Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Randy Carson]

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?

[Randy Carson]

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.

[Randy Carson]

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?

[reasonist]

"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.

[widdershins]

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.

You 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.

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".

Cite the post # wherein I made this statement, please.

No.  I already quoted it just above this statement.  You can read it there or search for it yourself.

"Religion" or Christianity specifically. I think I referenced Christianity, but I'm not going back to check. This is a pathetic line of argumentation.

It 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.

I already gave you two passages from two Early Church Fathers tracing the lineage of the popes back to Peter. Deal with them.

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.

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.

Yeah?  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.

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).

You 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.

Only Protestant polemicists argue about the succession of the papacy. It's a LOST argument for anyone who denies it.

Maybe.  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.

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.

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.

Yeah, 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.

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?

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!

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?

I 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!

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".

[widdershins]

That's an interesting claim, widdershins.

Do you have any supporting evidence? Links to online articles would be most helpful.

Thanks.

Of 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.

[Randy Carson]

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?

[Randy Carson]

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

[Randy Carson]

They 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.'”

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.

[Mike Cl]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[Mike Cl]

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

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. 

[Baruch]

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.

[Randy Carson]

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.

[Baruch]

That was what the pagans said too, when you pulled down their temples and killed their priests ;-(