06:24 AM
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 11:06:24 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 24, 2016, 06:37:59 PMPriceless. Absolutely priceless!
Why not open your mind and objectively examine what evidence there is for Christianity? See if you may have overlooked anything...
The so called "evidence" the apologists always use in a set of two books of unknown authors. The very fact they can use the bible is sheer luck.
In 1163 Pope Alexander III labeled those who read the bible as heretics. What that meant was crystal clear: off to the torture chamber and then the grill station.
In 1252 Pope Innocent IV authorized torture and commanded to burn everyone who opposes catholicism.
In 1229 the Council of Toulouse banned the possession of scripture by lay people
In 1234 the council ruled that those who owned bibles must surrender them for burning within 8 weeks.
How much have things changed and how the flock forgets inconvenient facts like that in order to stay with the fan club.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 11:59:51 AM
Post by: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:13:44 AM
Why are scientists the only ones qualified to provide you with the evidence you require?
Because they do actual research involving actual experiments and testing. It may take place in a lab, or they may go out in the field. Theologians don't want to do that kind of work or use the scientific process. They only refer back to an ancient text written by superstitious and uneducated writers, mostly unknown, with no qualifications to add credibility to their pontifications. I'll give an idea more weight if it's been tested, rather than just pulled out of someone's ass, or repeated by someone, who heard another guy pull it out of his ass.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 02:27:27 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 02:27:27 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 11:06:24 AM
Priceless. Absolutely priceless!
The so called "evidence" the apologists always use in a set of two books of unknown authors. The very fact they can use the bible is sheer luck.
In 1163 Pope Alexander III labeled those who read the bible as heretics. What that meant was crystal clear: off to the torture chamber and then the grill station.
In 1252 Pope Innocent IV authorized torture and commanded to burn everyone who opposes catholicism.
In 1229 the Council of Toulouse banned the possession of scripture by lay people
In 1234 the council ruled that those who owned bibles must surrender them for burning within 8 weeks.
How much have things changed and how the flock forgets inconvenient facts like that in order to stay with the fan club.
Or they have looked beyond the soundbites. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 02:34:39 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 10:35:17 AM
They follow the scientific method. Simple as that.
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 11:59:51 AM
Because they do actual research involving actual experiments and testing. It may take place in a lab, or they may go out in the field. Theologians don't want to do that kind of work or use the scientific process. They only refer back to an ancient text written by superstitious and uneducated writers, mostly unknown, with no qualifications to add credibility to their pontifications. I'll give an idea more weight if it's been tested, rather than just pulled out of someone's ass, or repeated by someone, who heard another guy pull it out of his ass.
Great. How would scientists go about using the scientific method in studying the supernatural?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 02:34:39 PM
Great. How would scientists go about using the scientific method in studying the supernatural?
Are you just being an obtuse dumbass, or do you really not understand what science deals with?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 02:48:24 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 02:48:24 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 02:27:27 PM
Or they have looked beyond the soundbites. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
That's true. People tortured and grilled for 1,500 years, so what? As long as you can hope for your personal salvation, it's just soundbites.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 02:54:07 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 02:54:07 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
Are you just being an obtuse dumbass, or do you really not understand what science deals with?
Both.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:01:44 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:01:44 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 02:48:24 PM
That's true. People tortured and grilled for 1,500 years, so what? As long as you can hope for your personal salvation, it's just soundbites.
Or the truth is not what you think it is. But you have your "facts" and cannot be persuaded otherwise.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:03:33 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:03:33 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
Are you just being an obtuse dumbass, or do you really not understand what science deals with?
I'm not a scientist, but as you can see from my avatar, I went to a school that is rather heavy on math and science.
So, how would a scientist go about testing or verifying anything that is supernatural?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 03:05:37 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 03:05:37 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:03:33 PMHe/she wouldn't bother, not even for grins and giggles.
I'm not a scientist, but as you can see from my avatar, I went to a school that is rather heavy on math and science.
So, how would a scientist go about testing or verifying anything that is supernatural?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 02:34:39 PM
Great. How would scientists go about using the scientific method in studying the supernatural?
There is currently a scientific study about virgin births at the "Our Lady of the worthless Miracle' church. Renowned scientists got together to test the female birth canal as a one way street. More studies are underway to validate the claimed existence of cockatrice and talking serpents. The whole scientific community is eager to work on these subjects. Any findings will be revealed after the 'Batman' study is completed.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:11:37 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:11:37 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 03:05:37 PM
He/she wouldn't bother, not even for grins and giggles.
Quote from: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
There is currently a scientific study about virgin births at the "Our Lady of the worthless Miracle' church. Renowned scientists got together to test the female birth canal as a one way street. More studies are underway to validate the claimed existence of cockatrice and talking serpents. The whole scientific community is eager to work on these subjects. Any findings will be revealed after the 'Batman' study is completed.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.â€
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:01:03 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:01:03 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:11:37 PM
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.â€
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
Again, you are so right...and Mr. Jastrow too. Scientists are a bunch of ignorant dolts. That's why you can sit at your computer and send a message within seconds. All because of prayer.
I realize that the scientific method is the nemesis of faith. That is exactly why the church silenced dissent and scientific progress for 2,000 years. It's you, the faithlings that are the hypocrites. You enjoy all the scientific advances like medical care, driving a car or watching TV. But no science accepted when it comes to believing superstitious nonsense.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 04:03:04 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:01:03 PM
Again, you are so right...and Mr. Jastrow too. Scientists are a bunch of ignorant dolts. That's why you can sit at your computer and send a message within seconds. All because of prayer.
I realize that the scientific method is the nemesis of faith. That is exactly why the church silenced dissent and scientific progress for 2,000 years. It's you, the faithlings that are the hypocrites. You enjoy all the scientific advances like medical care, driving a car or watching TV. But no science accepted when it comes to believing superstitious nonsense.
I think you have missed the meaning of the quote.
There are some mountains that science is really not equipped for scaling, but as the cosmologists draw closer to the moment of creation (aka the Big Bang), they will find a group of theologians waiting for them.
Oh, and the father of the Big Bang? A Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaître (1894â€"1966).
Here are some other Catholic scientists:
Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718â€"1799) â€" Mathematician who wrote on differential and integral calculus
Georgius Agricola (1494â€"1555) â€" Father of mineralogy[6]
Albertus Magnus (c.1206â€"1280) â€" Patron saint of natural sciences
Mariano Artigas (1938â€"2006) â€" Spanish physicist, philosopher and theologian who received the Templeton Foundation Prize in 1995
André-Marie Ampère (1775â€"1836) â€" One of the main discoverers of electromagnetism
Leopold Auenbrugger (1722â€"1809) â€" First to use percussion as a diagnostic technique in medicine
Adrien Auzout (1622â€"1691) â€" Astronomer who contributed to the development of the telescopic micrometer
Amedeo Avogadro (1776â€"1856) â€" Noted for contributions to molecular theory and Avogadro's Law
Francisco J. Ayala (1934â€"present) â€" Spanish-American biologist and philosopher at the University of California, Irvine,[7][8]
Roger Bacon (c. 1214â€"1294) â€" Franciscan friar and early advocate of the scientific method
Stephen M. Barr (1953â€"present) â€" Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Delaware and a member of its Bartol Research Institute
Daniello Bartoli (1608â€"1685) â€" Jesuit priest and one of the first to see the equatorial belts of Jupiter
Laura Bassi (1711â€"1778) â€" Physicist at the University of Bologna and Chair in experimental physics at the Bologna Institute of Sciences, the first woman to be offered a professorship at a European university
Antoine César Becquerel (1788â€"1878) â€" Pioneer in the study of electric and luminescent phenomena
Henri Becquerel (1852â€"1908) â€" Awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for his co-discovery of radioactivity
John Desmond Bernal (1901â€"1971) â€" British pioneer in X-ray crystallography in molecular biology.[9][10]
Claude Bernard (1813â€"1878) â€" Physiologist who helped to apply scientific methodology to medicine
Jacques Philippe Marie Binet (1786â€"1856) â€" Mathematician known for Binet's formula and his contributions to number theory
Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774â€"1862) â€" Physicist who established the reality of meteorites and studied polarization of light
Bernard Bolzano (1781â€"1848) â€" Priest and mathematician who contributed to differentiation, the concept of infinity, and the binomial theorem
Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608â€"1679) â€" Often referred to as the father of modern biomechanics
Roger Joseph Boscovich (1711â€"1787) â€" Jesuit priest and polymath known for his atomic theory and many other scientific contributions
Raoul Bott (1923â€"2005) â€" Mathematician known for numerous basic contributions to geometry in its broad sense.[11][12]
Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290â€"1349) â€" Archbishop and one of the discoverers of the mean speed theorem
Louis Braille (1809â€"1852) â€" Inventor of the Braille reading and writing system
Edouard Branly (1844â€"1940) â€" Inventor and physicist known for his involvement in wireless telegraphy and his invention of the Branly coherer
Martin Stanislaus Brennan (1845â€"1927) â€" Priest, astronomer and writer
James Britten (1846â€"1924) â€" Botanist, member of the Catholic Truth Society and Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great.[13]
Hermann Brück (1905â€"2000) â€" Astronomer Royal for Scotland from 1957â€"1975; honored by Pope John Paul II
Albert Brudzewski (c. 1445â€"c.1497) â€" First to state that the Moon moves in an ellipse
Jean Buridan (c.1300â€"after 1358) â€" French priest who developed the theory of impetus
Alexis Carrel (1873â€"1944) â€" Awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for pioneering vascular suturing techniques
John Casey (mathematician) (1820â€"1891) â€" Irish geometer known for Casey's theorem
Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625â€"1712) â€" First to observe four of Saturn's moons and the co-discoverer of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter
Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1789â€"1857) â€" Mathematician who was an early pioneer in analysis
Bonaventura Cavalieri (1598â€"1647) â€" Mathematician known for his work in optics and motion, calculus, and for introducing logarithms to Italy
Andrea Cesalpino (c.1525â€"1603) â€" Botanist who also theorized on the circulation of blood
Jean-François Champollion (1790â€"1832) â€" Published the first translation of the Rosetta Stone
Guy de Chauliac (c.1300â€"1368) â€" The most eminent surgeon of the Middle Ages
Albert Claude (1899â€"1983) â€" Awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his contributions to cytology
Christopher Clavius (1538â€"1612) â€" Jesuit who was the main architect of the Gregorian calendar
Mateo Realdo Colombo (1516â€"1559) â€" Discovered the pulmonary circuit,[14] which paved the way for Harvey's discovery of circulation
Carl Ferdinand Cori (1896â€"1984) â€" Shared the 1947 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with his wife for their discovery of the Cori cycle
Gerty Cori (1896â€"1957) â€" Biochemist who was the first American woman win a Nobel Prize in science (1947)[15]
Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis (1792â€"1843) â€" Formulated laws regarding rotating systems, which later became known as the Corialis effect
Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736â€"1806) â€" Physicist known for developing Coulomb's law
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473â€"1543) â€" First person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology
Johann Baptist Cysat (c.1587â€"1657) â€" Jesuit priest known for his study of comets
René Descartes (1596â€"1650) â€" Father of modern philosophy and analytic geometry
Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet (1805â€"1859) â€" Mathematicians who contributed to number theory and was one of the first to give the modern formal definition of a function
Alberto Dou (1915â€"2009), Spanish Jesuit priest who was president of the Royal Society of Mathematics, member of the Royal Academy of Natural, Physical, and Exact Sciences, and one of the foremost mathematicians of his country.
Pierre Duhem (1861â€"1916) â€" Historian of science who made important contributions to hydrodynamics, elasticity, and thermodynamics
Jean-Baptiste Dumas (1800â€"1884) â€" Chemist who established new values for the atomic mass of thirty elements
John Eccles (1903â€"1997) â€" Awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on the synapse[16]
Gerhard Ertl (1936â€" ) â€" German physicist who won the 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his studies of chemical processes on solid surfaces[17]
Stephan Endlicher (1804â€"1849) â€" Botanist who formulated a major system of plant classification
Bartolomeo Eustachi (c.1500â€"1574) â€" One of the founders of human anatomy
Hieronymus Fabricius (1537â€"1619) â€" Father of embryology
Gabriele Falloppio (1523â€"1562) â€" Pioneering Italian anatomist who studied the human ear and reproductive organs
Mary Celine Fasenmyer (1906â€"1996) â€" Roman Catholic sister and mathematician, founder of Sister Celine's polynomials
Hervé Faye (1814â€"1902) â€" Astronomer whose discovery of the periodic comet 4P/Faye won him the 1844 Lalande Prize and membership in the French Academy of Sciences
Pierre de Fermat (1601â€"1665) â€" Number theorist who contributed to the early development of calculus
Enrico Fermi (1901â€"1954) â€" Awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in induced radioactivity
Jean Fernel (1497â€"1558) â€" Physician who introduced the term physiology
Fibonacci (c.1170â€"c.1250) â€" Popularized Hindu-Arabic numerals in Europe and discovered the Fibonacci sequence
Hippolyte Fizeau (1819â€"1896) â€" The first person to determine experimentally the velocity of light[18]
Léon Foucault (1819â€"1868) â€" Invented the Foucault pendulum to measure the effect of the earth's rotation
Joseph von Fraunhofer (1787â€"1826) â€" Discovered Fraunhofer lines in the sun's spectrum
Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788â€"1827) â€" Made significant contributions to the theory of wave optics
Galileo Galilei (1564â€"1642) â€" Father of modern science[19]
Luigi Galvani (1737â€"1798) â€" Formulated the theory of animal electricity
William Gascoigne (1610â€"1644) â€" Developed the first micrometer
Pierre Gassendi (1592â€"1655) â€" French astronomer and mathematician who studied the transit of Mercury and named the aurora borealis
Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac (1778â€"1850) â€" Chemist known for two laws related to gases
Riccardo Giacconi (1931â€" ) â€" Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist who laid the foundations of X-ray astronomy
Camillo Golgi (1843â€"1926) â€" Nobel Prize-winning pathologist and physician
Paula González (1932â€"present) â€" Roman Catholic sister and professor of biology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618â€"1663) â€" Jesuit who discovered the diffraction of light
Robert Grosseteste (c.1175â€"1253) â€" Called "the first man to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment."[20]
Peter Grünberg (1939â€" ) â€" German physicist, and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate.[21]
Johannes Gutenberg (c.1398â€"1468) â€" Inventor of the printing press
(cont.)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 04:06:20 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 04:06:20 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:11:37 PMRobert Jastrow must be the pen-name of Robert Jackass ...
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.â€
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 04:06:48 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 04:06:48 PM
Jean Baptiste Julien d'Omalius d'Halloy (1783â€"1875) â€" One of the pioneers of modern geology[22]
John Harsanyi (1929â€"2000) â€" Hungarian-American economist and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winner.[23]
René Just Haüy (1743â€"1822) â€" Priest and father of crystallography
Eduard Heis (1806â€"1877) â€" Astronomer who contributed the first true delineation of the Milky Way
Jan Baptist van Helmont (1579â€"1644) â€" Founder of pneumatic chemistry
George de Hevesy (1885â€"1966) â€" Hungarian radiochemist and Nobel laureate.[24]
Charles Hermite (1822â€"1901) â€" Mathematician who did research on number theory, quadratic forms, elliptic functions, and algebra
John Philip Holland (1840â€"1914) â€" Developed the first submarine to be formally commissioned by the U.S. Navy
Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748â€"1836) â€" The first to propose a natural classification of flowering plants
Mary Kenneth Keller (c.1914â€"1985) â€" Sister of Charity and first American woman to earn a PhD in computer science, who helped develop BASIC
Eusebio Kino (1645â€"1711) â€" Jesuit missionary and cartographer who drew maps based on his explorations first showing that California was not an island as then believed.
Athanasius Kircher (c.1601â€"1680) â€" Jesuit scholar who has been called "the last Renaissance man"
Brian Kobilka (1955â€" ) â€" American Nobel Prize winning professor who teaches at Stanford University School of Medicine.[25][26]
Nicolas Louis de Lacaille (1713â€"1762) â€" French astronomer noted for cataloguing stars, nebulous objects, and constellations
René Laennec (1781â€"1826) â€" Physician who invented the stethoscope
Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736â€"1813) â€" Mathematician and astronomer known for Lagrangian points and Lagrangian mechanics
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744â€"1829) â€" French naturalist, biologist and academic whose theories on evolution preceded those of Darwin
Johann von Lamont (1805â€"1879) â€" Astronomer and physicist who studied the magnetism of the Earth and was the first to calculate the mass of Uranus
Karl Landsteiner (1868â€"1943) â€" Nobel Prize winner who identified and classified the human blood types
Pierre André Latreille (1762â€"1833) â€" Pioneer in entomology
Antoine Lavoisier (1743â€"1794) â€" Father of modern chemistry[27]
Jérôme Lejeune (1926â€"1994) â€" Pediatrician and geneticist, best known for his discovery of the link of diseases to chromosome abnormalities
Marcello Malpighi (1628â€"1694) â€" Father of comparative physiology[29]
Étienne-Louis Malus (1775â€"1812) â€" Discovered the polarization of light
Anna Morandi Manzolini (1714â€"1774) â€" Anatomist and anatomical wax artist who lectured at the University of Bologna
Giovanni Manzolini (1700â€"1755) â€" Anatomical wax artist and Professor of anatomy at the University of Bologna
Guglielmo Marconi (1874â€"1937) â€" Father of long-distance radio transmission
Edme Mariotte (c.1620â€"1684) â€" Priest who independently discovered Boyle's Law
Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1698â€"1759) â€" Known for the Maupertuis principle and for being the first president of the Berlin Academy of Science
Craig Mello (1960â€" ) â€" American biologist who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize, with Andrew Fire, for the discovery of RNA interference.[30]
Gregor Mendel (1822â€"1884) â€" Father of genetics
Michele Mercati (1541â€"1593) â€" One of the first to recognize prehistoric stone tools as man-made
Marin Mersenne (1588â€"1648) â€" Father of acoustics and mathematician for whom Mersenne primes are named.
Charles W. Misner (1932â€"present) â€" American cosmologist dedicated to the study of general relativity
Kenneth R. Miller (1948â€"present) â€" American cell biologist and molecular biologist who teaches at Brown University.[31]
Mario J. Molina (1943â€"present) â€" Mexican chemist and one of the precursors to the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole (1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry).
Peter Joseph Moloney (1891â€"1989) -Canadian immunologist and pioneering vaccine researcher, who worked out the first large-scale purification of insulin in 1922. (International Gairdner Award 1967) [32]
Gaspard Monge (1746â€"1818) â€" Father of descriptive geometry
John J. Montgomery (1858â€"1911) â€" American physicist and inventor of gliders and aerodynamics.
Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1682â€"1771) â€" Father of modern anatomical pathology[33]
Johannes Peter Müller (1801â€"1858) â€" Founder of modern physiology[34]
Joseph Murray (1919â€"2012) â€" Nobel Prize in Medicine laureate.[35]
John von Neumann (1903â€"1957) â€" Hungarian-born American mathematician and polymath[36] who converted to Catholicism[37]
Jean-Antoine Nollet (1700â€"1770) â€" Discovered the phenomenon of osmosis in natural membranes.
William of Ockham (c.1288â€"c.1348) â€" Franciscan Friar known for Ockham's Razor
Nicole Oresme (c.1320â€"1382) â€" 14th century bishop who theorized the daily rotation of the earth on its axis
Barnaba Oriani (1752â€"1832) â€" Known for Oriani's theorem and for his research on Uranus
Abraham Ortelius (1527â€"1598) â€" Created the first modern atlas and theorized on continental drift
Blaise Pascal (1623â€"1662) â€" French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and philosopher
Louis Pasteur (1822â€"1895) â€" Father of bacteriology[3][38]
Max Perutz (1914â€"2002) â€" Austrian-born British molecular biologist, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for Chemistry[39][40][41]
Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580â€"1637) â€" Discovered the Orion Nebula
Georg von Peuerbach (1423â€"1461) â€" Called the father of mathematical and observational astronomy in the West[42]
Giuseppe Piazzi (1746â€"1826) â€" Theatine priest who discovered the asteroid Ceres and did important work cataloguing stars
Jean Picard (1620â€"1682) â€" French priest and father of modern astronomy in France[43]
Vladimir Prelog (1906â€"1998) â€" Croatian-Swiss organic chemist, winner of the 1975 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854â€"1912) â€" French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer and philosopher of science
John Polanyi (1929â€" ) â€" Canadian chemist who won the 1986 Nobel Prize for his research in chemical kinetics.[44]
Michael Polanyi (1891â€"1976) â€" Hungarian polymath who made contributions to physical chemistry, economics, and philosophy.
Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852â€"1934) â€" Awarded the Nobel Prize for his contributions to neuroscience
René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur (1683â€"1757) â€" Scientific polymath known especially for his study of insects
Francesco Redi (1626â€"1697) â€" His experiments with maggots were a major step in overturning the idea of spontaneous generation
Henri Victor Regnault (1810â€"1878) â€" Chemist with two laws governing the specific heat of gases named after him[45]
Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598â€"1671) â€" Jesuit priest and the first person to measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies
Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro (1853â€"1925) â€" One of the founders of tensor calculus
Gilles de Roberval (1602â€"1675) â€" Mathematician who studied the geometry of infinitesimals and was one of the founders of kinematic geometry
Frederick Rossini (1899â€"1990) â€" Priestley Medal and Laetare Medal winning chemist.[46]
Theodor Schwann (1810â€"1882) â€" Founder of the theory of the cellular structure of animal organisms
Angelo Secchi (1818â€"1878) â€" Jesuit priest who developed the first system of stellar classification
Ignaz Semmelweis (1818â€"1865) â€" Early pioneer of antiseptic procedures and the discoverer of the cause of puerperal fever
Domingo de Soto (1494â€"1560) â€" Spanish Dominican priest and professor at the University of Salamanca; in his commentaries to Aristotle he proposed that free falling bodies undergo constant acceleration
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729â€"1799) â€" Priest and biologist who laid the groundwork for Pasteur's discoveries
Nicolas Steno (1638â€"1686) â€" Bishop, and father of stratigraphy
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881â€"1955), Jesuit priest, theologian and renowned paleontologist.
Francesco Lana de Terzi (1631â€"1687) â€" Jesuit priest who has been called the father of aeronautics
Louis Jacques Thénard (1777â€"1857) â€" Discovered hydrogen peroxide
Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250â€"c.1310) â€" Gave the first geometrical analysis of the rainbow
Evangelista Torricelli (1608â€"1647) â€" Inventor of the barometer
Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli (1397â€"1482) â€" Italian mathematician, astronomer and cosmographer
Richard Towneley (1629â€"1707) â€" Mathematician and astronomer whose work contributed to the formulation of Boyle's Law
Louis René Tulasne (1815â€"1885) â€" Biologist with several genera and species of fungi named after him
Louis Nicolas Vauquelin (1763â€"1829) â€" Discovered the chemical element beryllium
Pierre Vernier (1580â€"1637) â€" Mathematician who invented the Vernier scale
Urbain Le Verrier (1811â€"1877) â€" Mathematician who predicted the discovery of Neptune
Andreas Vesalius (1514â€"1564) â€" Father of modern human anatomy
François Viète (1540â€"1603) â€" Father of Modern Algebra[47]
Leonardo da Vinci (1452â€"1519) â€" Renaissance anatomist, scientist, mathematician, and painter
Vincenzo Viviani (1622â€"1703) â€" Mathematician known for Viviani's theorem, Viviani's curve and his work in determining the speed of sound
Alessandro Volta (1745â€"1827) â€" Physicist known for the invention of the battery[4]
Wilhelm Heinrich Waagen (1841â€"1900) â€" Geologist and paleontologist
Karl Weierstrass (1815â€"1897) â€" Often called the Father of Modern Analysis[48]
E. T. Whittaker (1873â€"1956) â€" English mathematician who made contributions to applied mathematics and mathematical physics
Eric F. Wieschaus (1947â€" ) â€" He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717â€"1768) â€" One of the founders of scientific archaeology
Bertram Windle (1858â€"1929) â€" Anthropologist, physician, and former president of University College Cork
Antonino Zichichi (1929â€" ) â€" Italian nuclear physicist, former President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare[49][50]
John Harsanyi (1929â€"2000) â€" Hungarian-American economist and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winner.[23]
René Just Haüy (1743â€"1822) â€" Priest and father of crystallography
Eduard Heis (1806â€"1877) â€" Astronomer who contributed the first true delineation of the Milky Way
Jan Baptist van Helmont (1579â€"1644) â€" Founder of pneumatic chemistry
George de Hevesy (1885â€"1966) â€" Hungarian radiochemist and Nobel laureate.[24]
Charles Hermite (1822â€"1901) â€" Mathematician who did research on number theory, quadratic forms, elliptic functions, and algebra
John Philip Holland (1840â€"1914) â€" Developed the first submarine to be formally commissioned by the U.S. Navy
Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748â€"1836) â€" The first to propose a natural classification of flowering plants
Mary Kenneth Keller (c.1914â€"1985) â€" Sister of Charity and first American woman to earn a PhD in computer science, who helped develop BASIC
Eusebio Kino (1645â€"1711) â€" Jesuit missionary and cartographer who drew maps based on his explorations first showing that California was not an island as then believed.
Athanasius Kircher (c.1601â€"1680) â€" Jesuit scholar who has been called "the last Renaissance man"
Brian Kobilka (1955â€" ) â€" American Nobel Prize winning professor who teaches at Stanford University School of Medicine.[25][26]
Nicolas Louis de Lacaille (1713â€"1762) â€" French astronomer noted for cataloguing stars, nebulous objects, and constellations
René Laennec (1781â€"1826) â€" Physician who invented the stethoscope
Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736â€"1813) â€" Mathematician and astronomer known for Lagrangian points and Lagrangian mechanics
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744â€"1829) â€" French naturalist, biologist and academic whose theories on evolution preceded those of Darwin
Johann von Lamont (1805â€"1879) â€" Astronomer and physicist who studied the magnetism of the Earth and was the first to calculate the mass of Uranus
Karl Landsteiner (1868â€"1943) â€" Nobel Prize winner who identified and classified the human blood types
Pierre André Latreille (1762â€"1833) â€" Pioneer in entomology
Antoine Lavoisier (1743â€"1794) â€" Father of modern chemistry[27]
Jérôme Lejeune (1926â€"1994) â€" Pediatrician and geneticist, best known for his discovery of the link of diseases to chromosome abnormalities
Marcello Malpighi (1628â€"1694) â€" Father of comparative physiology[29]
Étienne-Louis Malus (1775â€"1812) â€" Discovered the polarization of light
Anna Morandi Manzolini (1714â€"1774) â€" Anatomist and anatomical wax artist who lectured at the University of Bologna
Giovanni Manzolini (1700â€"1755) â€" Anatomical wax artist and Professor of anatomy at the University of Bologna
Guglielmo Marconi (1874â€"1937) â€" Father of long-distance radio transmission
Edme Mariotte (c.1620â€"1684) â€" Priest who independently discovered Boyle's Law
Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1698â€"1759) â€" Known for the Maupertuis principle and for being the first president of the Berlin Academy of Science
Craig Mello (1960â€" ) â€" American biologist who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize, with Andrew Fire, for the discovery of RNA interference.[30]
Gregor Mendel (1822â€"1884) â€" Father of genetics
Michele Mercati (1541â€"1593) â€" One of the first to recognize prehistoric stone tools as man-made
Marin Mersenne (1588â€"1648) â€" Father of acoustics and mathematician for whom Mersenne primes are named.
Charles W. Misner (1932â€"present) â€" American cosmologist dedicated to the study of general relativity
Kenneth R. Miller (1948â€"present) â€" American cell biologist and molecular biologist who teaches at Brown University.[31]
Mario J. Molina (1943â€"present) â€" Mexican chemist and one of the precursors to the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole (1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry).
Peter Joseph Moloney (1891â€"1989) -Canadian immunologist and pioneering vaccine researcher, who worked out the first large-scale purification of insulin in 1922. (International Gairdner Award 1967) [32]
Gaspard Monge (1746â€"1818) â€" Father of descriptive geometry
John J. Montgomery (1858â€"1911) â€" American physicist and inventor of gliders and aerodynamics.
Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1682â€"1771) â€" Father of modern anatomical pathology[33]
Johannes Peter Müller (1801â€"1858) â€" Founder of modern physiology[34]
Joseph Murray (1919â€"2012) â€" Nobel Prize in Medicine laureate.[35]
John von Neumann (1903â€"1957) â€" Hungarian-born American mathematician and polymath[36] who converted to Catholicism[37]
Jean-Antoine Nollet (1700â€"1770) â€" Discovered the phenomenon of osmosis in natural membranes.
William of Ockham (c.1288â€"c.1348) â€" Franciscan Friar known for Ockham's Razor
Nicole Oresme (c.1320â€"1382) â€" 14th century bishop who theorized the daily rotation of the earth on its axis
Barnaba Oriani (1752â€"1832) â€" Known for Oriani's theorem and for his research on Uranus
Abraham Ortelius (1527â€"1598) â€" Created the first modern atlas and theorized on continental drift
Blaise Pascal (1623â€"1662) â€" French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and philosopher
Louis Pasteur (1822â€"1895) â€" Father of bacteriology[3][38]
Max Perutz (1914â€"2002) â€" Austrian-born British molecular biologist, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for Chemistry[39][40][41]
Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580â€"1637) â€" Discovered the Orion Nebula
Georg von Peuerbach (1423â€"1461) â€" Called the father of mathematical and observational astronomy in the West[42]
Giuseppe Piazzi (1746â€"1826) â€" Theatine priest who discovered the asteroid Ceres and did important work cataloguing stars
Jean Picard (1620â€"1682) â€" French priest and father of modern astronomy in France[43]
Vladimir Prelog (1906â€"1998) â€" Croatian-Swiss organic chemist, winner of the 1975 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854â€"1912) â€" French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer and philosopher of science
John Polanyi (1929â€" ) â€" Canadian chemist who won the 1986 Nobel Prize for his research in chemical kinetics.[44]
Michael Polanyi (1891â€"1976) â€" Hungarian polymath who made contributions to physical chemistry, economics, and philosophy.
Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852â€"1934) â€" Awarded the Nobel Prize for his contributions to neuroscience
René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur (1683â€"1757) â€" Scientific polymath known especially for his study of insects
Francesco Redi (1626â€"1697) â€" His experiments with maggots were a major step in overturning the idea of spontaneous generation
Henri Victor Regnault (1810â€"1878) â€" Chemist with two laws governing the specific heat of gases named after him[45]
Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598â€"1671) â€" Jesuit priest and the first person to measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies
Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro (1853â€"1925) â€" One of the founders of tensor calculus
Gilles de Roberval (1602â€"1675) â€" Mathematician who studied the geometry of infinitesimals and was one of the founders of kinematic geometry
Frederick Rossini (1899â€"1990) â€" Priestley Medal and Laetare Medal winning chemist.[46]
Theodor Schwann (1810â€"1882) â€" Founder of the theory of the cellular structure of animal organisms
Angelo Secchi (1818â€"1878) â€" Jesuit priest who developed the first system of stellar classification
Ignaz Semmelweis (1818â€"1865) â€" Early pioneer of antiseptic procedures and the discoverer of the cause of puerperal fever
Domingo de Soto (1494â€"1560) â€" Spanish Dominican priest and professor at the University of Salamanca; in his commentaries to Aristotle he proposed that free falling bodies undergo constant acceleration
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729â€"1799) â€" Priest and biologist who laid the groundwork for Pasteur's discoveries
Nicolas Steno (1638â€"1686) â€" Bishop, and father of stratigraphy
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881â€"1955), Jesuit priest, theologian and renowned paleontologist.
Francesco Lana de Terzi (1631â€"1687) â€" Jesuit priest who has been called the father of aeronautics
Louis Jacques Thénard (1777â€"1857) â€" Discovered hydrogen peroxide
Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250â€"c.1310) â€" Gave the first geometrical analysis of the rainbow
Evangelista Torricelli (1608â€"1647) â€" Inventor of the barometer
Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli (1397â€"1482) â€" Italian mathematician, astronomer and cosmographer
Richard Towneley (1629â€"1707) â€" Mathematician and astronomer whose work contributed to the formulation of Boyle's Law
Louis René Tulasne (1815â€"1885) â€" Biologist with several genera and species of fungi named after him
Louis Nicolas Vauquelin (1763â€"1829) â€" Discovered the chemical element beryllium
Pierre Vernier (1580â€"1637) â€" Mathematician who invented the Vernier scale
Urbain Le Verrier (1811â€"1877) â€" Mathematician who predicted the discovery of Neptune
Andreas Vesalius (1514â€"1564) â€" Father of modern human anatomy
François Viète (1540â€"1603) â€" Father of Modern Algebra[47]
Leonardo da Vinci (1452â€"1519) â€" Renaissance anatomist, scientist, mathematician, and painter
Vincenzo Viviani (1622â€"1703) â€" Mathematician known for Viviani's theorem, Viviani's curve and his work in determining the speed of sound
Alessandro Volta (1745â€"1827) â€" Physicist known for the invention of the battery[4]
Wilhelm Heinrich Waagen (1841â€"1900) â€" Geologist and paleontologist
Karl Weierstrass (1815â€"1897) â€" Often called the Father of Modern Analysis[48]
E. T. Whittaker (1873â€"1956) â€" English mathematician who made contributions to applied mathematics and mathematical physics
Eric F. Wieschaus (1947â€" ) â€" He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717â€"1768) â€" One of the founders of scientific archaeology
Bertram Windle (1858â€"1929) â€" Anthropologist, physician, and former president of University College Cork
Antonino Zichichi (1929â€" ) â€" Italian nuclear physicist, former President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare[49][50]
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 04:09:13 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 04:09:13 PM
And another of the latest converts from atheism to Catholicism:
Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg/330px-Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg)
Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg/330px-Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:15:20 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:15:20 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 03:01:44 PM
Or the truth is not what you think it is. But you have your "facts" and cannot be persuaded otherwise.
You got it. Truth is not what I think, that's your department. Truth is not an opinion. Truth is fact based consensus, it doesn't matter what I think or you think. And by FACT I mean verifiable, testable and disprovable evidence, not bronze age notes from folks who had no clue about how the universe functions.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 04:17:21 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 04:06:48 PMNearly all of them are long dead. Most living scientists are - not Catholic. You've got tens of thousands of living scientists, stupid. Not a list as short as yours. Big Deal to your list!
Jean Baptiste Julien d'Omalius d'Halloy (1783â€"1875) â€" One of the pioneers of modern geology[22]
John Harsanyi (1929â€"2000) â€" Hungarian-American economist and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winner.[23]
René Just Haüy (1743â€"1822) â€" Priest and father of crystallography
Eduard Heis (1806â€"1877) â€" Astronomer who contributed the first true delineation of the Milky Way
Jan Baptist van Helmont (1579â€"1644) â€" Founder of pneumatic chemistry
George de Hevesy (1885â€"1966) â€" Hungarian radiochemist and Nobel laureate.[24]
Charles Hermite (1822â€"1901) â€" Mathematician who did research on number theory, quadratic forms, elliptic functions, and algebra
John Philip Holland (1840â€"1914) â€" Developed the first submarine to be formally commissioned by the U.S. Navy
Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748â€"1836) â€" The first to propose a natural classification of flowering plants
Mary Kenneth Keller (c.1914â€"1985) â€" Sister of Charity and first American woman to earn a PhD in computer science, who helped develop BASIC
Eusebio Kino (1645â€"1711) â€" Jesuit missionary and cartographer who drew maps based on his explorations first showing that California was not an island as then believed.
Athanasius Kircher (c.1601â€"1680) â€" Jesuit scholar who has been called "the last Renaissance man"
Brian Kobilka (1955â€" ) â€" American Nobel Prize winning professor who teaches at Stanford University School of Medicine.[25][26]
Nicolas Louis de Lacaille (1713â€"1762) â€" French astronomer noted for cataloguing stars, nebulous objects, and constellations
René Laennec (1781â€"1826) â€" Physician who invented the stethoscope
Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736â€"1813) â€" Mathematician and astronomer known for Lagrangian points and Lagrangian mechanics
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744â€"1829) â€" French naturalist, biologist and academic whose theories on evolution preceded those of Darwin
Johann von Lamont (1805â€"1879) â€" Astronomer and physicist who studied the magnetism of the Earth and was the first to calculate the mass of Uranus
Karl Landsteiner (1868â€"1943) â€" Nobel Prize winner who identified and classified the human blood types
Pierre André Latreille (1762â€"1833) â€" Pioneer in entomology
Antoine Lavoisier (1743â€"1794) â€" Father of modern chemistry[27]
Jérôme Lejeune (1926â€"1994) â€" Pediatrician and geneticist, best known for his discovery of the link of diseases to chromosome abnormalities
Marcello Malpighi (1628â€"1694) â€" Father of comparative physiology[29]
Étienne-Louis Malus (1775â€"1812) â€" Discovered the polarization of light
Anna Morandi Manzolini (1714â€"1774) â€" Anatomist and anatomical wax artist who lectured at the University of Bologna
Giovanni Manzolini (1700â€"1755) â€" Anatomical wax artist and Professor of anatomy at the University of Bologna
Guglielmo Marconi (1874â€"1937) â€" Father of long-distance radio transmission
Edme Mariotte (c.1620â€"1684) â€" Priest who independently discovered Boyle's Law
Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1698â€"1759) â€" Known for the Maupertuis principle and for being the first president of the Berlin Academy of Science
Craig Mello (1960â€" ) â€" American biologist who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize, with Andrew Fire, for the discovery of RNA interference.[30]
Gregor Mendel (1822â€"1884) â€" Father of genetics
Michele Mercati (1541â€"1593) â€" One of the first to recognize prehistoric stone tools as man-made
Marin Mersenne (1588â€"1648) â€" Father of acoustics and mathematician for whom Mersenne primes are named.
Charles W. Misner (1932â€"present) â€" American cosmologist dedicated to the study of general relativity
Kenneth R. Miller (1948â€"present) â€" American cell biologist and molecular biologist who teaches at Brown University.[31]
Mario J. Molina (1943â€"present) â€" Mexican chemist and one of the precursors to the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole (1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry).
Peter Joseph Moloney (1891â€"1989) -Canadian immunologist and pioneering vaccine researcher, who worked out the first large-scale purification of insulin in 1922. (International Gairdner Award 1967) [32]
Gaspard Monge (1746â€"1818) â€" Father of descriptive geometry
John J. Montgomery (1858â€"1911) â€" American physicist and inventor of gliders and aerodynamics.
Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1682â€"1771) â€" Father of modern anatomical pathology[33]
Johannes Peter Müller (1801â€"1858) â€" Founder of modern physiology[34]
Joseph Murray (1919â€"2012) â€" Nobel Prize in Medicine laureate.[35]
John von Neumann (1903â€"1957) â€" Hungarian-born American mathematician and polymath[36] who converted to Catholicism[37]
Jean-Antoine Nollet (1700â€"1770) â€" Discovered the phenomenon of osmosis in natural membranes.
William of Ockham (c.1288â€"c.1348) â€" Franciscan Friar known for Ockham's Razor
Nicole Oresme (c.1320â€"1382) â€" 14th century bishop who theorized the daily rotation of the earth on its axis
Barnaba Oriani (1752â€"1832) â€" Known for Oriani's theorem and for his research on Uranus
Abraham Ortelius (1527â€"1598) â€" Created the first modern atlas and theorized on continental drift
Blaise Pascal (1623â€"1662) â€" French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and philosopher
Louis Pasteur (1822â€"1895) â€" Father of bacteriology[3][38]
Max Perutz (1914â€"2002) â€" Austrian-born British molecular biologist, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for Chemistry[39][40][41]
Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580â€"1637) â€" Discovered the Orion Nebula
Georg von Peuerbach (1423â€"1461) â€" Called the father of mathematical and observational astronomy in the West[42]
Giuseppe Piazzi (1746â€"1826) â€" Theatine priest who discovered the asteroid Ceres and did important work cataloguing stars
Jean Picard (1620â€"1682) â€" French priest and father of modern astronomy in France[43]
Vladimir Prelog (1906â€"1998) â€" Croatian-Swiss organic chemist, winner of the 1975 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854â€"1912) â€" French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer and philosopher of science
John Polanyi (1929â€" ) â€" Canadian chemist who won the 1986 Nobel Prize for his research in chemical kinetics.[44]
Michael Polanyi (1891â€"1976) â€" Hungarian polymath who made contributions to physical chemistry, economics, and philosophy.
Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852â€"1934) â€" Awarded the Nobel Prize for his contributions to neuroscience
René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur (1683â€"1757) â€" Scientific polymath known especially for his study of insects
Francesco Redi (1626â€"1697) â€" His experiments with maggots were a major step in overturning the idea of spontaneous generation
Henri Victor Regnault (1810â€"1878) â€" Chemist with two laws governing the specific heat of gases named after him[45]
Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598â€"1671) â€" Jesuit priest and the first person to measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies
Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro (1853â€"1925) â€" One of the founders of tensor calculus
Gilles de Roberval (1602â€"1675) â€" Mathematician who studied the geometry of infinitesimals and was one of the founders of kinematic geometry
Frederick Rossini (1899â€"1990) â€" Priestley Medal and Laetare Medal winning chemist.[46]
Theodor Schwann (1810â€"1882) â€" Founder of the theory of the cellular structure of animal organisms
Angelo Secchi (1818â€"1878) â€" Jesuit priest who developed the first system of stellar classification
Ignaz Semmelweis (1818â€"1865) â€" Early pioneer of antiseptic procedures and the discoverer of the cause of puerperal fever
Domingo de Soto (1494â€"1560) â€" Spanish Dominican priest and professor at the University of Salamanca; in his commentaries to Aristotle he proposed that free falling bodies undergo constant acceleration
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729â€"1799) â€" Priest and biologist who laid the groundwork for Pasteur's discoveries
Nicolas Steno (1638â€"1686) â€" Bishop, and father of stratigraphy
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881â€"1955), Jesuit priest, theologian and renowned paleontologist.
Francesco Lana de Terzi (1631â€"1687) â€" Jesuit priest who has been called the father of aeronautics
Louis Jacques Thénard (1777â€"1857) â€" Discovered hydrogen peroxide
Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250â€"c.1310) â€" Gave the first geometrical analysis of the rainbow
Evangelista Torricelli (1608â€"1647) â€" Inventor of the barometer
Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli (1397â€"1482) â€" Italian mathematician, astronomer and cosmographer
Richard Towneley (1629â€"1707) â€" Mathematician and astronomer whose work contributed to the formulation of Boyle's Law
Louis René Tulasne (1815â€"1885) â€" Biologist with several genera and species of fungi named after him
Louis Nicolas Vauquelin (1763â€"1829) â€" Discovered the chemical element beryllium
Pierre Vernier (1580â€"1637) â€" Mathematician who invented the Vernier scale
Urbain Le Verrier (1811â€"1877) â€" Mathematician who predicted the discovery of Neptune
Andreas Vesalius (1514â€"1564) â€" Father of modern human anatomy
François Viète (1540â€"1603) â€" Father of Modern Algebra[47]
Leonardo da Vinci (1452â€"1519) â€" Renaissance anatomist, scientist, mathematician, and painter
Vincenzo Viviani (1622â€"1703) â€" Mathematician known for Viviani's theorem, Viviani's curve and his work in determining the speed of sound
Alessandro Volta (1745â€"1827) â€" Physicist known for the invention of the battery[4]
Wilhelm Heinrich Waagen (1841â€"1900) â€" Geologist and paleontologist
Karl Weierstrass (1815â€"1897) â€" Often called the Father of Modern Analysis[48]
E. T. Whittaker (1873â€"1956) â€" English mathematician who made contributions to applied mathematics and mathematical physics
Eric F. Wieschaus (1947â€" ) â€" He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717â€"1768) â€" One of the founders of scientific archaeology
Bertram Windle (1858â€"1929) â€" Anthropologist, physician, and former president of University College Cork
Antonino Zichichi (1929â€" ) â€" Italian nuclear physicist, former President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare[49][50]
Here are some facts concerning the religious beliefs of modern scientists -
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:54:48 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:54:48 PM
LOL! Really? 93% of the members of the National Academy of sciences and the Royal Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal god. Thank you for posting the names of the 7% who suffer from cognitive dissonance. About 33% profess skepticism but cannot exclude the possibility of a deity.
86% of Americans believe in some deity or another, only a small minority of scientists do. Why? Could they know more than Joe the plumber?
Now name ONE (!) of your list of scientists who has actually proven the existence of a god beyond reasonable doubt. One who dares to claim to have found the irrefutable evidence of miracles; repeatable, testable evidence. Good luck with that. Faith is based on opinions, not evidence. Science is based on evidence, not feelings.
Or, on the other hand, name scientists that use faith and prayer with their research instead of the scientific method. No lab work, no testing needed. Just a hail Mary in the morning and all the new discoveries will come automatically.
86% of Americans believe in some deity or another, only a small minority of scientists do. Why? Could they know more than Joe the plumber?
Now name ONE (!) of your list of scientists who has actually proven the existence of a god beyond reasonable doubt. One who dares to claim to have found the irrefutable evidence of miracles; repeatable, testable evidence. Good luck with that. Faith is based on opinions, not evidence. Science is based on evidence, not feelings.
Or, on the other hand, name scientists that use faith and prayer with their research instead of the scientific method. No lab work, no testing needed. Just a hail Mary in the morning and all the new discoveries will come automatically.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:56:46 PM
Post by: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:56:46 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 04:09:13 PMThat's the guy who fell on his knees at the sight of a frozen waterfall to thank Jesus. Somebody should tell him that a Jesus had nothing to do with it.
And another of the latest converts from atheism to Catholicism:
Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg/330px-Francis_Collins_official_portrait.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: widdershins on May 26, 2016, 05:11:05 PM
Post by: widdershins on May 26, 2016, 05:11:05 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 11:35:03 AMThis is not fully true. Converts join a church for a wide variety of reasons and there is generally a lot going on "behind the scenes" that they aren't even aware of. One of the biggest contributors to people becoming converts is that it's easy to plant a seed in a child's head and have it grow into certainty. Until my late teens I never questioned that God was real and my family didn't even attend church until my early teens. It was just a "fact" that God was real and watching me and that there were certain things he didn't like (the number of which grew exponentially when my parents rejoined their old Pentecostal church and I followed).
It's not that I want the gospels to be true - it's that I am not convinced that they are. Converts don't usually begin with the assumption that the Bible is true nor do they "suspend the critical investigation". However, having done that homework, we become convinced that the authors were reliable.
As a "convert" to the Pentecostal church I can tell you, I didn't do any "research". I didn't do any "critical investigation". I started with the "fact" that God was real and the assumption that those who taught me about his existence knew where to find him. Then listening to sermons...let's see...twice on Sunday, youth service on Tuesday, Bible study on Wednesday, adult service on Thursday...5 times a week...WAIT, twice on Sunday MORNING (one right after the other), then evening service besides...6 times a week, it can't not have an effect on you.
The reality is that Christians simply don't look at their beliefs critically. Ever. A few, like you, think they do, but they're just really looking for something to drown out the voice in the back of their heads telling them that something is wrong. They're looking for excuses to keep believing. Why, someone like that may spend weeks, months, even years in an atheist forum arguing the same points over and over, knowing full well he won't ever convince any of the atheists, but it doesn't matter because that's not why he's there anyway. It's the voice. That fucking voice! That nagging, back-of-the-mind voice which keeps whispering that something is wrong. It's best not to think about that. It could cost you an eternity in Hell to think about that. So drown it out with bitter arguments with people who disagree with you so that you can find out what the arguments against your beliefs are so that you can look up what's wrong with them. It's a way to avoid thinking critically about one's own beliefs so as not to lose a slippery grip on them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 11:35:03 AMDo I get to pick and choose which parts to follow too? Because there's a pesky commandment in the way of my revenge on my first grade teacher. The Ten Commandments were a covenant with the Jews specifically, after all, so that must not apply to me!
The Bible does not tell you to kill in God's name. You are not a Jew living prior to Jesus' day, are you?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 11:35:03 AMOf course you're satisfied with the answers. How could you not be? If you pull a thread and it comes undone the whole thing falls apart, so you can't spare one thread. So you'll ALWAYS be "satisfied with the answers", no matter how bad they are, no matter how stupid they are, no matter how hard you have to squint your brain to think them into making sense. In reality, though, you're satisfied with the "excuses". Jesus said he was coming back in that generation. He said that healing the sick would be a sign which accompanied his followers. He said that with just a little bit of faith you could move a mountain. So what he meant was...a "generation", well, that means "age" and we're still in that same "age". Sure, nothing today is even remotely like it was then, but still, somehow, the "age" hasn't changed. And healing the sick, that happens! Sure, YOU can't do it...nor can any Christian you know. It's not like a super power that Christians have or anything. When he said these signs "will" accompany the faithful, he didn't mean each individual person. He meant the church in general, in a random, sporadic, undisprovable sort of way...PARABLE! It was a parable! He didn't mean it literally! He was talking in parables! Christians can heal sick souls! Yeah, that sounds better. We're going with that "answer".
Moreover, I disagree with Lataster's assertion that the Bible contradicts itself. Because I have done the research and I am satisfied with the answers. At least for the biggest questions.
I'd be happy to discuss any "contradiction" that you find damaging to the Christian message.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 07:21:39 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 07:21:39 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:54:48 PM
LOL! Really? 93% of the members of the National Academy of sciences and the Royal Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal god. Thank you for posting the names of the 7% who suffer from cognitive dissonance. About 33% profess skepticism but cannot exclude the possibility of a deity.
86% of Americans believe in some deity or another, only a small minority of scientists do. Why? Could they know more than Joe the plumber?
Now name ONE (!) of your list of scientists who has actually proven the existence of a god beyond reasonable doubt. One who dares to claim to have found the irrefutable evidence of miracles; repeatable, testable evidence. Good luck with that. Faith is based on opinions, not evidence. Science is based on evidence, not feelings.
Or, on the other hand, name scientists that use faith and prayer with their research instead of the scientific method. No lab work, no testing needed. Just a hail Mary in the morning and all the new discoveries will come automatically.
You wrote: "I realize that the scientific method is the nemesis of faith. That is exactly why the church silenced dissent and scientific progress for 2,000 years."
And then I provided a list of scientists who were active during many of those 2,000 years. Thus, you original assertion is demonstrated to be false.
Move the goalposts much?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 07:25:09 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 07:25:09 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 04:17:21 PM
Nearly all of them are long dead. Most living scientists are - not Catholic. You've got tens of thousands of living scientists, stupid. Not a list as short as yours. Big Deal to your list!
Here are some facts concerning the religious beliefs of modern scientists -
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
The strength of the list is not in its length but in the significance of the contributions these Catholics made to their respective fields.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 07:29:23 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 07:29:23 PM
Quote from: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:15:20 PM
You got it. Truth is not what I think, that's your department. Truth is not an opinion. Truth is fact based consensus, it doesn't matter what I think or you think. And by FACT I mean verifiable, testable and disprovable evidence, not bronze age notes from folks who had no clue about how the universe functions.
So, prior to the Middle Ages, Christianity was not true because a majority consensus did not agree with it. Then, as more people joined the Church - especially in Europe, it became true as that consensus reached a majority.
Today, Christianity is no longer true in Europe, its true but on the ropes in the United States, and becoming true like wildfire in Africa.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 08:38:41 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 08:38:41 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 07:25:09 PMThere's a far longer list of atheists who have made significant contributions to science and mathematics, going back into antiquity. We could start with Democritus and come on down to Lawrence Krauss - so, what? Who gives a fuck? What are you trying to prove? What did their catholicism have to do w/their work in science? "Oh, Mozart was Catholic! That was why his music was so great!" Hey, dumbo, Bach was Lutheran!
The strength of the list is not in its length but in the significance of the contributions these Catholics made to their respective fields.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 09:19:21 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 09:19:21 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 08:38:41 PM
There's a far longer list of atheists who have made significant contributions to science and mathematics, going back into antiquity. We could start with Democritus and come on down to Lawrence Krauss - so, what? Who gives a fuck? What are you trying to prove? What did their catholicism have to do w/their work in science? "Oh, Mozart was Catholic! That was why his music was so great!" Hey, dumbo, Bach was Lutheran!
The reason for listing the rather extensive roll of Catholic names in the annals of scientific history is to counter the absurd charge - common among atheist "dims" - that the Catholic Church was and/or is somehow opposed to science.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 09:36:34 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 09:36:34 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 09:19:21 PMIt may not be now - who knows? It was pleasing to see the Vatican install an astronomical observatory. But it's long history of torturing and murdering scientists cannot be ignored. JP # 2's apology to Galileo cannot make up for it - especially since the man had been dead for centuries when he got the apology.
The reason for listing the rather extensive roll of Catholic names in the annals of scientific history is to counter the absurd charge - common among atheist "dims" - that the Catholic Church was and/or is somehow opposed to science.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 09:53:55 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 07:29:23 PMYou skipped over the second line, pookhums.
So, prior to the Middle Ages, Christianity was not true because a majority consensus did not agree with it. Then, as more people joined the Church - especially in Europe, it became true as that consensus reached a majority.
Today, Christianity is no longer true in Europe, its true but on the ropes in the United States, and becoming true like wildfire in Africa.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:07:11 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:07:11 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 09:36:34 PM
It may not be now - who knows? It was pleasing to see the Vatican install an astronomical observatory. But it's long history of torturing and murdering scientists cannot be ignored. JP # 2's apology to Galileo cannot make up for it - especially since the man had been dead for centuries when he got the apology.
But Galileo was not convicted for his science. He was convicted for teaching a theory as fact after agreeing that he would not do so.
Galileo was right but even he had no proof of this during his lifetime, did he?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:08:46 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:08:46 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 09:53:55 PM
You skipped over the second line, pookhums.
What second line? Second sentence?
What did I skip over?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 10:20:15 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 10:20:15 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:07:11 PMThe Church had no proof that he was wrong, did it?
But Galileo was not convicted for his science. He was convicted for teaching a theory as fact after agreeing that he would not do so.
Galileo was right but even he had no proof of this during his lifetime, did he?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 10:29:33 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 10:29:33 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:07:11 PM
But Galileo was not convicted for his science. He was convicted for teaching a theory as fact after agreeing that he would not do so.
Galileo was right but even he had no proof of this during his lifetime, did he?
That is the official story ... what he really got in trouble for was saying something in a letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany ... that was too much for the poor priests. Had nothing to do with their false embrace of Aristotelian physics. He said that the Church (and by implication the clergy) were not the be all in regards to matters of fact, just of faith. Galileo was a good Catholic, but he was punished for being a stupid one. You don't say to the Counter-Reformation clergy, that they need to keep their nose out of science. Basically the infallibility thing ... if they say 2+2=5 then it does, and if you say contrary that 2+2=4 then it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong factually, it matters that you haven't blindly checked your brain at the Church door, that you aren't a good Nazi. Once you admit that the priests might be wrong on secular matters ... even they could see that the lay people would be questioning their take on faith matters as well. What did Voltaire say ... strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 10:34:00 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 10:34:00 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 10:20:15 PM
The Church had no proof that he was wrong, did it?
They already knew he was right (as far as anyone could tell back then, the Earth rotating wasn't proven until the Foucault pendulum in the 19th century). They knew before Columbus and Magellan, that the world was a sphere and not a dinner plate. But they have to keep the laity in a state of suspended animation. Fact is, we know now thru computer work, that Ptolemy fudged his numbers anyway, we know the star positions better than he did in Roman times ... and his numbers don't match what we know to be true. He cleaned up his data, to better fit the epicycles. Fact is, Copernicus and Ptolemy were both wrong, compared to Kepler. Copernican system was heliocentric, but actually had more epicycles than Ptolemy did ... but lay history ignores that. Heliocentric had to be denied on theological grounds, the number didn't matter except to astrologers anyway. What destroyed Ptolemy was the moons of Jupiter ... and the fact that Galileo went public about that in Italian, not Latin. With the first use of the telescope, the whole Catholic system teetered on extinction. But you can't kill the undead, or their zombie Christ.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:09:44 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:09:44 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:08:46 PMAnd by FACT I mean verifiable, testable and disprovable evidence
What second line? Second sentence?
What did I skip over?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:12:20 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:12:20 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 10:20:15 PM
The Church had no proof that he was wrong, did it?
The Church had proof that he was teaching his theory AS FACT.
It was his obstinacy that got him in trouble...not his science. The pope had been a supporter prior to this point.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:14:32 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:14:32 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:12:20 PMSo, the Church has a right to stick up for its view but Galileo does not? Why? An institution is better than a man?
The Church had proof that he was teaching his theory AS FACT.
It was his obstinacy that got him in trouble...not his science. The pope had been a supporter prior to this point.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:15:21 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:15:21 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:09:44 PM
And by FACT I mean verifiable, testable and disprovable evidence
But that is not the only kind of evidence that exists. Why overlook other types?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:16:36 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:16:36 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:14:32 PM
So, the Church has a right to stick up for its view but Galileo does not? Why? An institution is better than a man?
Are you actually interested in learning about this? Is this REALLY important in your mind?
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:17:07 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:17:07 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:12:20 PM
The Church had proof that he was teaching his theory AS FACT.
It was his obstinacy that got him in trouble...not his science. The pope had been a supporter prior to this point.
If he had stuck to Latin, and only shared with scholars, it could have been contained. But Galileo liked to give his fellow Italians all sorts of Italian body language ;-)
The fact is, that the Earth goes around the Sun, still isn't a FACT. Fact is, the Sun and Earth both orbit their shared center of gravity.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:18:27 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:18:27 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:16:36 PM
Are you actually interested in learning about this? Is this REALLY important in your mind?
Totalitarian systems work like that. You are to be a worker bee in the hive.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:21:41 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:21:41 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:15:21 PM
But that is not the only kind of evidence that exists. Why overlook other types?
Because they aren't casuists like you.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:34:57 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:34:57 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 10:34:00 PMThank you for that excellent summary.
They already knew he was right (as far as anyone could tell back then, the Earth rotating wasn't proven until the Foucault pendulum in the 19th century). They knew before Columbus and Magellan, that the world was a sphere and not a dinner plate. But they have to keep the laity in a state of suspended animation. Fact is, we know now thru computer work, that Ptolemy fudged his numbers anyway, we know the star positions better than he did in Roman times ... and his numbers don't match what we know to be true. He cleaned up his data, to better fit the epicycles. Fact is, Copernicus and Ptolemy were both wrong, compared to Kepler. Copernican system was heliocentric, but actually had more epicycles than Ptolemy did ... but lay history ignores that. Heliocentric had to be denied on theological grounds, the number didn't matter except to astrologers anyway. What destroyed Ptolemy was the moons of Jupiter ... and the fact that Galileo went public about that in Italian, not Latin. With the first use of the telescope, the whole Catholic system teetered on extinction. But you can't kill the undead, or their zombie Christ.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:38:31 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:38:31 PM
I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood. Can someone tell me why I felt more at home w/my Jewish neighbors than I did w/my Catholic brethren. I never understood it. Maybe it was because the Jews just didn't seem to believe in something so moronic. At least their god came in one piece. At least they didn't expect people not born in their faith to become Jewish. Maybe it was because they were nice to me, even though I wasn't one of them.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:48:59 PM
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:48:59 PM
I am not anti-Catholic, just anti-dishonesty.
Even epicycles aren't as big a deal as they thought back then ... we now understand this as a rather literal form of Fourier analysis. It is possible that Galileo wasn't that good at math, didn't read Copernicus' book in detail. Galileo was a physicist first, and an astronomer second. Galileo was wrong about the tides ... that was solved by Newton. Galileo didn't like Kepler though they corresponded. Galileo couldn't get past sacred circles. Kepler as a real empirical guy, he showed that ellipses fit well, better than multiple circles ... but until Newton we had no reason why this should be so.
Even epicycles aren't as big a deal as they thought back then ... we now understand this as a rather literal form of Fourier analysis. It is possible that Galileo wasn't that good at math, didn't read Copernicus' book in detail. Galileo was a physicist first, and an astronomer second. Galileo was wrong about the tides ... that was solved by Newton. Galileo didn't like Kepler though they corresponded. Galileo couldn't get past sacred circles. Kepler as a real empirical guy, he showed that ellipses fit well, better than multiple circles ... but until Newton we had no reason why this should be so.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 27, 2016, 12:12:43 AM
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 27, 2016, 12:12:43 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 11:16:36 PMAre you actually interested in the facts, or do you just want to belittle people for daring to disagree with you?
Are you actually interested in learning about this? Is this REALLY important in your mind?
(http://i.imgur.com/I92JkJh.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 27, 2016, 07:28:31 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 27, 2016, 07:28:31 AM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 11:38:31 PM
I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood. Can someone tell me why I felt more at home w/my Jewish neighbors than I did w/my Catholic brethren. I never understood it. Maybe it was because the Jews just didn't seem to believe in something so moronic. At least their god came in one piece. At least they didn't expect people not born in their faith to become Jewish. Maybe it was because they were nice to me, even though I wasn't one of them.
Jews were not commissioned by God to "Make disciples of all nations."
And Jews don't believe in anything so moronic as miracles. Oh, wait...
the burning bush
the parting of the Red Sea
Sodom and Gomorrah
The Battle of Jericho
etc, etc
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 27, 2016, 07:29:43 AM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 27, 2016, 07:29:43 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 27, 2016, 12:12:43 AM
Are you actually interested in the facts, or do you just want to belittle people for daring to disagree with you?
Incorrect. And ironic.
I am happy to discuss the subject if he is really interested in understanding it. I am not going to waste more time if he is merely being argumentative.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 27, 2016, 07:33:20 AM
Post by: marom1963 on May 27, 2016, 07:33:20 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 27, 2016, 07:28:31 AMMost of the Jews that I knew as a kid took the OT w/a grain of salt. What held them together was their faith and their tradition and their customs. I learned a lot of Yiddish, and I loved the food!
Jews were not commissioned by God to "Make disciples of all nations."
And Jews don't believe in anything so moronic as miracles. Oh, wait...
the burning bush
the parting of the Red Sea
Sodom and Gomorrah
The Battle of Jericho
etc, etc
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Baruch on May 27, 2016, 08:31:59 AM
Post by: Baruch on May 27, 2016, 08:31:59 AM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 27, 2016, 07:28:31 AM
Jews were not commissioned by God to "Make disciples of all nations."
And Jews don't believe in anything so moronic as miracles. Oh, wait...
the burning bush
the parting of the Red Sea
Sodom and Gomorrah
The Battle of Jericho
etc, etc
There were sects who believed in Biblical miracles literally ... too bad for them.
There were sects who believed in a mission to evangelize the Gentiles ... that didn't work out too well.
The Gentiles evangelized themselves, with mock Judaism. Hebrew envy.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 28, 2016, 04:24:02 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 28, 2016, 04:24:02 PM
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 04:17:21 PM
Nearly all of them are long dead. Most living scientists are - not Catholic. You've got tens of thousands of living scientists, stupid. Not a list as short as yours. Big Deal to your list!
Here are some facts concerning the religious beliefs of modern scientists -
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Quote from: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:54:48 PM
LOL! Really? 93% of the members of the National Academy of sciences and the Royal Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal god.
And some facts from a NEWER study (2014):
Which Scientists Believe
Millions identify themselves as evangelicals, but few are at research universities.
Christine Herman/ March 28, 2014
A new study that 2 million of the nation's 12 million scientists identify as evangelical Christians. In other words, if you were to convene all the evangelical scientists, they could populate the city of Houston.
The finding is the first to be made public from the largest study of American views on science and religion, which sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund and her colleagues at Rice University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) wrapped up in early 2014. Seventeen percent of scientists said "evangelical" describes them "somewhat" or "very well," compared to 23 percent of all respondents.
It's a dramatically higher percentage than found in Ecklund's 2010 survey of scientists at top universities: only about 2 percent identified as evangelical. The new survey, by contrast, focused on "rank and file" scientists, including those in health care, life sciences, computers, and engineering.
The new survey also found that the same number of people in the general public perceive hostility by religious people toward science as perceive hostility by scientists toward religionâ€"about 1 in 5. But among evangelical scientists, a strong majority (57 percent) perceive hostility from scientists toward religion. That suggests Christians in scientific fields have negative experiences with fellow scientists in the workplace regarding their faith.
Evangelical scientists are more active in their faith than American evangelicals in general, the survey indicates. They are more likely to consider themselves very religious, to attend religious services weekly, and to read religious texts at least every week.
+++
Wonder how many Catholic scientists you could add to the 2 Million Evangelical scientists? Orthodox? Jewish? Theist?
And 57% of believing scientists perceive hostility from non-believing scientists? So much for maintaining an open mind, atheists!
My work is done here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 28, 2016, 04:52:47 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 28, 2016, 04:52:47 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 28, 2016, 04:24:02 PMPutting the "million" in there is an attempt to take advantage of the wide math illiteracy of the American public. You're still talking about less than 20% of scientists. That leaves an overwhelming 80% who are not evangelical Christians. There's not a politician on the planet who wouldn't kill for numbers like that.
And some facts from a NEWER study (2014):
Which Scientists Believe
Millions identify themselves as evangelicals, but few are at research universities.
Christine Herman/ March 28, 2014
A new study that 2 million of the nation's 12 million scientists identify as evangelical Christians. In other words, if you were to convene all the evangelical scientists, they could populate the city of Houston.
The finding is the first to be made public from the largest study of American views on science and religion, which sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund and her colleagues at Rice University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) wrapped up in early 2014. Seventeen percent of scientists said "evangelical" describes them "somewhat" or "very well," compared to 23 percent of all respondents.
It's a dramatically higher percentage than found in Ecklund's 2010 survey of scientists at top universities: only about 2 percent identified as evangelical. The new survey, by contrast, focused on "rank and file" scientists, including those in health care, life sciences, computers, and engineering.
The new survey also found that the same number of people in the general public perceive hostility by religious people toward science as perceive hostility by scientists toward religionâ€"about 1 in 5. But among evangelical scientists, a strong majority (57 percent) perceive hostility from scientists toward religion. That suggests Christians in scientific fields have negative experiences with fellow scientists in the workplace regarding their faith.
Evangelical scientists are more active in their faith than American evangelicals in general, the survey indicates. They are more likely to consider themselves very religious, to attend religious services weekly, and to read religious texts at least every week.
+++
Wonder how many Catholic scientists you could add to the 2 Million Evangelical scientists? Orthodox? Jewish? Theist?
And 57% of believing scientists perceive hostility from non-believing scientists? So much for maintaining an open mind, atheists!
My work is done here.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 28, 2016, 08:51:10 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 28, 2016, 08:51:10 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:21:44 AMOh, the irony!
Right. You are asserting this based on nothing more than your own opinion.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:21:44 AMBullshit. All you have presented are red herrings. Your own citation says nothing about people returning to their "ancestoral homes."
I not only know how to read but I can spell, too. And I categorically deny saying that the issue was about whether the Romans EVER conducted a census. The issue is about HOW they conducted them, and all of the evidence suggests that Luke was more familiar with the particulars of the Roman government than you are.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:27:44 AM80 years after the so-called census, muppet. What was that about knowing how to read? Knowing how to read is more than just seeing the words and knowing what they mean. It's being able to put them into context.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)
Luke is conservatively dated around AD 80. Which is only 50 years after Jesus' resurrection. Not 80.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:27:44 AMYou mean Nazareth that didn't exist in the first century?
Moreover, Luke's gospel is chock-full of very precise names, titles, dates, cities and so forth. All of which have been verified archaeologically...so there is NO DOUBT that Luke got each "point of administration" correct.
You mean the red herring you presented talking about oranges when you were talking about apples?
You mean how Luke describes a census that couldn't possibly happen?
Because the Roman empire is plenty big enough that some surviving records of your imaginary census must surely exist.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 10:27:44 AM:histerical:
Man, you're like 0 for 4 at this point.
Is this bible scoring? Because so far in the real world you are batting 0 to >50.
Not only are you unapologetically sticking stubbornly to your guns that have already been wrecked and destroyed, but you have repeatedly refused to provide the only evidence that matters: empirical evidence that the resurrection happened. Evidence that, by virtue of its existence, proves that the resurrection happened. A book of stories written by pre-scientific authors is not this kind of evidence. It's simply too weak to prove the resurrection.
Your god has been on the retreat ever since the Enlightenment. Science has taken huge chunks out of "God's domain," forcing the deity into smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge, until god was left hiding under the small scattered rocks in the unknown. Cosmology, once the domain of god, is now firmly in the perview of science. Heavenly motion, once the domain of god, is now firmly in the perview of science. The creation of the earth, once the domain of god, is now firmly in the perview of science. The creation and variety of life, once the domain of god, is now firmly in the perview of science. And even man and the working of his body, once the domain of god, is now in the perview of science.
The resurrection seemed a likely explanation to the gospel writers because to the life was literally a kind of magic, something that is bestowed onto lifeless matter, and can be done so again after it has ceased. But now we know life is chemistry, and is not so easy to restart once it is stopped. The possibility is off the table, and any story that proposes such an idea must be fiction, or incorrect.
You, Randy, would put the gospel authors against the body of scientific knowledge. Against untold billions of individual pieces of data, detailed in millions of papers outlining about as many experiments, published to be scrutinized by the readership of hundreds of scientific journals, pored over by the best minds in their relevant fields to have ever lived, which constitutes the body of scientific knowledge. You would put that against a single book, written by a handful of superstitious authors, stuck in a culture that didn't even realize the earth is a sphere (a fact discovered by the Greeks centuries before)... and you would have it that your book would win.
Utter nonsense.
It is simply not reasonable to assume that the resurrection is true based on the recognisance of the gospel writers. We know far too much about the human body and the workings of life for that to be a live possibility. And appealing to your god won't help you. He's been on the retreat for the better part of four hundred years and had long abandoned that part of his domain.
Anyway, I think you've had a good run, but enough is enough.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 28, 2016, 09:10:44 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 28, 2016, 09:10:44 PM
For fuck's sake, who cares if there were a lot of catholic scientists? As long as they were following the scientific method in making their discoveries, they could worship a side of bacon for all I care.
As for proving the supernatural, you can certainly investigate to see if there's anything to the supernatural. But after hundreds of years of trying, nothing turned up.
As for proving the supernatural, you can certainly investigate to see if there's anything to the supernatural. But after hundreds of years of trying, nothing turned up.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: SGOS on May 28, 2016, 09:37:44 PM
Post by: SGOS on May 28, 2016, 09:37:44 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 28, 2016, 09:10:44 PM
As for proving the supernatural, you can certainly investigate to see if there's anything to the supernatural. But after hundreds of years of trying, nothing turned up.
Kind of a bummer, isn't it? Still no word on the existence of God.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on May 29, 2016, 03:51:50 PM
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on May 29, 2016, 03:51:50 PM
Randy Carson, I have a challenge for you.
Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy. The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.
That proves the Iliad is true.
The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.
That proves they actually exist.
Find the flaw in that logic.
Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy. The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.
That proves the Iliad is true.
The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.
That proves they actually exist.
Find the flaw in that logic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason78 on May 29, 2016, 05:10:57 PM
Post by: Jason78 on May 29, 2016, 05:10:57 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:00:03 PM
Who Wrote the Gospels?
Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?
Why does it matter? The council of Nicea would have picked any text that fit.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on May 30, 2016, 12:07:07 PM
Post by: Jason Harvestdancer on May 30, 2016, 12:07:07 PM
Randy Carson, I have a challenge for you.
Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy. The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.
That proves the Iliad is true.
The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.
That proves they actually exist.
Find the flaw in that logic.
Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy. The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.
That proves the Iliad is true.
The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.
That proves they actually exist.
Find the flaw in that logic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 30, 2016, 12:19:00 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 30, 2016, 12:19:00 PM
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 30, 2016, 12:07:07 PMRandy must have taken a M D holiday. I'll step in for him: the logic is flawless. Right now, I'm setting up an altar to Zeus in the backyard. I'm going to the nearest farm to purchase a sheep to sacrifice.
Randy Carson, I have a challenge for you.
Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy. The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.
That proves the Iliad is true.
The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.
That proves they actually exist.
Find the flaw in that logic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 02:14:24 PM
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 02:14:24 PM
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 29, 2016, 03:51:50 PMThis is beautiful.
Randy Carson, I have a challenge for you.
Archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy. The very same Troy described in the Iliad by Homer.
That proves the Iliad is true.
The Iliad mentions Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares, etc.
That proves they actually exist.
Find the flaw in that logic.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: aitm on May 30, 2016, 03:27:35 PM
Post by: aitm on May 30, 2016, 03:27:35 PM
I aint' reading all this shit…..
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: stromboli on May 30, 2016, 04:10:21 PM
Post by: stromboli on May 30, 2016, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 30, 2016, 03:27:35 PM
I aint' reading all this shit…..
And yet here you are......
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 30, 2016, 05:05:47 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 30, 2016, 05:05:47 PM
Is God Imaginary? Or "Why Atheism Fails to Prove Its Case"
OUTLINE
I. Introduction
II. When Does the Absence of Evidence Equal the Evidence of Absence?
(Or, When is the inference from “I see none†to “There is none†valid?)
A. Evidence Expectation Criterion
- If an object exists, then we would expect there to be evidence for its existence.
B. Knowledge Expectation Criterion
- If evidence for an object exists, then we would expect to have knowledge of that evidence.
In order for the atheist to prove his position regarding the non-existence of God, he must demonstrate that 1) both A and B are true and 2) we lack sufficient evidence for knowing that God exists.
III. Problems with Satisfying the Expectation Criteria with respect to the God Question
A. Why the “Evidence Expectation Criterion†Is Not Always Satisfied
B. Why the “Knowledge Expectation Criterion†Is Not Always Satisfied
1. Sin has had a negative impact on our ability to know ourselves, others and God accurately
2. Atheists often apply inappropriately high standards when evaluation theistic arguments and evidence
3. God may, in fact, “hide†Himself from us because
a. making Himself obvious to all might coerce us into obeying him and stunt the development of our moral character
b. there is no evidence that more obvious evidence of His existence would cause more people to want a personal relationship with Him; some people do not want there to be a God.
IV. Tooth Fairies, Leprechauns, and Santa Claus
V. Summary and Conclusion
OUTLINE
I. Introduction
II. When Does the Absence of Evidence Equal the Evidence of Absence?
(Or, When is the inference from “I see none†to “There is none†valid?)
A. Evidence Expectation Criterion
- If an object exists, then we would expect there to be evidence for its existence.
B. Knowledge Expectation Criterion
- If evidence for an object exists, then we would expect to have knowledge of that evidence.
In order for the atheist to prove his position regarding the non-existence of God, he must demonstrate that 1) both A and B are true and 2) we lack sufficient evidence for knowing that God exists.
III. Problems with Satisfying the Expectation Criteria with respect to the God Question
A. Why the “Evidence Expectation Criterion†Is Not Always Satisfied
B. Why the “Knowledge Expectation Criterion†Is Not Always Satisfied
1. Sin has had a negative impact on our ability to know ourselves, others and God accurately
2. Atheists often apply inappropriately high standards when evaluation theistic arguments and evidence
3. God may, in fact, “hide†Himself from us because
a. making Himself obvious to all might coerce us into obeying him and stunt the development of our moral character
b. there is no evidence that more obvious evidence of His existence would cause more people to want a personal relationship with Him; some people do not want there to be a God.
IV. Tooth Fairies, Leprechauns, and Santa Claus
V. Summary and Conclusion
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Randy Carson on May 30, 2016, 05:06:30 PM
Post by: Randy Carson on May 30, 2016, 05:06:30 PM
Is God Imaginary?
Santa Claus, Tooth Fairies, and God
Is God imaginary? Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens claim he is. But when they are asked to provide evidence for the position they hold, many times they reply that proving the non-existence of God is akin to proving the non-existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. However the reasons why one believes in God are significantly different from those for which one may believe in Santa. In this article we examine how certain criteria for evidence works, and why one may be epistemically justified in asking for positive evidence for the atheist’s claim that God does not exist. Unless the atheist can provide good reasons for his disbelief, the theist may confidently answer the atheist’s question, “Is God imaginary?†with a resounding “No!â€
The question is related to a larger one, namely, when the absence of evidence for something is evidence of its absence. We will address that questionâ€"but first, let’s define some basic terms.
I. Introduction
Many have taken what they consider to be an apparent lack of evidence for God as evidence that God doesn’t exist; that is, they look around, don’t see “enough†evidence and conclude that atheism is true.
[Bertrand] Russell realized that the inference from apparent lack of evidence for God to atheism is fallacious. Yet today, many call themselves “atheists†when really they are agnostics.
Let’s first define some terms around the question “Does God exist?â€
Soft Agnosticism: Hard Agnosticism:
"I don't knowif God exists, "I don't know if God exists,
but it's possible for and no one else can know either."
someone to know."
Notice a few things about these definitions. First, non-theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive because you could be a non-theist and so fail to believe in God (i.e., you could lack belief in God) but you might also be an agnostic saying, “For all I know, God exists. I just don’t know.†Notice also how extreme hard agnosticism is, since it claims even more than atheists do; the hard agnostic says that everyone is wrong, both atheists and theists, and that they cannot know what they claim, even if they have apparently sound arguments!
There are sound arguments for God’s existence. Some of them are very good. But suppose it were not so; suppose all the arguments for God fail and there are no further good reasons to believe in God. What follows?â€"Atheism? It’s very important to realize that the answer to this question is NO. What follows is, at most, soft agnosticism.
Santa Claus, Tooth Fairies, and God
Is God imaginary? Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens claim he is. But when they are asked to provide evidence for the position they hold, many times they reply that proving the non-existence of God is akin to proving the non-existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. However the reasons why one believes in God are significantly different from those for which one may believe in Santa. In this article we examine how certain criteria for evidence works, and why one may be epistemically justified in asking for positive evidence for the atheist’s claim that God does not exist. Unless the atheist can provide good reasons for his disbelief, the theist may confidently answer the atheist’s question, “Is God imaginary?†with a resounding “No!â€
The question is related to a larger one, namely, when the absence of evidence for something is evidence of its absence. We will address that questionâ€"but first, let’s define some basic terms.
I. Introduction
Many have taken what they consider to be an apparent lack of evidence for God as evidence that God doesn’t exist; that is, they look around, don’t see “enough†evidence and conclude that atheism is true.
[Bertrand] Russell realized that the inference from apparent lack of evidence for God to atheism is fallacious. Yet today, many call themselves “atheists†when really they are agnostics.
Let’s first define some terms around the question “Does God exist?â€
"Does God exist?"
/ \
Theism: "God exists" Non-theism: "I don't believe in God"
/ \
Agnosticism: “I don’t know if God exists†Atheism: “God does not existâ€
Soft Agnosticism: Hard Agnosticism:
"I don't knowif God exists, "I don't know if God exists,
but it's possible for and no one else can know either."
someone to know."
Notice a few things about these definitions. First, non-theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive because you could be a non-theist and so fail to believe in God (i.e., you could lack belief in God) but you might also be an agnostic saying, “For all I know, God exists. I just don’t know.†Notice also how extreme hard agnosticism is, since it claims even more than atheists do; the hard agnostic says that everyone is wrong, both atheists and theists, and that they cannot know what they claim, even if they have apparently sound arguments!
There are sound arguments for God’s existence. Some of them are very good. But suppose it were not so; suppose all the arguments for God fail and there are no further good reasons to believe in God. What follows?â€"Atheism? It’s very important to realize that the answer to this question is NO. What follows is, at most, soft agnosticism.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Nonsensei on May 30, 2016, 05:08:11 PM
Post by: Nonsensei on May 30, 2016, 05:08:11 PM
A seemingly structured post, made that way to disguise the fact that its based on an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 05:15:45 PM
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 05:15:45 PM
[mod]See you in Purgatory. We gave you your warning.[/mod]
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: TomFoolery on May 30, 2016, 05:48:52 PM
Post by: TomFoolery on May 30, 2016, 05:48:52 PM
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 30, 2016, 05:05:47 PM
In order for the atheist to prove his position regarding the non-existence of God, he must demonstrate that 1) both A and B are true and 2) we lack sufficient evidence for knowing that God exists.
Again, you start with the premise that atheists believe they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God and we think we have proof.
THIS atheist will be the first to tell you that I don't know if there is a God, but I haven't personally encountered any proof I've found convincing. If I ever did (and it would take seeing something like God shaking hands with Scott Pelley on the Evening News) then sure, I'd believe in God.
Your argument is that atheists have unreasonably high standards. I think theists have ridiculously low standards. You will never get me to concede that God exists solely because of 1.) The Bible 2.) Individual accounts of miracles 3.) The beauty of things like a sunset or a snow-covered mountain 4.) The existence of morality.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 30, 2016, 06:07:36 PM
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 30, 2016, 06:07:36 PM
If God isn't imaginary, he's done his level best to make the universe work as if he were.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 06:14:01 PM
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 06:14:01 PM
I saw some pastor explaining how god is outside of time and matter...
If time and matter is reality, then that means god is outside of reality. Things that are outside of reality isn't real, meaning God isn't real. Of course... I'm just making an observation of what he said... :lol:
If time and matter is reality, then that means god is outside of reality. Things that are outside of reality isn't real, meaning God isn't real. Of course... I'm just making an observation of what he said... :lol:
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: Mike Cl on May 30, 2016, 06:19:27 PM
Post by: Mike Cl on May 30, 2016, 06:19:27 PM
Repeater Randy at it again. I could insert any fictional name into the spot for "God", and the argument would have the same merit. I cannot prove that the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, or Santa do not exist. They 'could' exist. Couldn't they?? Well, I have seen more 'proof' for those three than god(s), but in actuality I have found the same amount of proof for all 4. None. Based on that this atheist will state that neither god(s), Santa, Tooth Fairy, or Easter Bunny exist. Not. I don't 'believe' that that is so, I think that that is so--for solid reasons. God does not exist. Period.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 06:23:54 PM
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 06:23:54 PM
Gonna merge this thread with the rest of this thread. It's the same shit; different underpants.
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: sdelsolray on May 30, 2016, 07:42:01 PM
Post by: sdelsolray on May 30, 2016, 07:42:01 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 06:14:01 PM
I saw some pastor explaining how god is outside of time and matter...
...
...except when he isn't (the pastor forgot that part, e.g., Jesus on Earth, causing floods, turning folks to salt...you know, the good stuff).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 08:07:33 PM
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 30, 2016, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 30, 2016, 07:42:01 PMOf course you and I know that. I was simply going by what that guy said and making the observation that his statement conflicted with itself as a reasoning FOR god's existence.
...except when he isn't (the pastor forgot that part, e.g., Jesus on Earth, causing floods, turning folks to salt...you know, the good stuff).
Title: Re: Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Post by: marom1963 on May 30, 2016, 08:12:44 PM
Post by: marom1963 on May 30, 2016, 08:12:44 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 30, 2016, 07:42:01 PMFilling in for Randy again - God can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants - he's God! Why, he gets the best parking spot in Heaven and the biggest piece of chocolate cake and the corner office - all the corner offices - and the secretary w/the biggest boobs - and she's miraculously a virgin, no matter what happens in those corner offices!
...except when he isn't (the pastor forgot that part, e.g., Jesus on Earth, causing floods, turning folks to salt...you know, the good stuff).