Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[The Atheist]

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:

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 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.

[Mike Cl]

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.

It has been awhile since I've read the early church fathers.  But I must agree.  Interesting stuff.

[josephpalazzo]

LittleNipper's latest position:

The bible can be subject to many interpretations but it's inerrant.

[widdershins]

...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 came to an atheist site and WE are badgering YOU?  Typical Christian persecution complex.

[Baruch]

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).

[trdsf]

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.

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.

[stromboli]

True story bro. 

[reasonist]

"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. 

[Baruch]

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.

[LittleNipper]

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.

[LittleNipper]

"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.

[stromboli]

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.

[LittleNipper]

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.

You would have to discredit the witnesses. You need to read the Bible. Jesus never married or got a tattoo --- he was poor.

[stromboli]

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

If 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.

http://biblicalfallacies.blogspot.com/

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.

[Sargon The Grape]

You label a thread site "religious" and then expect everyone to agree with atheism. Typical atheistic superiority complex.

Some 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.