News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Catholic Church "Miracles"

Started by Paolo, December 07, 2020, 12:58:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

Paolo, I have pointed out that none of your offered witness writers were contemporary, nor did they offer fact one about the supposed life of a non-mythical Jesus.  Now, can you offer up a single writer who was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote about him?  Or any writings of Jesus or anyone who followed him?  The obvious answer is that you cannot, for there are not any.  So, all you can do is call me names.  That is the usual way it goes with theists--even ones who pose as an atheist.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Paolo

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 05, 2021, 11:10:00 PM
Paolo, I have pointed out that none of your offered witness writers were contemporary, nor did they offer fact one about the supposed life of a non-mythical Jesus.  Now, can you offer up a single writer who was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote about him?  Or any writings of Jesus or anyone who followed him?  The obvious answer is that you cannot, for there are not any.  So, all you can do is call me names.  That is the usual way it goes with theists--even ones who pose as an atheist.

Mike, I was answering your second post in Reply #202. I have not read any of the ramblings about the so-called ''historians who mention Jesus''. I plan to do so and respond over on the weekend. Please note that I have a lot of stuff to do and the issues this debate includes should not be answered hastily. But I have not so far failed to adress (or 'dodge', if you will) ANY of your points.

Considering all this, I ask for a bit more patience. 

P.S.: I have only 'attacked' you or others here after you/they 'attacked' me first -- as in, disingenuously calling me a ''theist''.
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Paolo

#242
Hey friend, before you accuse me of ''not answering'' you (I ain't not answering you; I have not enough time to be so fast, simple as that), may I pose a simple question to satisfy your urge for quick answers? It tackles on what you have babbling about in the last few posts, given the cursory glance I just entertained.

The question is simple: what is the difference between Jesus and Socrates?

Everyone knows Jesus didn't write anything himself. But neither did Socrates. We only know about Socrates due to his disciple Plato. Like we know about Jesus due to his disciples.

So, may I ask how do we know that Socrates existed, while Jesus didn't? What sets them apart? Could you pinpoint that specifically?

OK, that may be more than one question. My bad.

Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Mike Cl

Quote from: Paolo on February 06, 2021, 03:22:02 AM
Hey friend, before you accuse me of ''not answering'' you (I ain't not answering you; I have not enough time to be so fast, simple as that), may I pose a simple question to satisfy your urge for quick answers? It tackles on what you have babbling about in the last few posts, given the cursory glance I just entertained.

The question is simple: what is the difference between Jesus and Socrates?

Everyone knows Jesus didn't write anything himself. But neither did Socrates. We only know about Socrates due to his disciple Plato. Like we know about Jesus due to his disciples.

So, may I ask how do we know that Socrates existed, while Jesus didn't? What sets them apart? Could you pinpoint that specifically?

OK, that may be more than one question. My bad.
Take all the time you want.  I'd say a grandmother's well being is much more important than being on the computer. 

Socrates has nothing to do with Jesus.  Socrates did not claim to be the savior of mankind; and nobody is claiming he is the savior of mankind.  Who cares if Socrates lived or not; it has little to no bearing on my life or yours.  It is claimed, however, that Jesus is not only the savior of mankind, but the only one who can save you (from what, has never been made clear).  That claim far, far eclipses any made for Socrates, or Alexander, or Robin Hood, or anybody else.  I keep asking you for facts that can help establish that Jesus lived as a real person.  Nothing so far.......................
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Paolo

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 06, 2021, 08:55:32 AM
Take all the time you want.  I'd say a grandmother's well being is much more important than being on the computer. 

Socrates has nothing to do with Jesus.  Socrates did not claim to be the savior of mankind; and nobody is claiming he is the savior of mankind.  Who cares if Socrates lived or not; it has little to no bearing on my life or yours.  It is claimed, however, that Jesus is not only the savior of mankind, but the only one who can save you (from what, has never been made clear).  That claim far, far eclipses any made for Socrates, or Alexander, or Robin Hood, or anybody else.  I keep asking you for facts that can help establish that Jesus lived as a real person.  Nothing so far.......................

We have the Synoptic Gospels, for one.
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Mike Cl

Quote from: Paolo on February 06, 2021, 01:48:00 PM
We have the Synoptic Gospels, for one.
Yes, we do have them.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  The order in which they were written was Mark, about 70; Matthew about 90's; Luke (Acts--same author) a little later than Matthew; and John, about 120.  Note that the earliest, Mark, was written some 40 years after Jesus is said to have lived.  Even though they are given names, the actual authors are unknown.  Paul was the first writer of the NT in it's current form.  An interesting little job, would be to read the NT books in the order in which they were written.  Paul's writings would have to be read then before the Synoptics.  Also understand that of the 13 books attested to Paul, only 6 are thought to have been written by him, 6 by pseudo Paul (writers who wrote and then put Paul's name on the writings) and Hebrews, who all agree was not written by Paul.  Anyway, Paul does not give us any biographical data for Jesus--who was dead prior to Paul's writings.  Paul talks about a celestial Jesus, not a flesh and blood one.  Paul has many suggestions about how the church should be conducted and how people should act, but not once does he quote from Jesus to back up his arguments.  Isn't that a bit strange?  Also note that the Synoptics have many conflicts about the life and conduct of Jesus.  And also understand that the only known author of any of the NT books is Paul.  We don't know who wrote any of the others.

Also realize that we do not have a complete NT in its current form until the mid 300's.  What we have prior to that time are bits and pieces of each book; not one of which is in exact agreement with any other fragment.  If you wish, I could supply a link to a site used by bible scholars that talks about high and low criticism and how each of the different fragments say and how they are studied.  I find the site very interesting, but it is long and deep.  Upwards to 85 different gospels were written, most of which we only have what they were named because most of them were destroyed by the church as the NT as it is today was being put together.  An example of one is The Gospel of Thomas, which prior to 1945 was known by name only.  In 1945, an intact copy was found near Nag Humandi by local nomads--the whole cashe was found in a sealed cave in sealed clay jars. 

Also note that the entire NT is not the same NT that is given in the King James Version of the Bible.  In fact, there really is no 'the bible' because there are literally 100's of different versions of what is called the Bible.  Want proof.  Go to any large bible books store and there you can pick and chose what version you want.  Why are they called versions?  Because each one is different than the other one.

Yeah, I know I rattled on for far too long.  But the NT does not give us any factual data about Jesus.  The entirety the NT was written well after his death. So, I will challenge you to find any writings about Jesus during his  supposed life.  (I'll offer a clue--there isn't any)

Philo is a great example of what I'm talking about.  He lived roughly during the same time frame as Jesus.  Philo, as you remember, was a renowned Jewish author/philosopher who traveled all around the same region, making several trips from Alexander to Jerusalem.  If Jesus were indeed alive and doing what he is supposed to have been doing, Philo would have taken a very keen interest in it.  He was a prolific writer and would have written about Jesus in detail.  So, by reading Philo we should learn a great deal about Jesus and his deeds.  Except Philo does not even write one sentence dealing with Jesus.  I find that beyond strange.  And no author wrote a single word about this savior of mankind; this messenger from god.  Nothing--nada. Beyond strange.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Cassia

No mention from any secular source of the 12 apostles/disciples either. Strange since these guys felt like they could certainly wield some power:

Luke 9:52, And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53  but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54  When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, 'Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?' 

Really? Then comes the lesson of pride and the weak are the strong. What nonsense. They play their scripted roles perfectly, the 12 do. Repeatedly astonished, yet totally ignorant when required and act as the snitches and traitors right on que.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Cassia on February 06, 2021, 05:55:09 PM
No mention from any secular source of the 12 apostles/disciples either. Strange since these guys felt like they could certainly wield some power:

Luke 9:52, And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53  but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54  When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, 'Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?' 

Really? Then comes the lesson of pride and the weak are the strong. What nonsense. They play their scripted roles perfectly, the 12 do. Repeatedly astonished, yet totally ignorant when required and act as the snitches and traitors right on que.
Yeah, that is amazing bullshit!!  The role of Judas is quite the same--snitch.  Yet he had no choice.  God and Jesus had it all worked out that somebody had to snitch Jesus off, and Judas got the short straw and had to turn Jesus in to the authorities--he had no choice, it was scripted for him.  Yet he takes all kinds of shit for it.  He had no control, he had to do as he was created to do.  Much like Eve in the garden--she had no choice, she did as she was created to do.  God is good at that--setting people up and then blaming them for what they did.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Paolo

Well, that was a lot to take in. I will respond in a few days, probably. But I read all of it. :)

Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Mike Cl

Quote from: Paolo on February 09, 2021, 10:23:21 PM
Well, that was a lot to take in. I will respond in a few days, probably. But I read all of it. :)
I know how you feel.  I remember feeling much the same way when I started by research.  I went into my study with the idea that Jesus was an actual person, but a wandering preacher, fully human who had had all these attributes added on after his death.  But I really wanted to find out what the facts were and I was willing to follow where those facts took me.  It was a lot to take in and the study ended up lasting years.  It turned into a bit of a hobby.  I still have a decent library of books that take both extremes of the question and a bunch in the middle (that means those on the yes side, the no side and those who say who knows?).  Anyway, I'm interested in your reply.  Do you have any others who you think can provide eyewitnesses of Jesus and his acts?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Paolo

#250
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 09, 2021, 11:10:41 PM
I know how you feel.  I remember feeling much the same way when I started by research.  I went into my study with the idea that Jesus was an actual person, but a wandering preacher, fully human who had had all these attributes added on after his death.  But I really wanted to find out what the facts were and I was willing to follow where those facts took me.  It was a lot to take in and the study ended up lasting years.  It turned into a bit of a hobby.  I still have a decent library of books that take both extremes of the question and a bunch in the middle (that means those on the yes side, the no side and those who say who knows?).  Anyway, I'm interested in your reply.  Do you have any others who you think can provide eyewitnesses of Jesus and his acts?

Well, I've heard of Matthew.

''For example, suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A.D. 40 [...] There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his Gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Israel. In fact Eusebius (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history) reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Israel to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 [...]''.

https://www.gotquestions.org/when-Gospels-written.html.

So, if those dates above are correct, that means Matthew wrote his Gospel only a decade or so after Jesus's death. And since he was one of the 12 Apostles, he was a direct eyewitness of Jesus's life.

Regards. :)
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Mike Cl

Paolo, there is not 100% agreement on when, who or why the NT was written.  One can find 'scholars' who date the NT a few years after Jesus was supposed to die and those who date it over 100 years after his death, with most in the middle somewhere or somewhen.

For example:  Rather than try to commit to specifics here, I will just give the possible ranges of dates that have been argued and which are at least possible. The material for this section is taken from my own survey of scholarly consensus found in numerous sources. It is believed that Jesus died c. 30 A.D. Specifically, if he died under Pontius Pilate, the date must have at least been between 26 and 36, the ten years we know Pilate to have served in Judaea.[1] Whatever the date, Paul's conversion follows one to three years later. The earliest known Christian writings are the epistles of Paul, composed between 48 and 58 A.D. Some of these are of doubted authenticity (and were even in antiquity), but the debate is too complex to summarize here. The other letters, and the Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse of John), are of even more uncertain authorship and date. They are presumed to have been written in the same period or later (1 Peter, for instance, may have been written, some scholars say, as late as 110 A.D.).

The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known. Their names were assigned early, but not early enough for us to be confident they were accurately known. It is based on speculation that Mark was the first, written between 60 and 70 A.D., Matthew second, between 70 and 80 A.D., Luke (and Acts) third, between 80 and 90 A.D., and John last, between 90 and 100 A.D. Scholars advance various other dates for each work, and the total range of possible dates runs from the 50's to the early 100's, but all dates are conjectural. It is supposed that the Gospels did not exist before 58 simply because neither Paul nor any other epistle writer mentions or quotes them, and this is a reasonable argument as far as things go. On the other hand, Mark is presumed earlier, and the others later, because Mark is simpler, and at least Matthew and Luke appear to borrow material from him (material that is likely his own invention, cf. my review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark).

All the Gospels except John contain possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and thus it is likely they were all written after that date.[2] But that assumes the statements attributed to Jesus are apocryphal--they may have been genuine, the usual doom and gloom apocalyptic fantasizing, and then confirmed only by accident (or, if one is a believer, divine destiny) when the city and its temple were actually destroyed. They could also have been added to the text later. On the other hand, it has been argued with some merit that Luke borrowed material from Josephus, and if so that would date his Gospel (and Acts) after 94 A.D.[3] Finally, there are good arguments for the existence of a lost source-text called Q which was used by Matthew and Luke to supplement their borrowing from Mark, and this has been speculatively dated as early as the 50's A.D.[3a]

This is only an example of the state of ignorance we are in whenever scholars try to debate the dates of these writings. Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on. At least some of Paul's epistles can be reasonably taken as dating no more than 16 to 32 years after the oral tradition had begun to flourish after the death of Jesus, although adulteration of those letters by later editors remains possible, and it is also possible that even in Paul's day forgeries were being made and circulated (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:2). The Gospels were not likely to have been written down so soon, and we have clear evidence, in numerous variations, that they were altered at various points in their transmission, and scholarly work in the last two centuries has gone far to get us to the earliest versions possible.

Nevertheless, any number of unknown alterations could still have been made that have not been detected (a great many have been--both errors and deliberate alterations or omissions), and it is important to note that the ancients did not have at one glance the scope of manuscript data we have, nor did they (with a few exceptions) even have the analytical and palaeographical skills now employed to derive a reliable manuscript archetype from a scientific collation of numerous exemplars. In other words, no one in antiquity ever saw a completely accurate collection of what would eventually become the 27 New Testament books, until perhaps the time of Origen or Clement of Alexandria (see XII and XIV), and even then most likely only those few scholars would have enjoyed the privilege. But this is still doubtful--it does not appear that either man went out of his way to find and trace the history of all existing manuscripts, in all churches, and in all translations, yet that is what would have been required to decisively collate a close approximation to the original texts (and with regard to facing an even worse problem today, cf. M 267ff.; and for an example, see Bible).

Basically, we don't know who wrote Matthew, or when and where.  All these details are supplied differently depending upon the purpose of the particular 'scholar'.

As an aside, while Eusebius is called the historian of the church, he has been proven very unreliable; he has been shown to have lied about a number of things.  And he lived around 300 ad, much, much later than supposed Jesus lived.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

Paolo, as you dig deeper into the bible, you will find that none of it can be used as a witness for a supposed Jesus.  Also consider that there really is no 'the bible'--there are versions of versions.  We do not have the autograph (first document) of any of the bible.  Mostly we don't know who wrote the material--and that includes the old testament as well.  We do know that there was much, much more material in existence during the 1st cent. from which the current bibles were crafted from.  Much of it was destroyed as the church leaders determined that particular material was not wanted nor needed. 

So, the bible is of no value in proving Jesus existed.  There were no persons who wrote about Jesus (not even Jesus himself) who was alive while he was alive.  So where does that leave us?  Can you think of any other sources for the supposed Jesus?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Cassia

#253
If you actually read Matthew it is written completely in the third person, for example, not "me" but "him" and not "we" but "they". Oops. This is not how a participant talks. Who is this person standing there somehow recording what an angel says to poor Saint Joe in a dream?


But after he had considered this, an angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."


If we add a cartoon drawing does that help?



So why did cheezus (and himself, the lerd) select poor illiterate fishermen to carry such an important message to save our souls from himself? Why show up in an illiterate fringe area of the empire? Why not wait another couple thousand years worth of human development (2,000/200,000 = 1% of our existence) when everyone has cell phone with a camera?


And since so many billions have not "heard the word" or were born before the savior, are given an exemption from eternal punishment why even bother telling anyone? Not like a billions of Chinese are worrying about Christian hell.


Paolo

Personally, I'm fine with the Tacitus reference. Hence, I'm not a Mythicist. If you guys think that makes me a "Christian", that's your problem, not mine. Many atheists share my position.

However, I must ask. Mike, are you a Mythicist?
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....