Keeping the faith
Martin Willett
they could not explain any other way. Now the need for gods has gone, man
cannot explain everything but science has come up with enough answers that
seem to sketch out much of the important features in our Universe, there
seems no place for God to be hiding.
Next to my computer is a map of the world. It has most of the
continents placed in roughly the right place. The shape of South America is
clearly discernible. North America is a mess. It has Virginia marked but
little else has its current name. Much of the detail is obvious guesswork.
It is interesting to note that the map maker guessed right in putting a
southern continent covering the pole but showing the North Pole with no
land. He got the size of the southern continent a bit wrong though,
Antarctica is not bigger than Asia or joined to the northern tip of
Australia or Tierra del Fuego. I see this map as a reasonable metaphor for
mankind's current knowledge of the Universe, we know a lot, we have made
some good
guesses about the rest. Time will prove many guesses wrong. But we know
enough to do the equivalent of sailing from Europe to Japan without
expecting to find dragons in our way.
Good stories never die.
God continues to have a hold on us because it is a good story. The idea
of God has been with us for thousands of years. Good stories get re-told.
The story of God is a meme, an idea that has what it takes to get itself
replicated.
It has a hold on us because it is a meme complex, a series of ideas
that get bundled together and get passed on together. Nobody hears about
God in isolation, suddenly coming across the idea for the first time in a
theology lecture at the age of 18. The idea of God is so prevalent in our
society that we never really learn it in the way we learn a foreign
language, we learn it in the way we learn our own language. We learn it
before we have become critical thinkers, it pollutes our thoughts the way
PCBs pollute our mother's milk.
Before we know for ourselves if God exists or not we know where he
lives, what he does to little boys and girls that are naughty and that he
made all the flowers and the birds and if we are bad he will tell Santa
Claus not to come to give us any presents. We learn all the baggage that
comes along with the central idea before we are capable of analysing the
central concept. Before we are capable of knowing what a religious
experience is we know that the Bible is always right. We have leaned lots of
Bible stories and we have been armed with the religious inoculation against
atheism and other religions.
Here is a short list of ideas that were in my head before I was old
enough to decide I didn't believe a word of it:-
"Don't tempt me Satan."
An excellent all purpose inoculation against reasoned argument from any
quarter. The smart thing is that the more intelligent the challenge to
Christian orthodoxy the more obviously diabolical the source is shown to be.
The fact that an argument for atheism appears to be reasonable proves it
must come from the horned deceiver himself. If this piece does not convince
you from your God fearing ways it is because I am only one of the master's
lesser imps, the fallen angel himself is busy writing television sit-com
scripts and rock lyrics. (Note, that was IRONY)
Unbelievers go to Hell.
This is a classic memetic strategy, it gives reward to those that pass on
the meme. If you know you are saving a soul from torment surely it is your
duty to do so. If catching that soul
before they are old enough to resist indoctrination improves the chances
that the soul will be saved then not to indoctrinate would surely be a sin.
If frightening children saves their soul then it is your duty to do it.
Accepting that logic is only a small step from accepting the need to marry
your niece when she is thirteen to keep her in the bosom of the true faith,
or of killing your whole family to save their souls from the satanic
messages on MTV.
Suffer little children to come unto me.
This means allowing children to learn the wonderful works of Jesus. No
parent is going to be convinced by a conspiratorial idea to tell their
children to believe something early while there is a chance the child will
accept it without thinking. That is a poor reward for passing on
the message. But Jesus is quoted as saying himself that children must be
allowed to learn the message early, for their own good. Tied up with this
is the thoroughly evil idea that the souls of unbaptized dead children will
be denied a place in heaven.
The Bible is the word of God.
This is another key belief in the interlocking series of ideas that help
perpetuate religion. The Bible is the revealed word of God, revealed to the
writers of the Bible, which contains the revealed word of God.
Remember, you learned this before you learned that tautology was a weak form
of argument, and you learned it from the experts in the Bible, which is the
revealed word of God, they must know what they are talking about. They are
men of God. They know the Bible. The Bible is the *Gospel Truth* after
all. If it is true it is in the Bible. If you believe that the Bible
contains the word of God then you can prove your point, look! There it is,
in the Bible! I can give you *chapter and verse*, what more proof do you
need?
Faith is a virtue.
Belief without proof is a virtue for the religious. To the scientist belief
without evidence is gross professional misconduct. By turning a weakness
into a strength the idea of faith squares the circle and smoothes down all
the rough edges of any religion. Lenin tried to rid Russia of faith in God,
but he kept blind faith in the motherland and the party instead.
Note, all those ideas were firmly in place in my head before I was old
enough to use my own brain for myself. That is why Christianity, and similar
well structured religions, have so much power over their believers. Before
you confront the central point of whether or not you believe in God you have
such a wealth of ammunition to prove to yourself that God must exist you
don't really need to believe in any positive way at all.
Once you break that circle of self proof the Bible becomes just another
book, written by many different people over a long time. For some reason it
is no longer legitimate to add to the Bible, but obviously in *biblical
times*, it was. Whoever gave legitimacy to the writers of the Bible is
obviously dead.
Christians say it is God who gives the Bible legitimacy... But that is a
cheap debating point unworthy of me.
****************************************************************************
***************************
Keep the wonder, lose the faith,
Martin
martin....@cwcom.net Author of www.mememachine.cwc.net
dan Hughes
----------
In article <09e34.1475$8P1.75129@news1-hme0>, "Martin Willett"
<Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
>God is a man-made creation.
[snip]
Pretty good a finite human created an infinite creature. Who told you this?
[snip]
>Good stories never die.
>
Like the evolution of man.
[snip]
> Faith is a virtue.
>
>Belief without proof is a virtue for the religious. To the scientist belief
>without evidence is gross professional misconduct. By turning a weakness
>into a strength the idea of faith squares the circle and smoothes down all
>the rough edges of any religion. Lenin tried to rid Russia of faith in God,
>but he kept blind faith in the motherland and the party instead.
Funny thing. Christianity requires no such blind faith. Rather it is rooted
squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
[snip]
>Keep the wonder, lose the faith,
In athiesm, agnostism, etc.
[snip]
thanks,
dan
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:49:23 -0800 <384d...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com>:
>
>----------
>In article <09e34.1475$8P1.75129@news1-hme0>, "Martin Willett"
><Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>
>Pretty good a finite human created an infinite creature.
>Who told you this?
Um...since when is "infinite" not a concept that can be
processed (albeit not perfectly) by the human mind?
In fact, infinity -- which is admittedly a nice little
mathematical marble -- can have properties attributed thereto,
and even useful theorems proved thereof; one simple one,
for example, is that one can't count real numbers (which
means that there are at least two infinities :-) ).
So when one says "God is Infinite", one is equating
a null symbol with a symbol that, strictly speaking,
is hard to wrap one's mind around, but which does have
some meaning.
Of course, we can't view infinity anyway; the universe
is quite finite, as far as the cosmologists assure me. :-)
(There's a mathematical proof for that too; were the universe
infinite and of positive real density, then, for any ray
shot out from the Earth, one encounters a star. This would
make for an extremely bright night sky, contrary to observation.
Therefore, the Universe is finite. :-)
A crude proof, but an interesting one, IMO.)
Similar things can be stated about the statements "God is
Omnipotent [All-Powerful]" (leading to such silly comments as
"can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?) or "God
is Omniscient" (leading to its own class of silly comments:
"is there free will?").
Do these statements have any meaning? I don't know.
I personally certainly can't ascribe anything useful to them, though;
they won't help me toast my bread, view my TV shows, or
type on my 'puter... :-)
>
>[snip]
>
>>Good stories never die.
>>
>Like the evolution of man.
That's not a story. That's true. :-)
>
>
>[snip]
>> Faith is a virtue.
>>
>>Belief without proof is a virtue for the religious. To the scientist belief
>>without evidence is gross professional misconduct. By turning a weakness
>>into a strength the idea of faith squares the circle and smoothes down all
>>the rough edges of any religion. Lenin tried to rid Russia of faith in God,
>>but he kept blind faith in the motherland and the party instead.
>
>Funny thing. Christianity requires no such blind faith. Rather it is rooted
>squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
And where, precisely, is Jesus (Jeshua?) written about, outside
of the Holy Bible? Julius Caesar at least had a good publicist... :-)
Surely the regular (?) censuses (censii?) would have caught him.
>Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
"Do not tempt the Lord thy God"?
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ew...@aimnet.com -- too tired to be tempted just now
Carlos Antunes
>
> Like the evolution of man.
>
So, you are ignorant about the Theory of Evolution.
>
> Funny thing. Christianity requires no such blind faith. Rather it is rooted
> squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
>
Yeah, sure. You can start by showing that the caracter you call Jesus of
Nazareth really existed.
>
> Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
>
Well, because there is really nothing to test.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
--
"How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science"
by Michael Shermer available at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/071673561X/
dan Hughes
----------
In article <slrn84s1v9...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net>,
ew...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In talk.atheism, dan Hughes <dhu...@toysrbob.com>
> wrote on Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:49:23 -0800 <384d...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com>:
>>
>>----------
>>In article <09e34.1475$8P1.75129@news1-hme0>, "Martin Willett"
>><Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>God is a man-made creation.
>>[snip]
>>Pretty good a finite human created an infinite creature.
>>Who told you this?
>
>Um...since when is "infinite" not a concept that can be
>processed (albeit not perfectly) by the human mind?
>
You said that God was a man-made creation. Not the concept of God, was man
made. I wasn't refering to the mere creation of a conception in a humans
mind. I was responding to the actual creation of an infinite creature, by a
finite one. I will grant that men have vast amounts of imaginiation, enough
to create all kinds of gods, in their minds.
But, if, as you asserted, that God was a mere created concept in our
(theists) minds, then why would this occur? Why would a group of very
advanced upright apes (humans), want or need to create a mythical figure
called God? What would compell us to do that?
If our being here was all a matter of happenstance, chance, luck, then why
is that so many feel a need deep within themselves to pray to a higher
power?
[snip]
>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Good stories never die.
>>>
>>Like the evolution of man.
>
>That's not a story. That's true. :-)
True? If the evolution of man is true, as you say, then why is that
scientists have to make up these convoluted stories just to make it sound
like this one jaw bone fossil is connected with this other fossil in a
completely different part of the globe?
Why doesn't the truth just stand out?
It seems to me that the naturalistic explaination of our existence goes
against all logical thinking. For example. Let's take an isolated Native
group of people. Here we have a group of people that understand that you
don't get nothing from something. If you want to have food, you have to
either hunt it, or plant it. It won't drop straight out of the air. Now,
basically, the evolutionary story says that at some point, you got something
for nothing. Whether we look at the beginning part of the story. Where did
the first cells, first matter, first stuff that carries life (DNA?) all come
from? Or whether we look at any of the major dividing points of various
animals groups. Where did the avian lung/heart come from, the high pressure
blood system of the Giraffe, the sonar abilities in Bats and others, and
lastly the Intelligence of Humans?
Your average isolated Native group of people will acknowledge that these
couldn't have happened by directed chance happenings. Why? Because that
isn't what we observe happening today, nor have we ever observed such
things. This group of people will understand that it takes power and
intelligence to create things that have power and intelligence. This is just
a basic principle that group of people, irregardless of their religious
background can notice. And don't you think then, it's logical to say that,
maybe, just maybe it's this sense, call it common sense if you will, that
compells the masses to have inner need to seek out a higher power?
>
>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>> Faith is a virtue.
>>>
>>>Belief without proof is a virtue for the religious. To the scientist belief
>>>without evidence is gross professional misconduct. By turning a weakness
>>>into a strength the idea of faith squares the circle and smoothes down all
>>>the rough edges of any religion. Lenin tried to rid Russia of faith in God,
>>>but he kept blind faith in the motherland and the party instead.
>>
>>Funny thing. Christianity requires no such blind faith. Rather it is rooted
>>squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
>
>And where, precisely, is Jesus (Jeshua?) written about, outside
>of the Holy Bible? Julius Caesar at least had a good publicist... :-)
Calling the Holy Bible one book is a mistake. It's not. It's a collection of
works, all historically grounded and written by different writers. The
historical figures mentioned, such as Julius Caesar were real people. And
there are many works that reference Jesus that are not amoung this
collection. Josephus was a Jewish (not christain) historian who references
him, who wrote not long after Jesus' death.
>
>Surely the regular (?) censuses (censii?) would have caught him.
>
>>Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
>
>"Do not tempt the Lord thy God"?
No, if you doubt his trustworthyness, test it. That's just the opposite of
blind faith.
"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; as ghost
does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)
"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.'" (John 21:27)
dan
yang hu
> No, if you doubt his trustworthyness, test it. That's just the opposite of
> blind faith.
> "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; as ghost
> does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)
> "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.'" (John 21:27)
Gideon went around breaking up Baal's altar. When the Baal preists
intervened, he said "If Baal really is a God, he can defend himself when
someone breaks down his altar" (Judges 7:31)
If your God really does exist, stand aside let me try to burn down your
church, your altar, etc, for the Biblical god can surely defend himself
againat the standard which he has set for other gods.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
EAC mole and other furry creatures
rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
``Religious belief is not a precondition either of ethical conduct or of
happiness.''
Dalai Lama, "Ethics for the New Millennium"
N Scott Pestana
> dan Hughes wrote:
>> No, if you doubt his trustworthyness, test it. That's just the opposite of
>> blind faith.
>> "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; as ghost
>> does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)
>> "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.'"
>> (John 21:27)
> Gideon went around breaking up Baal's altar. When the Baal preists
> intervened, he said "If Baal really is a God, he can defend himself when
> someone breaks down his altar" (Judges 7:31)
> If your God really does exist, stand aside let me try to burn down your
> church, your altar, etc, for the Biblical god can surely defend himself
> againat the standard which he has set for other gods.
::stands up clapping loudly:: Bravo! Bravissimo! Author! *Fweeeee!*
::stops whistling as his fingers are covered with spit::
Uh.. Good job!
Now for the serious bit. How did you learn so much about that book? Are
you a professor of theology or something of the like? It seems everytime
somebody quotes the bible, you're there with another quote that nails
them so hard they'd think jesus had it easy! I really am astounded at
your proficiency. How do you do it?
--
Scott Pestana | "A firewall? You
tracker at ccs.neu.edu | call that an excuse?!?"
Always Learning | - Hexadecimal
AA #1700 | AA #6A4
EAC Master of Media Subtexts and Subtlety Nullification
Steve Scott
> But, if, as you asserted, that God was a mere created concept in our
> (theists) minds, then why would this occur? Why would a group of very
> advanced upright apes (humans), want or need to create a mythical figure
> called God? What would compell us to do that?
What compelled us was curiosity and a need to have explanations. Myth
helped us explain a mysterious world. But we hadn't matured to the
point of being able to discern the nature of the world for what it was.
Aristotle thought there were only five elements. There are dozens. We
thought that stars hung in the sky...they're light years away from our
"sky", the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
Logic, like the rest of us, evolved. Some of us appear to have evolved
a little quicker in that area than others.
> True? If the evolution of man is true, as you say, then why is that
> scientists have to make up these convoluted stories just to make it sound
> like this one jaw bone fossil is connected with this other fossil in a
> completely different part of the globe?
> Why doesn't the truth just stand out?
It does. And the stories are far less convoluted than the Bible and
the apologetics designed to harmonize it.
<snip>
> And don't you think then, it's logical to say that,
> maybe, just maybe it's this sense, call it common sense if you will, that
> compells the masses to have inner need to seek out a higher power?
No...not common sense. Arrested development of cognition. Retarded
logic. Intellectual laziness. A desperate desire to be right and
certain in a chaotic universe, and lastly, an inability to admit that
one might be wrong when overwhelming evidence indicates that one likely
is.
> >And where, precisely, is Jesus (Jeshua?) written about, outside
> >of the Holy Bible? Julius Caesar at least had a good publicist... :-)
>
> Calling the Holy Bible one book is a mistake. It's not. It's a collection of
> works, all historically grounded and written by different writers. The
> historical figures mentioned, such as Julius Caesar were real people. And
> there are many works that reference Jesus that are not amoung this
> collection. Josephus was a Jewish (not christain) historian who references
> him, who wrote not long after Jesus' death.
Julius Ceasar? Don't you mean Augustus?
> No, if you doubt his trustworthyness, test it. That's just the opposite of
> blind faith.
How do you propose that one does that? Hmmmm?
Steve Scott
> ::stands up clapping loudly:: Bravo! Bravissimo! Author! *Fweeeee!*
> ::stops whistling as his fingers are covered with spit::
>
> Uh.. Good job!
>
> Now for the serious bit. How did you learn so much about that book? Are
> you a professor of theology or something of the like? It seems everytime
> somebody quotes the bible, you're there with another quote that nails
> them so hard they'd think jesus had it easy! I really am astounded at
> your proficiency. How do you do it?
Scott,
I imagine he read the Bible.
I highly recommend it. Its boring as all get out, but if you skim the
"begats" and the construction of the temple and the ark and the altar to
God and all that, it gets a little better.
To take on a theist, read their canon.
yang hu
> Now for the serious bit. How did you learn so much about that book? Are
> you a professor of theology or something of the like? It seems everytime
> somebody quotes the bible, you're there with another quote that nails
> them so hard they'd think jesus had it easy! I really am astounded at
> your proficiency. How do you do it?
Thanks :-)
I'm actually a lowly graduate student in Economics. I happened to free
this summer and after years of being harrassed by the fundies about how
great their book is, I got pissed off and read the damn thing from cover
to cover.
An additional advantage of reading the Bible is that at times the Bible
is so boring (I don't remember how many time I fell asleep trying to get
through Chronicles), I ended reading a couple of my econ text books
cover to cover, just so I can put off reading the Bible. Genesis is by
far the most readable book in the Bible.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
EAC mole and other furry creatures
rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
"A few highly respected monotheists would have told me quietly and
firmly that God did not really exist - and yet that "he" was the most
important reality in the world."
-Karen Armstrong, "A History of God"
yang hu
> To take on a theist, read their canon.
Between Ockham's razor and their own cannon, you're pretty well armed.
:-)
JB
"dan Hughes" <dhu...@toysrbob.com> wrote in message
news:384f...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com...
An attempt by curious but primitive minds to explain things that were, to
them, very mysterious, perhaps? A lot of these things are still mysterious
to people with little or no scientific background. Since clothing and
hunting weapons don't just appear, you have to make them, primitive man
quite naturally assumed that the same was true of the world, i.e. that
someone, or some thing, must have made it, too. (A gross oversimplification,
I admit. The "world" <read"universe"> didn't actually come from nothing, but
my grasp of quantum physics is nowhere near firm enough to adequately
explain it. Perhaps someone who's studied the subject more than I have?) Add
to that the evolution of rituals designed to bring luck to hunters,
influence the weather, heal the sick or wounded, and generally give
primitive man a sense of having some control over things essentially
uncontrollable, and you have the beginnings of religion. It's not a great
leap from imagining a creator to imagining that this creator can be
influenced by your actions.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>Good stories never die.
> >>>
> >>Like the evolution of man.
> >
> >That's not a story. That's true. :-)
>
>
> True? If the evolution of man is true, as you say, then why is that
> scientists have to make up these convoluted stories just to make it sound
> like this one jaw bone fossil is connected with this other fossil in a
> completely different part of the globe?
> Why doesn't the truth just stand out?
It does, to those scientists, and to anyone else with a reasonable
scientific education. Those "convoluted stories" are attempts to make it as
simple as possible for the rest of you. Unfortunately, the mechanism of
evolution isn't by nature a simple thing, and attempts to make it seem so
usually fail. Suffice it to say that if there were a tenth the evidence for
the reality of your God as there is for the reality of evolution, we'd all
be Christians. Truth is, there is no "theory of evolution." There is the
observed fact of evolution and the theories to explain how the mechanism
works. Read something on the subject besides ICR-approved "creation science"
pamphlets. It may not convince you, but at least you'll get the true story,
if you're brave enough to look.
>
> It seems to me that the naturalistic explaination of our existence goes
> against all logical thinking. For example. Let's take an isolated Native
> group of people. Here we have a group of people that understand that you
> don't get nothing from something. If you want to have food, you have to
> either hunt it, or plant it. It won't drop straight out of the air. Now,
> basically, the evolutionary story says that at some point, you got
something
> for nothing. Whether we look at the beginning part of the story. Where did
> the first cells, first matter, first stuff that carries life (DNA?) all
come
> from? Or whether we look at any of the major dividing points of various
> animals groups. Where did the avian lung/heart come from, the high
pressure
> blood system of the Giraffe, the sonar abilities in Bats and others, and
> lastly the Intelligence of Humans?
How much patience do you have? All of these things are eminently
explainable. Evolution 101, really. It would probably take a million line
post to do so adequately, though. Any good library will have reference works
containing the answers you're asking for. Visit yours, and read with an open
mind.
>
> Your average isolated Native group of people will acknowledge that these
> couldn't have happened by directed chance happenings. Why? Because that
> isn't what we observe happening today, nor have we ever observed such
> things. This group of people will understand that it takes power and
> intelligence to create things that have power and intelligence. This is
just
> a basic principle that group of people, irregardless of their religious
> background can notice. And don't you think then, it's logical to say that,
> maybe, just maybe it's this sense, call it common sense if you will, that
> compells the masses to have inner need to seek out a higher power?
>
One of the most evident characteristics of faith is that it is totally
impervious to the truth. I confess I don't understand it myself. The ability
to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything that contradicts what I
"believe" is one I've never mastered. Science, unlike religion, doesn't make
claims without evidence, and it doesn't stubbornly cling to outdated ideas
when new evidence indicates revision is needed. At least good science
doesn't. It doesn't threaten you with eternal torture if you choose to
reject its conclusions, either. <G> The point is simply that science isn't
the unproveable conjecture many theists seem to think it is. Yes, a theory
is basically a best guess based on the evidence available, but those best
guesses are usually pretty damned good. New discoveries may require that a
theory be revised, but very rarely do they require that it be discarded.
I presume you witnessed this event personally? If not, it's hearsay, and
therefor inadmissible.
Efram Zybricki
>
> Steve Scott wrote:
>
> > To take on a theist, read their canon.
>
> Between Ockham's razor and their own cannon, you're pretty well armed.
What about the sword of Damocles? Or does that just hang over their
heads?
Efram Zybricki
>
> Steve Scott wrote:
>
> > To take on a theist, read their canon.
>
> Between Ockham's razor and their own cannon, you're pretty well armed.
What about the Sword of Damocles? Can you pack that too?
N Scott Pestana
>
>> Now for the serious bit. How did you learn so much about that book? Are
>> you a professor of theology or something of the like? It seems everytime
>> somebody quotes the bible, you're there with another quote that nails
>> them so hard they'd think jesus had it easy! I really am astounded at
>> your proficiency. How do you do it?
>
> Thanks :-)
Welcome. :)
> I'm actually a lowly graduate student in Economics. I happened to free
> this summer and after years of being harrassed by the fundies about how
> great their book is, I got pissed off and read the damn thing from cover
> to cover.
Ahhh, I know what it is to be a student in that type of situation. Although
I am still undergraduate, and I'd rather read the lining of my small
intesting than the bible, I think I can relate.
> An additional advantage of reading the Bible is that at times the Bible
> is so boring (I don't remember how many time I fell asleep trying to get
> through Chronicles), I ended reading a couple of my econ text books
> cover to cover, just so I can put off reading the Bible. Genesis is by
> far the most readable book in the Bible.
LOL, who woulda thought an atheist to really get something out of critically
reading the bible. I guess we should call it a miracle.
yang hu
> yang hu wrote:
> >
> > Steve Scott wrote:
> >
> > > To take on a theist, read their canon.
> >
> > Between Ockham's razor and their own cannon, you're pretty well armed.
>
> heads?
LOL!
Al Klein
<dhu...@toysrbob.com> wrote:
>In article <09e34.1475$8P1.75129@news1-hme0>, "Martin Willett"
><Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
>>God is a man-made creation.
>Pretty good a finite human created an infinite creature.
A finite human created the concept of an infinite god. What problem
do you have with that?
>Funny thing. Christianity requires no such blind faith. Rather it is rooted
>squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
And it has been, and no contemporary reference to the biblical Jesus,
other than fraudulent ones, has ever been found. Nor has any evidence
of any of the extraordinary claims in the bible been found.
>Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
Test what? Christianity says "don't question god".
>Keep the wonder, lose the faith,
>In athiesm
Atheism is a LACK of faith.
> agnostism
(A)gnosticism deals with knowledge, not faith.
You should really learn what you're talking about before you just post
what you've been fed.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Chris Johnson
>True? If the evolution of man is true, as you say, then why is that
>scientists have to make up these convoluted stories just to make it sound
>like this one jaw bone fossil is connected with this other fossil in a
>completely different part of the globe?
>Why doesn't the truth just stand out?
I would like you to give an example of this cited from a peer-reviewed
journal. Or did you just copy this from one your little pamphlets they hand
out on street corners? Isn't lying a sin?
-Chris
Al Klein
<dhu...@toysrbob.com> wrote:
>You said that God was a man-made creation. Not the concept of God, was man
>made. I wasn't refering to the mere creation of a conception in a humans
>mind. I was responding to the actual creation of an infinite creature, by a
>finite one.
But god isn't an infinite creature, he's just the CONCEPT of an
infinite creature. There's no physical entity "god". If there is,.
don't you think someone would have found him, after thousands of years
of searching?
>But, if, as you asserted, that God was a mere created concept in our
>(theists) minds, then why would this occur? Why would a group of very
>advanced upright apes (humans), want or need to create a mythical figure
>called God? What would compell us to do that?
The need to know. Since we didn't know, we invented a god as a
reason. Try reading _And Then the Bough Broke_. (Sorry, I don't
remember the author's name.)
>If our being here was all a matter of happenstance, chance, luck, then why
>is that so many feel a need deep within themselves to pray to a higher
>power?
Because so many feel a need to. What has the feeling of need to do
with the existence of god? At one time, man needed a sun god. Does
that mean that there WAS a sun god?
>True? If the evolution of man is true, as you say, then why is that
>scientists have to make up these convoluted stories just to make it sound
>like this one jaw bone fossil is connected with this other fossil in a
>completely different part of the globe?
Citation?
Or are you talking about fossils from hundreds of millions of years
ago? When the animals were all on the same continent?
>It seems to me that the naturalistic explaination of our existence goes
>against all logical thinking. For example. Let's take an isolated Native
>group of people.
As opposed to a group of people who AREN'T there? What's with the
"native"? Do you even know what the word means?
> Here we have a group of people that understand that you
>don't get nothing from something. If you want to have food, you have to
>either hunt it, or plant it. It won't drop straight out of the air. Now,
>basically, the evolutionary story says that at some point, you got something
>for nothing.
No it doesn't. It says that we evolved from our ancestors.
> Whether we look at the beginning part of the story. Where did
>the first cells, first matter, first stuff that carries life (DNA?) all come
>from?
Evolution doesn't deal with how life began, only with how it evolved.
That's why it's called evolution, not beginolution.
> Or whether we look at any of the major dividing points of various
>animals groups. Where did the avian lung/heart come from
The reptile lung/heart.
> the high pressure blood system of the Giraffe
From the heart of its ancestor.
> the sonar abilities in Bats and others, and
>lastly the Intelligence of Humans?
>Your average isolated Native group of people will acknowledge that these
>couldn't have happened by directed chance happenings. Why?
Why do you think that they're qualified to have an opinion on the
subject?
> Because that isn't what we observe happening today, nor have we ever observed such
>things.
Just as we aren't observing god creating life or the universe, nor
have we ever observed either one so, by your reasoning, god didn't do
them.
> This group of people will understand that it takes power and
>intelligence to create things that have power and intelligence. This is just
>a basic principle that group of people, irregardless of their religious
>background can notice. And don't you think then, it's logical to say that,
>maybe, just maybe it's this sense, call it common sense if you will, that
>compells the masses to have inner need to seek out a higher power?
Which is no proof that this higher power exists. If it did, then
Zeus, Isis and all the rest also exist - since man needed them at one
time.
>>And where, precisely, is Jesus (Jeshua?) written about, outside
>>of the Holy Bible? Julius Caesar at least had a good publicist... :-)
>Calling the Holy Bible one book is a mistake. It's not. It's a collection of
>works, all historically grounded and written by different writers. The
>historical figures mentioned, such as Julius Caesar were real people. And
>there are many works that reference Jesus that are not amoung this
>collection. Josephus was a Jewish (not christain) historian who references
>him, who wrote not long after Jesus' death.
He references someone who the people call Jesus. That's not even as
much evidence that Jesus existed than is Cassie Bernall's mother's
book proof that Cassie was killed because she proclaimed her belief in
god.
There's NO contemporary reference to Jesus that hasn't been shown to
be fraudulent or inconsequential (as Josephus is).
>>>Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
>>"Do not tempt the Lord thy God"?
>No, if you doubt his trustworthyness, test it.
No, it says exactly the opposite - "Do not tempt the Lord thy God".
It says that if you don't trust god, the fault is yours, not god's.
> "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; as ghost
>does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)
> "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.'" (John 21:27)
And we can - er, what? Just take their word for it. WE sure can't
touch his flesh and bones. We're asked to take it on blind faith.
dan Hughes
----------
>From: nxy...@ivyyntrarg.com (Al Klein)
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism
>Subject: Re: Keeping the faith
>Date: Fri, Dec 10, 1999, 6:19 PM
>
>On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:49:23 -0800, "dan Hughes"
><dhu...@toysrbob.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <09e34.1475$8P1.75129@news1-hme0>, "Martin Willett"
>><Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>>>God is a man-made creation.
>
>>Pretty good a finite human created an infinite creature.
>
>A finite human created the concept of an infinite god. What problem
>do you have with that?
The word "concept" was missing from the original statement I replied to,
sorry, I misunderstood.
>
>>Funny thing. Christianity requires no such blind faith. Rather it is rooted
>>squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
>
>And it has been, and no contemporary reference to the biblical Jesus,
>other than fraudulent ones, has ever been found. Nor has any evidence
>of any of the extraordinary claims in the bible been found.
Yeah right. You got it. All the people who watched Jesus, and then
transformed the world of that time were dilusionary. Peter who wouldn't
follow anyone, was crucified upside down because he wouldn't deny his belief
in this non-existant person. Paul was put to death for his belief in this
same non-existant person. Many people of that time tried to discredit the
primary claim of Christianity, the resurection. Had they done so,
Christanity would have fallen as a forgotten cult. But to their dismay, they
were unsuccessful. As a result of this one non-existant person the world has
one of the largest religions in the world. So, unless you wish to deny human
nature, the biblical Jesus must have existed in some form.
>
>>Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
>
>Test what? Christianity says "don't question god".
Where did you get this idea? You must have missed my other comments.
No, if you doubt his trustworthyness, test it. That's just the opposite of
blind faith.
"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; as ghost
does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)
"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.'" (John
21:27)
You see, he said, believe on the basis of physical evidence. That's what
Christianity is based on; Faith based on physical evidence.
>
>>Keep the wonder, lose the faith,
>
>>In athiesm
>
>Atheism is a LACK of faith.
Sorry, but the word "atheism" is from two parts. And indicates a doctrine
that there is no god.
The second part is obvious, "Theism" meaning belief in God. (Theos = God)
(ism = commitment to/belief in)
The first part is a simple negative. When ever "A" is placed in the
beginning of a word, it indicates it's negative. for example: agnostic =
person who doesn't know.
So too with Atheism. A+theism means = belief that there is No God.
The following is taken from the Webster Website: http://www.m-w.com/
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
no deity
>
>> agnostism
>
>(A)gnosticism deals with knowledge, not faith.
Right, not knowing.
take care,
dan
dan Hughes
----------
In article <nj544.2869$q7.1...@sandstorm.neo.rr.com>, "JB"
<nospam@spammers~have.little~peters> wrote:
[snip]
The only fact of evolution are microevolutionary changes. With this one fact
are you saying that evolutionary changes as supposed and theorized by
evolutionist believers in the distant past are also a "fact of evolution"?
If so, sorry to inform you, but if you've not observed them directly they
are not facts at all.
>Read something on the subject besides ICR-approved "creation science"
>pamphlets. It may not convince you, but at least you'll get the true story,
>if you're brave enough to look.
As a former believer in evolution, I've been there.
>
>>
>> It seems to me that the naturalistic explaination of our existence goes
>> against all logical thinking. For example. Let's take an isolated Native
>> group of people. Here we have a group of people that understand that you
>> don't get nothing from something. If you want to have food, you have to
>> either hunt it, or plant it. It won't drop straight out of the air. Now,
>> basically, the evolutionary story says that at some point, you got
>something
>> for nothing. Whether we look at the beginning part of the story. Where did
>> the first cells, first matter, first stuff that carries life (DNA?) all
>come
>> from? Or whether we look at any of the major dividing points of various
>> animals groups. Where did the avian lung/heart come from, the high
>pressure
>> blood system of the Giraffe, the sonar abilities in Bats and others, and
>> lastly the Intelligence of Humans?
>
>How much patience do you have? All of these things are eminently
>explainable. Evolution 101, really. It would probably take a million line
>post to do so adequately, though. Any good library will have reference works
>containing the answers you're asking for. Visit yours, and read with an open
>mind.
After reading Richard Dawkins book the "Blind Watch Maker", I was awe struck
by the abilities of bats to pin point a little fly with their sonar all
while in flight. But, there are quite a few problems to work out with that
system of navigation, as the Navy learned when trying to duplicate it.
As for the origin of such a system, Dawkins didn't have a clue. Oh sure, you
know him, he's got a couple of good stories cooked up, but not a lick of
evidence to back any of them up. He doesn't know. What he does have is a
strong religious bias toward Atheism and Materialism. So no matter what
happened, he *knows* God had nothing to do with it. Funny thing. That's not
science, my friend. That's called a religious/philosophical commitment. No
scientific evidence can lead one to such a conclusion. Rather, the only way
to reach such a conclusion is to already have that commitment in mind in the
first place.
Too bad Evolution 101 doesn't explain this.
[snip]
As with any historical event. It was witnessed by people, who told their
story of the event to a historian (Luke) who wrote it down for benefit of
the rest of the people.
If you don't accept historical accounts, then we'll have to discard all
Greek/Roman/Chinese/Celtic/etc. history, on that basis that they are all
hearsay. Eh?
take care
dan
phil reed {domain actually ic.net - reversed for anti-spam}
>
>Yeah right. You got it. All the people who watched Jesus, and then
>transformed the world of that time were dilusionary. Peter who wouldn't
>f
>in this non-existant person. Paul was put to death for his belief in this
>same non-existant person. Many people of that time tried to discredit the
>primary claim of Christianity, the resurection. Had they done so,
>y
>were unsuccessful. As a result of this one non-existant person the world ha=
>s
>one of the largest religions in the world. So, unless you wish to deny huma=
>n
>nature, the biblical Jesus must have existed in some form.
Have you ever heard of "fiction"? Just checking. The stories of Paul, Peter and
the rest could be as made up as the story of Jesus. Do you have any independent
proof of any of this? Judicial records from the Roman occupation of the
mid-east would be a start.
Also, it's entirely possible that Jesus did exist, as a small-time preacher who
was executed for sedition against the Roman rule. The Romans did that a lot.
>
>You see, he said, believe on the basis of physical evidence. That's what
>Christianity is based on; Faith based on physical evidence.
Judging from what goes on around here, it's basied on
ignorance, misinterpetation and outright lying about physical evidence.
--
...phil
Copyright, Phillip C. Reed, 1999.
Naughty words: eWorks! OT7 AOL bomb Green Card hack phreak breast sex
PGP fingerprint = C5 41 B5 9E B4 56 0C C3 26 FC B9 ED BC D7 CA 8B
J. Thomas Ford
>
> ----------
> In article <09e34.1475$8P1.75129@news1-hme0>, "Martin Willett"
> <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> Pretty good a finite human created an infinite creature.
Making up a construct and arbitrarily assigning impressive-sounding
extremes to it, such as "omnipotent," "omnipresent," and
"omnibenevolent," is impressive? Hell, comic book writers can make up
systems like this damn near as easy as breathing.
> Who told you this?
Why are you assuming he would simply take someone elses' word for it? He
doesn't sound much like a theist.
> [snip]
>
> >Good stories never die.
> >
> Like the evolution of man.
Evidence that falsified it would kill it in very short order. Found any
yet?
> [snip]
> > Faith is a virtue.
> >
> >Belief without proof is a virtue for the religious. To the scientist belief
> >without evidence is gross professional misconduct. By turning a weakness
> >into a strength the idea of faith squares the circle and smoothes down all
> >the rough edges of any religion. Lenin tried to rid Russia of faith in God,
> >but he kept blind faith in the motherland and the party instead.
>
> Funny thing. Christianity requires no such blind faith.
Then you should have some evidence for the Judeo-Christian deity
*besides* personal incredulity and revelation. Something objective. Have
any?
> Rather it is rooted
> squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
Such as Jericho?
How do you propose to research supernatural events?
> Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
Apparently because the author was expecting that the faithful would be
swayed by evangelists's strength of conviction and overlook the utter
lack of evidence for the fantasic- and sometimes even fairly mundane-
claims.
> [snip]
> >Keep the wonder, lose the faith,
>
> In athiesm, agnostism, etc.
That is a contradiction.
dan Hughes
----------
In article <94494739...@vdns1.slinky.net>, p...@ten.ci (phil reed
{domain actually ic.net - reversed for anti-spam}) wrote:
>In article <3852...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com>, dhu...@toysrbob.com says...
>>
>>Yeah right. You got it. All the people who watched Jesus, and then
>>transformed the world of that time were dilusionary. Peter who wouldn't
>>follow anyone, was crucified upside down because he wouldn't deny his belie=
>>f
>>in this non-existant person. Paul was put to death for his belief in this
>>same non-existant person. Many people of that time tried to discredit the
>>primary claim of Christianity, the resurection. Had they done so,
>>Christanity would have fallen as a forgotten cult. But to their dismay, the=
>>y
>>were unsuccessful. As a result of this one non-existant person the world ha=
>>s
>>one of the largest religions in the world. So, unless you wish to deny huma=
>>n
>>nature, the biblical Jesus must have existed in some form.
>
>Have you ever heard of "fiction"? Just checking. The stories of Paul, Peter and
>the rest could be as made up as the story of Jesus. Do you have any independent
>proof of any of this? Judicial records from the Roman occupation of the
>mid-east would be a start.
If you found them in the judicial records, would you then believe they
existed? The fact that we have numurious sources that verify, not only their
existence, but also confirming what their message was, is a far stronger
indication of these things than a name listed in a judicial record.
>
>Also, it's entirely possible that Jesus did exist, as a small-time preacher who
>was executed for sedition against the Roman rule. The Romans did that a lot.
Indeed, and this is also confirmed by what's recorded in the bible.
>>
>>You see, he said, believe on the basis of physical evidence. That's what
>>Christianity is based on; Faith based on physical evidence.
>
>Judging from what goes on around here, it's basied on
>ignorance, misinterpetation and outright lying about physical evidence.
Can't defend any of those.
take care,
dan
J. Thomas Ford
>
> ----------
> >From: nxy...@ivyyntrarg.com (Al Klein)
> >Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism
> >Subject: Re: Keeping the faith
> >Date: Fri, Dec 10, 1999, 6:19 PM
> >
>
> >On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:49:23 -0800, "dan Hughes"
> ><dhu...@toysrbob.com> wrote:
> >
> >><Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >do you have with that?
>
> The word "concept" was missing from the original statement I replied to,
> sorry, I misunderstood.
>
> >
> >>squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
> >
> >other than fraudulent ones, has ever been found. Nor has any evidence
> >of any of the extraordinary claims in the bible been found.
>
> transformed the world of that time were dilusionary. Peter who wouldn't
> in this non-existant person. Paul was put to death for his belief in this
> same non-existant person.
Why, exactly, do the Christian martyrs' opinion carry more weight than
the pagan ones? Islamic? Buddhist? Numbers, maybe?
> Many people of that time tried to discredit the
> primary claim of Christianity, the resurection. Had they done so,
> Christanity would have fallen as a forgotten cult.
You mean, "Had they convinced the Paulists." That no one was able to
speaks more to the fanatacism and/credulity of Paul's followers than
anything else.
Of course, no one was able to discredit the crucifiction and
resurrection or Odin or Mithrais either. How do you pick between the
competitors? Popularity, flip a coinf, what?
> But to their dismay, they
> were unsuccessful. As a result of this one non-existant person the world has
> one of the largest religions in the world. So, unless you wish to deny human
> nature, the biblical Jesus must have existed in some form.
Human nature includes holding onto irrational beliefs at any cost, from
the followers of Mohandas Ghandi to the National Socialists. I think you
are in denial yourself.
<snip>
J. Thomas Ford
> If you found them in the judicial records, would you then believe they
> existed? The fact that we have numurious sources that verify, not only their
> existence, but also confirming what their message was, is a far stronger
> indication of these things than a name listed in a judicial record.
Funny- I've conducted a search for such since my first year in high
school and haven't found a single comtemporary, unambiguous reference.
What are they?
<snip>
A. O'Reilly
> transformed the world of that time were dilusionary. Peter who wouldn't
> f
> in this non-existant person. Paul was put to death for his belief in this
> same non-existant person.
All from the same book -- using a book to validate itself isn't the best
way to go about things. If it were, then you'd be accepting every other
religion as well I guess since their holy books say things happened too.
> Many people of that time tried to discredit the
> primary claim of Christianity, the resurection. Had they done so,
> Christanity would have fallen as a forgotten cult.
A simple look at a religion such as the JWs will show that people will
continue to believe long after a religion has shown it isn't correct --
just look at how many times they've predicted the end of the world, and
lo, it remains! And, lo, the JWs remain!
> But to their dismay, the=
> y
> were unsuccessful. As a result of this one non-existant person the world ha=
> s
> one of the largest religions in the world.
So Allah is true because Islam is so large?
> So, unless you wish to deny huma=
> n
> nature, the biblical Jesus must have existed in some form.
What form? As a plain man who became a legend? As the son of god? We
know legends get built up around ordinary men -- but we don't know that
god has ever sent a son.
> You see, he said, believe on the basis of physical evidence. That's what
> Christianity is based on; Faith based on physical evidence.
Faith does not require evidence. If you have evidence, you don't need
faith. Try again.
> Sorry, but the word "atheism" is from two parts. And indicates a doctrine
> that there is no god.
Does it?
> The second part is obvious, "Theism" meaning belief in God. (Theos =3D God)
> (ism =3D commitment to/belief in)
Correct.
> The first part is a simple negative. When ever "A" is placed in the
> beginning of a word, it indicates it's negative. for example: agnostic =3D
> person who doesn't know.
Like a person is without knowledge -- that is, agnostic.
> So too with Atheism. A+theism means =3D belief that there is No God.
No, breaking it down properly, it means "without belief in god(s)." It
is more passive than "believes there is no god."
Jeff Heidman
> ----------
> >From: nxy...@ivyyntrarg.com (Al Klein)
> >Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism
> >Subject: Re: Keeping the faith
> >Date: Fri, Dec 10, 1999, 6:19 PM
> >
>
> >On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:49:23 -0800, "dan Hughes"
> ><dhu...@toysrbob.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <09e34.1475$8P1.75129@news1-hme0>, "Martin Willett"
> >><Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>God is a man-made creation.
> >
> >>Pretty good a finite human created an infinite creature.
> >
> >A finite human created the concept of an infinite god. What problem
> >do you have with that?
>
> The word "concept" was missing from the original statement I replied to,
> sorry, I misunderstood.
>
> >
> >>Funny thing. Christianity requires no such blind faith. Rather it is rooted
> >>squarely in history, and can be researched as any historical event can be.
> >
> >And it has been, and no contemporary reference to the biblical Jesus,
> >other than fraudulent ones, has ever been found. Nor has any evidence
> >of any of the extraordinary claims in the bible been found.
>
> Yeah right. You got it. All the people who watched Jesus, and then
> transformed the world of that time were dilusionary.
Hitler transformed the world. Doesn't mean he was not dillusionary.
> Peter who wouldn't
> follow anyone, was crucified upside down because he wouldn't deny his belief
> in this non-existant person.
How do you know this? Oh, the bible? Hmmm, have you ever heard the term "circular
logic"?
> Paul was put to death for his belief in this
> same non-existant person.
A. You do not know this to be true, and
B. Being put to death for an erroneous belief is not exactly new, much less
evidence that the belief was valid.
> Many people of that time tried to discredit the
> primary claim of Christianity, the resurection.
Really? How do you know this? Oh, the bible? Yadda, yadda, yadda...
> Had they done so,
> Christanity would have fallen as a forgotten cult. But to their dismay, they
> were unsuccessful.
To ALL of our dismay, "they" (who never existed) were unsuccessful.
> As a result of this one non-existant person the world has
> one of the largest religions in the world.
So? WHat is that evidence for other than the gullibility of human beings.
> So, unless you wish to deny human
> nature, the biblical Jesus must have existed in some form.
Non sequitur.
It is because of human nature that we can conclude that it is quite possible that
the biblical Jesus did not exist in some form. And that even if he did exist, he
sure as hell was not divine.
> >>Why would it say, "test and see" if this was all about blind faith?
> >
> >Test what? Christianity says "don't question god".
>
> Where did you get this idea? You must have missed my other comments.
>
> No, if you doubt his trustworthyness, test it. That's just the opposite of
> blind faith.
> "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; as ghost
> does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)
> "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.'" (John
> 21:27)
So why doesn't he give the rest of us that same opportunity to believe?
Hell, I would believe if he appeared to me right now and had a big giant hole in
his side and was glowing or something...
> You see, he said, believe on the basis of physical evidence. That's what
> Christianity is based on; Faith based on physical evidence.
That is a contradiction in terms. Faith by definition is NOT based on evidence.
But while we are at it, could you produce some of this physical evidence for the
rest of us?
> >>Keep the wonder, lose the faith,
> >
> >>In athiesm
> >
> >Atheism is a LACK of faith.
>
> Sorry, but the word "atheism" is from two parts. And indicates a doctrine
> that there is no god.
>
> The second part is obvious, "Theism" meaning belief in God. (Theos = God)
> (ism = commitment to/belief in)
>
> The first part is a simple negative. When ever "A" is placed in the
> beginning of a word, it indicates it's negative.
Actually, it indicates its lack. A-political means lack of politics.
> for example: agnostic =
> person who doesn't know.
Person who lacks knowledge.
> So too with Atheism. A+theism means = belief that there is No God.
No, it means lack of belief in God.
> The following is taken from the Webster Website: http://www.m-w.com/
>
> Main Entry: athe·ism
> Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
> godless, from a- + theos god
> Date: 1546
> 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
> no deity
How can you post the dictionary definition and then completely misunderstand it?
It says right there "a disbelief in the existence of a deity". DISBELIEF. Lack
of belief.
> >> agnostism
> >
> >(A)gnosticism deals with knowledge, not faith.
>
> Right, not knowing.
>
> take care,
> dan
Jeff Heidman
dan Hughes
----------
In article <3853F97E...@nowhere.org>, "J. Thomas Ford"
<fo...@nowhere.org> wrote:
I didn't say that I knew of one. But, my point is that this clammer for
"Contemporary" references is simply a red herring. Sure, let's all look for
one contemporary reference. Then let's say that we find one. Then will
atheists believe that the Bible is accurate? Of course not. The problem
isn't with the historical accuracy of the documentation. No one has proved
it to be inaccurate. The problems lie with the content of those documents.
God/miracles/supernatural stuff don't exist, therefore atheists don't
believe it.
For example. Contemporary Greek Literature to the Bible have never been
questioned as to their accuracy, have they? Nope. Yet, let's compare the
two. Average number of ancient copies for contemporary works - 15 copies.
Average number of ancient copies for the various books of the New Testament
- 850 copies. Now, you say, well these are just copies. Well, no one claims
to have originals of either. But, answer me this. If the New Testament is
supposedly inaccurate, why is it that these other contemporary Greek works
aren't also called into question? Seems they have even less manuscript
evidence.
You say, well now, Just a minute. Here's the problem you have all these
copies and no one knows which is right and which is wrong. Good point.
Here's what happened. Long about 313 AD, Christians weren't being hunted and
killed any longer so they gathered up all the copies and made a Cannon or
one collection. This was not as difficult as it sounds. For example, lets
say that a teacher was teaching a class with 1,000 students. And one day he
lost his notes. So, he says to his students, "please hand in your notes for
wednesday of last week...". So, now he's has nearly 1,000 copies of his
notes for that one day. He is then able to reconstruct them, even though he
doesn't have the originals.
That in a nut shell, is what manuscript evidence is all about. Some things
in the Bible carry more manuscript evidence than others. But nothing is in
complete error as "Jesus was a myth", as many atheists are claiming.
take care,
dan
J. Thomas Ford
>
> ----------
> In article <3853F97E...@nowhere.org>, "J. Thomas Ford"
> <fo...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> >dan Hughes wrote:
> >
> >> If you found them in the judicial records, would you then believe they
> >> existed? The fact that we have numurious sources that verify, not only their
> >> existence, but also confirming what their message was, is a far stronger
> >> indication of these things than a name listed in a judicial record.
> >
> >Funny- I've conducted a search for such since my first year in high
> >school and haven't found a single comtemporary, unambiguous reference.
> >What are they?
> >
> ><snip>
>
> I didn't say that I knew of one.
Then the rest of your message is completely unessecary.
> But, my point is that this clammer for
> "Contemporary" references is simply a red herring.
I rather doubt you say so if you thought you had such a reference.
However, your original statement is thoroughly inaccurate: no matter how
numerous your sources, they are handed-down mythology by the time they
were comitted to paper. Furthermore, corrborating evidence of events
such as the eclipse and tremors were not recorded elsewhere, either,
though they would be difficult to ignore. Jesus the Christ as a single
and/or literal person has no historical basis.
I'm not really sure why this should be a problem to a system based on
faith, but there is a lot of time wasted on the subject without anything
new being introduced.
Scott Davidson
>
>----------
>In article <3853F97E...@nowhere.org>, "J. Thomas Ford"
><fo...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>>dan Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> If you found them in the judicial records, would you then believe they
>>> existed? The fact that we have numurious sources that verify, not only their
>>> existence, but also confirming what their message was, is a far stronger
>>> indication of these things than a name listed in a judicial record.
>>
>>Funny- I've conducted a search for such since my first year in high
>>school and haven't found a single comtemporary, unambiguous reference.
>>What are they?
>>
>><snip>
>
>
>"Contemporary" references is simply a red herring. Sure, let's all look for
>one contemporary reference. Then let's say that we find one. Then will
>atheists believe that the Bible is accurate? Of course not. The problem
>isn't with the historical accuracy of the documentation. No one has proved
>it to be inaccurate. The problems lie with the content of those documents.
>God/miracles/supernatural stuff don't exist, therefore atheists don't
>believe it.
>
>For example. Contemporary Greek Literature to the Bible have never been
>questioned as to their accuracy, have they? Nope. Yet, let's compare the
>two. Average number of ancient copies for contemporary works - 15 copies.
>Average number of ancient copies for the various books of the New Testament
>- 850 copies. Now, you say, well these are just copies. Well, no one claims
>to have originals of either. But, answer me this. If the New Testament is
>supposedly inaccurate, why is it that these other contemporary Greek works
>aren't also called into question? Seems they have even less manuscript
>evidence.
That's odd. To the best of my knowledge, Greek history and geography is
full of inaccuracies. That we have an accurate autograph of an ancient book
does not mean the events in that book actually took place - an accurate
transcription of The Wizard of Oz does not mean that there is a Scarecrow.
>
>You say, well now, Just a minute. Here's the problem you have all these
>copies and no one knows which is right and which is wrong. Good point.
>Here's what happened. Long about 313 AD, Christians weren't being hunted and
>killed any longer so they gathered up all the copies and made a Cannon or
>one collection. This was not as difficult as it sounds. For example, lets
>say that a teacher was teaching a class with 1,000 students. And one day he
>lost his notes. So, he says to his students, "please hand in your notes for
>wednesday of last week...". So, now he's has nearly 1,000 copies of his
>notes for that one day. He is then able to reconstruct them, even though he
>doesn't have the originals.
>
Alas the "teacher" who gave the lecture or who knew the material, was not
there when the canon was being defined. Having 30 differing eye witness
testimonies is a large harder to reconcile 300 years later. (And in this case
there is no evidence that they testimonies were even eye witness.)
>That in a nut shell, is what manuscript evidence is all about. Some things
>in the Bible carry more manuscript evidence than others. But nothing is in
>complete error as "Jesus was a myth", as many atheists are claiming.
>
I happen not to think Jesus was a myth, since the hypothesis that Jesus was
made up seems less parsimonious than the hypothesis that he lived, and his
doings were added to in the way of the times. So, by Ockham's Razor, I think
he existed.
Scott #1045
>
>
>take care,
>dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
dan Hughes
----------
In article <8346ne$pg5$1...@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, scot...@nospam.com (Scott
Davidson) wrote:
Are the transcrips accurate to the originals? If you think they are, that's
quite an admission. Because if they are then these documents are can be
considered contemporary evidence, eh?
>>You say, well now, Just a minute. Here's the problem you have all these
>>copies and no one knows which is right and which is wrong. Good point.
>>Here's what happened. Long about 313 AD, Christians weren't being hunted and
>>killed any longer so they gathered up all the copies and made a Cannon or
>>one collection. This was not as difficult as it sounds. For example, lets
>>say that a teacher was teaching a class with 1,000 students. And one day he
>>lost his notes. So, he says to his students, "please hand in your notes for
>>wednesday of last week...". So, now he's has nearly 1,000 copies of his
>>notes for that one day. He is then able to reconstruct them, even though he
>>doesn't have the originals.
>>
>Alas the "teacher" who gave the lecture or who knew the material, was not
>there when the canon was being defined. Having 30 differing eye witness
>testimonies is a large harder to reconcile 300 years later. (And in this case
>there is no evidence that they testimonies were even eye witness.)
Let's take your 'worst case' scenario. No original teacher. 30 differing
testimonies. First, the teacher issue. In 313, there was an established line
of teachers. A "tradition" so to speak.
Next, 30 differing testimonies. In fact it was over a thousand. But they
weren't that different. They all agreed on the big issues (Christ's
ressurection, etc.).
>
>>That in a nut shell, is what manuscript evidence is all about. Some things
>>in the Bible carry more manuscript evidence than others. But nothing is in
>>complete error as "Jesus was a myth", as many atheists are claiming.
>>
>I happen not to think Jesus was a myth, since the hypothesis that Jesus was
>made up seems less parsimonious than the hypothesis that he lived, and his
>doings were added to in the way of the times. So, by Ockham's Razor, I think
>he existed.
Interesting. Please explain what is meant by "his doings were added to in
the way of the times."
take care,
dan
J. Thomas Ford
>
> ----------
> In article <8346ne$pg5$1...@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, scot...@nospam.com (Scott
> Davidson) wrote:
>
> >In article 3855...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com, "dan Hughes"
> ><dhu...@toysrbob.com> writes:
> >>
> >>----------
> >>In article <3853F97E...@nowhere.org>, "J. Thomas Ford"
> >><fo...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>dan Hughes wrote:
> >>>
<snip>
>
> Are the transcrips accurate to the originals?
Hard to tell, what with the editing method used by the church (kill
anyone who disagrees over what is accurate and destroy their work).
<snip>
>
> Next, 30 differing testimonies. In fact it was over a thousand. But they
> weren't that different. They all agreed on the big issues (Christ's
> ressurection, etc.).
Except, of course, when they didn't (such as the Gospel of Thomas the
Twin relating that someone was crucified in Jesus' place). Then they
were declared "heretical" and anyone who kept insisting that "heretical"
materials was at least as good as the "official" versions wound up dead,
such as the monks near Nag Hammaddi.
<snip>
dan Hughes
----------
In article <3857326F...@charybdis1.net>, "J. Thomas Ford"
<fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
Anyone with a brain who has read the gospel of Thomas can clearly see that
it isn't authentic. Nor can it be claimed that the Gospel of Thomas fits
with the Judeo-Christian Doctrines. Nor can it be claimed that the writer
was the same Thomas of the New Testament. Hence it has either brought a
totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish thought, or it's
made up it's own religion unto itself.
The later is far more plausible.
AS to the point of Killing anyone who disagrees with the Church. I'm sorry
if this would disuade you from believing the truth, but man kind in general,
even professing religious men, are sinners. No one has ever claimed (that
I've heard), that the Church is a group of "perfect" people. Not even close.
take care,
dan
Jeff Heidman
> ----------
> In article ?3857326F...@charybdis1.net?, "J. Thomas Ford"
> ?fo...@charybdis1.net? wrote:
>
> ?dan Hughes wrote:
> ??
> ?? ----------
> ?? In article ?8346ne$pg5$1...@engnews1.eng.sun.com?, scot...@nospam.com (Scott
> ?? Davidson) wrote:
> ??
> ?? ?In article 3855...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com, "dan Hughes"
> ?? ??dhu...@toysrbob.com? writes:
> ?? ??
> ?? ??----------
> ?? ??In article ?3853F97E...@nowhere.org?, "J. Thomas Ford"
> ?? ???fo...@nowhere.org? wrote:
> ?? ??
> ?? ??
> ?? ???dan Hughes wrote:
> ?? ???
> ?
> ??snip?
> ??
> ?? Are the transcrips accurate to the originals?
> ?
> ?Hard to tell, what with the editing method used by the church (kill
> ?anyone who disagrees over what is accurate and destroy their work).
> ?
> ??snip?
> ?
> ??
> ?? Next, 30 differing testimonies. In fact it was over a thousand. But they
> ?? weren't that different. They all agreed on the big issues (Christ's
> ?? ressurection, etc.).
> ?
> ?Except, of course, when they didn't (such as the Gospel of Thomas the
> ?Twin relating that someone was crucified in Jesus' place). Then they
> ?were declared "heretical" and anyone who kept insisting that "heretical"
> ?materials was at least as good as the "official" versions wound up dead,
> ?such as the monks near Nag Hammaddi.
> ?
> ??snip?
>
> Anyone with a brain who has read the gospel of Thomas can clearly see that
> it isn't authentic. Nor can it be claimed that the Gospel of Thomas fits
> with the Judeo-Christian Doctrines. Nor can it be claimed that the writer
> was the same Thomas of the New Testament. Hence it has either brought a
> totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish thought, or it's
> made up it's own religion unto itself.
>
> The later is far more plausible.
Anyone with a brain who has read the gospel of John can clearly see that
it isn't authentic. Nor can it be claimed that the Gospel of John fits
with the Judeo-Christian Doctrines. Nor can it be claimed that the writer
was the same John of the New Testament. Hence it has either brought a
totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish thought, or it's
made up it's own religion unto itself.
The later is far more plausible.
Jeff Heidman
J. Thomas Ford
>
> ----------> >dan Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> In article <8346ne$pg5$1...@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, scot...@nospam.com (Scott
> >> Davidson) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article 3855...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com, "dan Hughes"
> >> ><dhu...@toysrbob.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >>----------
> >> >>In article <3853F97E...@nowhere.org>, "J. Thomas Ford"
> >> >><fo...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>dan Hughes wrote:
> >> >>>
> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Next, 30 differing testimonies. In fact it was over a thousand. But they
> >
> >Except, of course, when they didn't (such as the Gospel of Thomas the
> >
>
> Anyone with a brain who has read the gospel of Thomas can clearly see that
> it isn't authentic.
Funny- I mentioned the Gospel of Thomas the Twin, not the Gospel of
Thomas. Have you actually studied the subject? what is your criteria for
determining it's authenticty, btw? How much it jibes with the official
story?
> Nor can it be claimed that the Gospel of Thomas fits
> with the Judeo-Christian Doctrines.
Nope. That's why it was suppressed. But, then, the Big Four don't fit
with Jewish doctrine, either. They fit with "Christian" doctrine, as
defined by the church leaders around the time of Nicea.
> Nor can it be claimed that the writer
> was the same Thomas of the New Testament.
I didn't. But, then, the same can be said for the canoniacal gospels, as
well.
> Hence it has either brought a
> totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish thought, or it's
> made up it's own religion unto itself.
Both Statements are true about both the Gnostic Gospels and the Big
Four. That doesn't seem to bother modern Christians.
> The later is far more plausible.
>
> AS to the point of Killing anyone who disagrees with the Church. I'm sorry
> if this would disuade you from believing the truth,
It didn't keep you from assuming your conclusions-such as assuming the
Big Four have more than a passing resemblance to The Truth(tm).
What the churches actions did is muddy the historical process, possibly
irretrievably. It casts real doubt on the methods used to winnow the
"real" gospels from the pretenders- in fact, it pretty much destroys the
credibility of the early church, period.
> but man kind in general,
> even professing religious men, are sinners. No one has ever claimed (that
> I've heard), that the Church is a group of "perfect" people. Not even close.
The church's actions are beyond defense and attempting to do so strikes
me as a diversion. Where is the evidence for the historical accuracy of
the Big Four?
dan Hughes
----------
In article <38583570...@charybdis1.net>, "J. Thomas Ford"
<fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
>dan Hughes wrote:
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <3857326F...@charybdis1.net>, "J. Thomas Ford"
>> <fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
>>
>> >dan Hughes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ----------
>> >> In article <8346ne$pg5$1...@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, scot...@nospam.com (Scott
>> >> Davidson) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article 3855...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com, "dan Hughes"
>> >> ><dhu...@toysrbob.com> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>----------
>> >> >>In article <3853F97E...@nowhere.org>, "J. Thomas Ford"
>> >> >><fo...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>[snip]
>> >Except, of course, when they didn't (such as the Gospel of Thomas the
>> >Twin relating that someone was crucified in Jesus' place). Then they
>> >were declared "heretical" and anyone who kept insisting that "heretical"
>> >materials was at least as good as the "official" versions wound up dead,
>> >such as the monks near Nag Hammaddi.
>> >
>> ><snip>
>>
>> Anyone with a brain who has read the gospel of Thomas can clearly see that
>> it isn't authentic.
>
>Funny- I mentioned the Gospel of Thomas the Twin, not the Gospel of
>Thomas. Have you actually studied the subject? what is your criteria for
>determining it's authenticty, btw? How much it jibes with the official
>story?
Sorry, I don't think I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas the Twin. The Gospel
of Thomas is used by Muslim apologists, and I debated one a while back, and
I read large portions of that piece and studied it's origin at that time.
As far as determining the authenticity of any ancient text, the principles
involved are generic, and can be applied to any text. The Gospel of Thomas
fails almost all the tests. Large portions are copied, inaccurate claims,
earlist known sources are not from the middle east, cannot be traced back as
far as claimed, and contradicts known truths historical or religious.
>
>> Nor can it be claimed that the Gospel of Thomas fits
>> with the Judeo-Christian Doctrines.
>
>Nope. That's why it was suppressed. But, then, the Big Four don't fit
>with Jewish doctrine, either. They fit with "Christian" doctrine, as
>defined by the church leaders around the time of Nicea.
The whole New Testament "fits" with Jewish Doctrine, if Jesus is the
Massiah, as he claimed.
By the time of Nicea the doctrine was in place from the beginning, they just
codified what they already believed, which was what Jesus taught.
>
>> Nor can it be claimed that the writer
>> was the same Thomas of the New Testament.
>
>I didn't. But, then, the same can be said for the canoniacal gospels, as
>well.
Not if you honestly compare the evidence of both.
>
>> Hence it has either brought a
>> totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish thought, or it's
>> made up it's own religion unto itself.
>
>Both Statements are true about both the Gnostic Gospels and the Big
>Four. That doesn't seem to bother modern Christians.
Christianity, as opposed to gnostic teachings. Fits squarely with the
writings and prophecies of the OT. The fact that some Jewish leaders didn't
believe doesn't mean that jewish thought was wiped out. Gnostics and Jewish
Mystics, are in the same boat.
>
>> The later is far more plausible.
>>
>> AS to the point of Killing anyone who disagrees with the Church. I'm sorry
>> if this would disuade you from believing the truth,
>
>It didn't keep you from assuming your conclusions-such as assuming the
>Big Four have more than a passing resemblance to The Truth(tm).
I believe based on historical facts. You find something "untrue" in the "big
four"?
>
>What the churches actions did is muddy the historical process, possibly
>irretrievably. It casts real doubt on the methods used to winnow the
>"real" gospels from the pretenders- in fact, it pretty much destroys the
>credibility of the early church, period.
>
>> but man kind in general,
>> even professing religious men, are sinners. No one has ever claimed (that
>> I've heard), that the Church is a group of "perfect" people. Not even close.
>
>The church's actions are beyond defense and attempting to do so strikes
>me as a diversion.
Whose defending their actions? I never said their actions were right.
>Where is the evidence for the historical accuracy of
>the Big Four?
Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
take care,
dan
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> Sorry, I don't think I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas the Twin. The
> Gospel of Thomas is used by Muslim apologists, and I debated one a
> while back, and I read large portions of that piece and studied it's
> origin at that time.
> As far as determining the authenticity of any ancient text, the
> principles involved are generic, and can be applied to any text. The
> Gospel of Thomas fails almost all the tests. Large portions are
> copied, inaccurate claims, earlist known sources are not from the
> middle east, cannot be traced back as far as claimed, and contradicts
> known truths historical or religious.
And where did you gleam this bit of information from? I think if you
apply your tests to the four gospels (contradictions between them, large
sections copied, later additions to the gospel of Mark, etc) you will
find that they don't pass your tests either.
> The whole New Testament "fits" with Jewish Doctrine, if Jesus is the
> Massiah, as he claimed.
The Jews expected a Messiah who would free them from the Romans, not one
who died. The very fact that Jesus died erased any possibility for the
Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. I don't see how you can honestly say
that the NT fits with Jewish doctrine.
> Christianity, as opposed to gnostic teachings. Fits squarely with the
> writings and prophecies of the OT.
This is a matter of interpretation. The Jews obviously don't thinks so.
> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
Oh no, not another Josh McDowell book. I'd rather listen to Cliff
Richard's Millenium Prayer 24 hours a day.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
J. Thomas Ford
>
> ----------
> In article <38583570...@charybdis1.net>, "J. Thomas Ford"
> <fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
>
> >dan Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> >Except, of course, when they didn't (such as the Gospel of Thomas the
> >> >Twin relating that someone was crucified in Jesus' place). Then they
> >> >were declared "heretical" and anyone who kept insisting that "heretical"
> >> >materials was at least as good as the "official" versions wound up dead,
> >> >such as the monks near Nag Hammaddi.
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Anyone with a brain who has read the gospel of Thomas can clearly see that
> >> it isn't authentic.
> >
> >Funny- I mentioned the Gospel of Thomas the Twin, not the Gospel of
> >Thomas. Have you actually studied the subject? what is your criteria for
> >determining it's authenticty, btw? How much it jibes with the official
> >story?
>
> Sorry, I don't think I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas the Twin. The Gospel
> of Thomas is used by Muslim apologists, and I debated one a while back, and
> I read large portions of that piece and studied it's origin at that time.
>
> As far as determining the authenticity of any ancient text, the principles
> involved are generic, and can be applied to any text. The Gospel of Thomas
> fails almost all the tests. Large portions are copied, inaccurate claims,
> earlist known sources are not from the middle east, cannot be traced back as
> far as claimed, and contradicts known truths historical or religious.
Such as?
> >
> >> Nor can it be claimed that the Gospel of Thomas fits
> >> with the Judeo-Christian Doctrines.
> >
> >Nope. That's why it was suppressed. But, then, the Big Four don't fit
> >with Jewish doctrine, either. They fit with "Christian" doctrine, as
> >defined by the church leaders around the time of Nicea.
>
> The whole New Testament "fits" with Jewish Doctrine, if Jesus is the
> Massiah, as he claimed.
If so, there would have been a Kingdom in Israel and the temple would
not have been a mound of rubble.
There is a reason why Judaism is still a religion and why Christianity
had to leave Judea to become viable: Jeshua ben Mirriam wasn't the
messiah they were looking for.
> By the time of Nicea the doctrine was in place from the beginning,
That certainly doesn't jibe very well with the history, Dan.
> they just
> codified what they already believed, which was what Jesus taught.
Really? Where did monogamy come from? The infallibility of the Church?
> >
> >> Nor can it be claimed that the writer
> >> was the same Thomas of the New Testament.
> >
> >I didn't. But, then, the same can be said for the canoniacal gospels, as
> >well.
>
> Not if you honestly compare the evidence of both.
Really? What evidence exists for the authorship of the Big Four being
that of the Apostles who bear the same name?
> >
> >> Hence it has either brought a
> >> totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish thought, or it's
> >> made up it's own religion unto itself.
> >
> >Both Statements are true about both the Gnostic Gospels and the Big
> >Four. That doesn't seem to bother modern Christians.
>
> Christianity, as opposed to gnostic teachings. Fits squarely with the
> writings and prophecies of the OT.
Not as far as I can tell, though I've seen some amazing apologentsia
gymnastics attempting to esablish that.
> The fact that some Jewish leaders didn't
> believe doesn't mean that jewish thought was wiped out. Gnostics and Jewish
> Mystics, are in the same boat.
I'm not really getting how this responds to the above. Care to clarify?
> >> The later is far more plausible.
> >>
> >> AS to the point of Killing anyone who disagrees with the Church. I'm sorry
> >> if this would disuade you from believing the truth,
> >
> >It didn't keep you from assuming your conclusions-such as assuming the
> >Big Four have more than a passing resemblance to The Truth(tm).
>
> I believe based on historical facts. You find something "untrue" in the "big
> four"?
I find little evidence to support the Big Four as historically accurate,
period.
> >What the churches actions did is muddy the historical process, possibly
> >irretrievably. It casts real doubt on the methods used to winnow the
> >"real" gospels from the pretenders- in fact, it pretty much destroys the
> >credibility of the early church, period.
> >
> >> but man kind in general,
> >> even professing religious men, are sinners. No one has ever claimed (that
> >> I've heard), that the Church is a group of "perfect" people. Not even close.
> >
> >The church's actions are beyond defense and attempting to do so strikes
> >me as a diversion.
>
> Whose defending their actions? I never said their actions were right.
Glossing over the nasty pogroms against heretics as "imperfect" is a
very lame way of defending the early church, Dan.
> >Where is the evidence for the historical accuracy of
> >the Big Four?
>
> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
Yes. The Jesuits apologentsia is more scholarly, but even they don't
have much in the way of objectivity. Where is the evidence for the
dan Hughes
----------
>
>
>
>> Sorry, I don't think I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas the Twin. The
>> Gospel of Thomas is used by Muslim apologists, and I debated one a
>> while back, and I read large portions of that piece and studied it's
>> origin at that time.
>
>> As far as determining the authenticity of any ancient text, the
>> principles involved are generic, and can be applied to any text. The
>> Gospel of Thomas fails almost all the tests. Large portions are
>> copied, inaccurate claims, earlist known sources are not from the
>> middle east, cannot be traced back as far as claimed, and contradicts
>> known truths historical or religious.
>
>And where did you gleam this bit of information from? I think if you
>apply your tests to the four gospels (contradictions between them, large
>sections copied, later additions to the gospel of Mark, etc) you will
>find that they don't pass your tests either.
The area of study is called "Textual Criticism." Textual Critics study these
issues, and the four gospels in a completely different world when compared
to the likes of the Gospel of Thomas. If you would like I'll dig those books
out and we can discuss some of the real problems with the Gospel of Thomas
verses the strong evidence supporting the four biblical gospels.
Sure there are texts like chapter 8 in Mark. But those are few and no
theology is based solely on those texts alone. Further, those events may be
true, the only difficulty is that it doesn't have the same Textual support
that the rest of the collection has.
As far as contradictions between them. They are insurmountable deal
breakers. Just because two different witnesses describe the same even in
different ways doesn't mean they are contradictory.
>
>
>> The whole New Testament "fits" with Jewish Doctrine, if Jesus is the
>> Massiah, as he claimed.
>
>The Jews expected a Messiah who would free them from the Romans, not one
>who died. The very fact that Jesus died erased any possibility for the
>Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. I don't see how you can honestly say
>that the NT fits with Jewish doctrine.
Jewish Doctrine is based on the Torah and the writings contained what we
call the Old Testament, or "Old Contract". Christ taught directly from these
documents. And he was Jewish, and all of his early followers were also.
The fact that the Jews of that time were expecting a Messiah to deliver them
from the Romans doesn't mean they were correct in their thinking. In fact,
God didn't do that, so it would appear that they weren't correct were they?
Third, Jesus did die, but not for more than three days. If this wasn't the
case, the Jews of that era would have made it known to everyone. That is, if
they could have produced Jesus' dead body, they would have proclaimed
Christianity the biggest fraud of it's day. Same with the Romans. The fact
that this didn't happen, lends support to the idea that Jesus did rise from
the dead as he claimed he would.
>
>
>> Christianity, as opposed to gnostic teachings. Fits squarely with the
>> writings and prophecies of the OT.
>
>This is a matter of interpretation. The Jews obviously don't thinks so.
The Jews who were leaders, you are correct. But a large number of Jews did
follow Jesus. The leaders had a lot to lose if they agreed with Jesus.
>
>
>> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
>
>Oh no, not another Josh McDowell book. I'd rather listen to Cliff
>Richard's Millenium Prayer 24 hours a day.
Hey that sounds like fun!
take care,
dan
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> The area of study is called "Textual Criticism." Textual Critics study
> these issues, and the four gospels in a completely different world
> when compared to the likes of the Gospel of Thomas. If you would like
> I'll dig those books out and we can discuss some of the real problems
> with the Gospel of Thomas verses the strong evidence supporting the
> four biblical gospels.
Yes, I am well aware of textual criticism as it relates to the gospels.
You constantly say that the Gospel of Thomas has "real problems" yet you
never specifically mention what these are. It would also be good if you
could name some of the authors of the books that you are referring to. I
had a keen interest in the gnostic gospels at one time, and I might have
read some of the books to which you refer. I do remember quite clearly
from my reading that the historical accuracy of the gnostic gospels were
examined, and that most scholars concluded that the Gospel of Thomas had
as much support as some of the later gospels such as Matthew.
> Sure there are texts like chapter 8 in Mark. But those are few and no
> theology is based solely on those texts alone. Further, those events
> may be true, the only difficulty is that it doesn't have the same
> Textual support that the rest of the collection has.
I'm actually referring to Mark 16:9-20 - not Mark 8 - which was not
found in the "earliest and most reliable manuscripts" (NIV bible). That
section dealt with the resurrection of Jesus, and of course, this is
vital to Christianity. Many scholars (eg. Elaine Pagels) are of the
opinion that the later gospels copied and embellished the resurrection
story quite freely from Mark. Hence if the source material (Mark
16:9-20) of the resurrection story is suspect, then the resurrection
stories of the other gospels are also suspect.
Now, if you think the four gospels are accurate, consider part of the
resurrection story from each of the gospels and tell me if after reading
it you honestly still believe they are accurate:
MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome went to the tomb.
The stone was already rolled away and ONE man in white (no mention of
him being angel) told them that Jesus had risen.
JOHN: Mary Magdalene ONLY went to the tomb. Stone was already moved, NO
mention of anyone in white.
LUKE: The women (unspecified) go to the tomb. Stone was already rolled
away and they saw TWO men in white clothes that "gleamed like
lightning". Afraid, they fell down and bowed their faces to the ground.
MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James (ONLY) went to the
tomb. Stone was NOT moved, there was a violent earthquake and an ANGEL
came down from heaven and moved the stone. The angel's face was like
lightning and his clothes were as white as snow.
First there are discrepancies about who actually went to the tomb (was
it just Mary Magdalene, or was it all three women?). Then there are
discrepancies over the number of "men-in-white" or angels that were at
the tomb. Finally, you can see how the story was being embellished from
having the stone already moved and a man-in-white, to the stone already
moved and TWO men-in-white who "gleamed like lightning", to finally a
violent earthquake and an angel of the Lord coming down from heaven.
Read it objectively - can't you see the making of a legend?
Remember too that this is by no means the only contradictions between
the gospels. There are many others, which I don't have time to list.
Although if you go to a search engine and search under "biblical
errancy" you will find such a list.
Also, I have read Who Moved The Stone? and the author (Frank Morrison)
does not address any of these issues. There is also quite a scathing
critique of the book lying on the net somewhere.
> As far as contradictions between them. They are insurmountable deal
> breakers. Just because two different witnesses describe the same even
> in different ways doesn't mean they are contradictory.
Was the stone moved or unmoved? No matter how you describe the event, or
whichever way you look at it (through Mary's eyes or through Peter's
eyes) the stone is either moved or unmoved. If Mark saw a moved stone
and Matthew saw an unmoved stone, and they both claimed to see the same
event, I doubt that there is a judge that would accept their testimony.
> Jewish Doctrine is based on the Torah and the writings contained what
> we call the Old Testament, or "Old Contract". Christ taught directly
> from these documents. And he was Jewish, and all of his early
> followers were also.
Yes, I agree with all this. But note too that the teachings of Christ
stray quite far away from traditional Jewish teachings. Eg. Keeping the
sabbath, women's inferiority as compared to men, etc.
> The fact that the Jews of that time were expecting a Messiah to
> deliver them from the Romans doesn't mean they were correct in their
> thinking.
No, but it means that Messianic prophecies are too vague and ambigious,
and hence practically useless. If the Jews - who studied the Torah more
than any other people - could not decipher the prophecies, who could?
> In fact, God didn't do that, so it would appear that they weren't >
correct were they?
You are guilty of circular logic here. You are in effect using the
gospels, to "prove" the gospels. Eg, Jesus is the Messiah because the
gospels said he was, and the gospels are accurate because Jesus said
they were. In any case, you are basing the above statement on your
unproven premise that the gospels are accurate.
> Third, Jesus did die, but not for more than three days. If this wasn't
> the case, the Jews of that era would have made it known to everyone.
There are a host of hypotheses to answer this argument, from Jesus being
resuscitated to another human taking Jesus' place. Many scholars (one of
them being Barbara Thiering) support the former hypothesis because the
word used for "resurrection" in the original scriptures is more
accurately translated into English as "resuscitation".
Also, I thought I'd bring in another contradiction or failed prophecy.
Jesus told the Jews that no sign will be given to them except the sign
of Jonah. Now Jonah, as you will know, was swallowed up by a fish (must
have been a big fish) for three days and three nights. Jesus died for
three days but only TWO nights as recorded by the bible. Hence, another
failed prophecy.
> >> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
> >
> >Oh no, not another Josh McDowell book. I'd rather listen to Cliff
> >Richard's Millenium Prayer 24 hours a day.
>
> Hey that sounds like fun!
Please, tell me your joking! Hey, I wonder what happens if I played it
backwards ... if you don't see me back here this time tomorrow, then
you'll know that Cliff is the anti-christ, his record company is the
false prophet and owning his CDs is the mark of the beast. Babylon is
his country of birth and his hit song "Nine Times Out of Ten" is the
ratio of people that will end up in hell! How do I know this? Biblical
interpretation in action!
-Sam
dan Hughes
----------
>From: "J. Thomas Ford" <fo...@charybdis1.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism
>Subject: Re: Keeping the faith
>
Ok, you've done it. You've forced me to get my books out. No longer relying
on my horrible memory. It appears that I've made yet another gaff. The book
that the Muslim apologists rely on is called the Gospel of Barnabas. In
answer to your question, here is an example. Quoting from the Gospel of
Barnabas:
"Jesus answered, "...God, in order that I be not mocked of the demons on
the day of judgemen, hath willed that I be mocked of men in this world by
the death of Judas, making all men to believe that I died upon the cross.
And this mocking shall continue until the avent of Mohammad, the messenger
of God, who, when he shall come, shall reveal this deception to those who
believe God's law. " (p.271) (sited in "Reaching Muslims for Christ" by
William J. Saal. pg. 98).
You see here a couple of Textual problems. One is the obvious reference to
Muhammad, and his title "messenger of God." A clear rendition by a Muslim
who is taught that it's disrespectful to not include the title after his
name, so people know who you are talking about. The second problem is the
idea that Jesus didn't die on the Cross. Muslims believe that Jesus was
"taken Up" before he died, that he wasn't taken down by the Romans, he
wasn't killed at all. That he was taken up to God where he is today. This is
a textual problem because it agrees with no ancient source. Every source
agrees that Jesus died on the Cross. Was taken down by the Romans, who ran a
spear thru him just to make sure.
Lastly the problem with this gospel is that it doesn't date from any earlier
than 1300 AD.
>
>> >
>> >> Nor can it be claimed that the Gospel of Thomas fits
>> >> with the Judeo-Christian Doctrines.
>> >
>> >Nope. That's why it was suppressed. But, then, the Big Four don't fit
>> >with Jewish doctrine, either. They fit with "Christian" doctrine, as
>> >defined by the church leaders around the time of Nicea.
>>
>> The whole New Testament "fits" with Jewish Doctrine, if Jesus is the
>> Massiah, as he claimed.
>
>If so, there would have been a Kingdom in Israel and the temple would
>not have been a mound of rubble.
If the interpretation of the Jewish leaders were correct of that time.
>
>There is a reason why Judaism is still a religion and why Christianity
>had to leave Judea to become viable: Jeshua ben Mirriam wasn't the
>messiah they were looking for.
The Jewish leaders, didn't follow him, but many Jews did.
>
>> By the time of Nicea the doctrine was in place from the beginning,
>
>That certainly doesn't jibe very well with the history, Dan.
>
>> they just
>> codified what they already believed, which was what Jesus taught.
>
>Really? Where did monogamy come from? The infallibility of the Church?
Monogamy was created by God in the beginning. Adam and Eve. Further God
commanded it in Deut. 17:17. God never commanded polygamy, rather through
out the OT God repeatedly warns against polygamy.
>
>> >
>> >> Nor can it be claimed that the writer
>> >> was the same Thomas of the New Testament.
>> >
>> >I didn't. But, then, the same can be said for the canoniacal gospels, as
>> >well.
>>
>> Not if you honestly compare the evidence of both.
>
>Really? What evidence exists for the authorship of the Big Four being
>that of the Apostles who bear the same name?
You want me to go through each and everyone?
>
>> >
>> >> Hence it has either brought a
>> >> totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish thought, or it's
>> >> made up it's own religion unto itself.
>> >
>> >Both Statements are true about both the Gnostic Gospels and the Big
>> >Four. That doesn't seem to bother modern Christians.
>>
>> Christianity, as opposed to gnostic teachings. Fits squarely with the
>> writings and prophecies of the OT.
>
>Not as far as I can tell, though I've seen some amazing apologentsia
>gymnastics attempting to esablish that.
>
>> The fact that some Jewish leaders didn't
>> believe doesn't mean that jewish thought was wiped out. Gnostics and Jewish
>> Mystics, are in the same boat.
>
>I'm not really getting how this responds to the above. Care to clarify?
The fact that Jewish mystics existed at the same time, didn't wipe out
Jewish thought, so to, neither does Gnostic ideas.
>
>> >> The later is far more plausible.
>> >>
>> >> AS to the point of Killing anyone who disagrees with the Church. I'm sorry
>> >> if this would disuade you from believing the truth,
>> >
>> >It didn't keep you from assuming your conclusions-such as assuming the
>> >Big Four have more than a passing resemblance to The Truth(tm).
>>
>> I believe based on historical facts. You find something "untrue" in the "big
>> four"?
>
>I find little evidence to support the Big Four as historically accurate,
>period.
Tell me one or two of your favorite innacuracies.
>
>> >What the churches actions did is muddy the historical process, possibly
>> >irretrievably. It casts real doubt on the methods used to winnow the
>> >"real" gospels from the pretenders- in fact, it pretty much destroys the
>> >credibility of the early church, period.
>> >
>> >> but man kind in general,
>> >> even professing religious men, are sinners. No one has ever claimed (that
>> >> I've heard), that the Church is a group of "perfect" people. Not even close.
>> >
>> >The church's actions are beyond defense and attempting to do so strikes
>> >me as a diversion.
>>
>> Whose defending their actions? I never said their actions were right.
>
>Glossing over the nasty pogroms against heretics as "imperfect" is a
>very lame way of defending the early church, Dan.
Just because they made mistakes doesn't nullify the truth. The
trustworthyness of the message that was given them is still intack. Why
judge the message based on what the messenger looks like or does? The
message didn't originate with the messengers.
>
>> >Where is the evidence for the historical accuracy of
>> >the Big Four?
>>
>> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
>
>Yes. The Jesuits apologentsia is more scholarly, but even they don't
>have much in the way of objectivity. Where is the evidence for the
>historical accuracy of the Big Four?
There are all sorts of historical clues and references, to list them all
would be too time consuming. How about a focus on one book, or a problem
area?
take care,
dan
J. Thomas Ford
Official Genesis claims that a breeding pair was created first. It says
nothing about what happens when more partners are available.
> Further God
> commanded it in Deut. 17:17.
It is set forth not two verses earlier that these rules apply
specifically to the King of Israel.
Also, a better translation than the KJV's ambiguous "multiplicity" would
be "a large number." An Israelite king was forbidden to have more than
eighteen wives (Sanhedrin 21b; Yad, Melakhim 3:2).
BTW- the KJV would have the King of Israel own no more than one horse as
well, if the word "multiplicity" means "more than one."
> God never commanded polygamy, rather through
> out the OT God repeatedly warns against polygamy.
Where?
> >
> >> >
> >> >> Nor can it be claimed that the writer
> >> >> was the same Thomas of the New Testament.
> >> >
> >> >I didn't. But, then, the same can be said for the canoniacal gospels, as
> >> >well.
> >>
> >> Not if you honestly compare the evidence of both.
> >
> >Really? What evidence exists for the authorship of the Big Four being
> >that of the Apostles who bear the same name?
>
> You want me to go through each and everyone?
Pick a point and start.
> >> >
> >> >> Hence it has either brought a
> >> >> totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish thought, or it's
> >> >> made up it's own religion unto itself.
> >> >
> >> >Both Statements are true about both the Gnostic Gospels and the Big
> >> >Four. That doesn't seem to bother modern Christians.
> >>
> >> Christianity, as opposed to gnostic teachings. Fits squarely with the
> >> writings and prophecies of the OT.
> >
> >Not as far as I can tell, though I've seen some amazing apologentsia
> >gymnastics attempting to esablish that.
> >
> >> The fact that some Jewish leaders didn't
> >> believe doesn't mean that jewish thought was wiped out. Gnostics and Jewish
> >> Mystics, are in the same boat.
> >
> >I'm not really getting how this responds to the above. Care to clarify?
>
> The fact that Jewish mystics existed at the same time, didn't wipe out
> Jewish thought, so to, neither does Gnostic ideas.
I don't recall ever claiming any of this. Why do you bring it up?
> >
> >> >> The later is far more plausible.
> >> >>
> >> >> AS to the point of Killing anyone who disagrees with the Church. I'm sorry
> >> >> if this would disuade you from believing the truth,
> >> >
> >> >It didn't keep you from assuming your conclusions-such as assuming the
> >> >Big Four have more than a passing resemblance to The Truth(tm).
> >>
> >> I believe based on historical facts. You find something "untrue" in the "big
> >> four"?
> >
> >I find little evidence to support the Big Four as historically accurate,
> >period.
>
> Tell me one or two of your favorite innacuracies.
What part of "I find little evidence to support" do you not understand?
> >
> >> >What the churches actions did is muddy the historical process, possibly
> >> >irretrievably. It casts real doubt on the methods used to winnow the
> >> >"real" gospels from the pretenders- in fact, it pretty much destroys the
> >> >credibility of the early church, period.
> >> >
> >> >> but man kind in general,
> >> >> even professing religious men, are sinners. No one has ever claimed (that
> >> >> I've heard), that the Church is a group of "perfect" people. Not even close.
> >> >
> >> >The church's actions are beyond defense and attempting to do so strikes
> >> >me as a diversion.
> >>
> >> Whose defending their actions? I never said their actions were right.
> >
> >Glossing over the nasty pogroms against heretics as "imperfect" is a
> >very lame way of defending the early church, Dan.
>
> Just because they made mistakes doesn't nullify the truth. The
> trustworthyness of the message that was given them is still intack. Why
> judge the message based on what the messenger looks like or does?
I don't recall doing that. I *do* recall noting that their methods have
hoplessly muddied the historical verification process, and that the
malicious actions of the early church prevent us from simply "taking
their word" about it.
> The
> message didn't originate with the messengers.
Dan, Dan- you have yet to establish the origins of the "message." That's
the point of this conversation.
>
> >
> >> >Where is the evidence for the historical accuracy of
> >> >the Big Four?
> >>
> >> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
> >
> >Yes. The Jesuits apologentsia is more scholarly, but even they don't
> >have much in the way of objectivity. Where is the evidence for the
> >historical accuracy of the Big Four?
>
> There are all sorts of historical clues and references, to list them all
> would be too time consuming. How about a focus on one book, or a problem
> area?
The census. Choose any of the Big Four for it's description (or all of
them, generally), then attempt to establish histriocity from
non-Biblical sources.
J. Thomas Ford
Whoops- sorry, forgot to respond to this section. I claim a sixteen-hour
drive as mitigating circumstances for this and the terness of my last
response.
Good idea.
<snippage, including mea culpa for mixing Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of
Barnabus>
re: the Gospel of Barnabus
> Lastly the problem with this gospel is that it doesn't date from any earlier
> than 1300 AD.
Yes, Barnabus is a well-known fraud. Perhaps you can critique any of the
Gospels from the Nag Hammadi find (Thomas would be fine) instead, as
they are part of the repressed Gospels I mentioned.
dan Hughes
----------
>
>
>> The area of study is called "Textual Criticism." Textual Critics study
>> these issues, and the four gospels in a completely different world
>> when compared to the likes of the Gospel of Thomas. If you would like
>> I'll dig those books out and we can discuss some of the real problems
>> with the Gospel of Thomas verses the strong evidence supporting the
>> four biblical gospels.
>
>Yes, I am well aware of textual criticism as it relates to the gospels.
>You constantly say that the Gospel of Thomas has "real problems" yet you
>never specifically mention what these are. It would also be good if you
>could name some of the authors of the books that you are referring to. I
>had a keen interest in the gnostic gospels at one time, and I might have
>read some of the books to which you refer. I do remember quite clearly
>from my reading that the historical accuracy of the gnostic gospels were
>examined, and that most scholars concluded that the Gospel of Thomas had
>as much support as some of the later gospels such as Matthew.
>
Deeply sorry, I was thinking Thomas all the while it was actually Barnabas.
>
>
>> Sure there are texts like chapter 8 in Mark. But those are few and no
>> theology is based solely on those texts alone. Further, those events
>> may be true, the only difficulty is that it doesn't have the same
>> Textual support that the rest of the collection has.
>
>I'm actually referring to Mark 16:9-20 - not Mark 8 - which was not
>found in the "earliest and most reliable manuscripts" (NIV bible). That
>section dealt with the resurrection of Jesus, and of course, this is
>vital to Christianity. Many scholars (eg. Elaine Pagels) are of the
>opinion that the later gospels copied and embellished the resurrection
>story quite freely from Mark. Hence if the source material (Mark
>16:9-20) of the resurrection story is suspect, then the resurrection
>stories of the other gospels are also suspect.
The resurrection story is the very foundation to Christianity. For example.
It's even found in Mark 16:6 which is not apart of the questionable section.
It's in every single book in the New Testament. It permeates it. "For if
Christ is not raised...."
>
>Now, if you think the four gospels are accurate, consider part of the
>resurrection story from each of the gospels and tell me if after reading
>it you honestly still believe they are accurate:
>
>MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome went to the tomb.
>The stone was already rolled away and ONE man in white (no mention of
>him being angel) told them that Jesus had risen.
No contradiction here. Just because they mentioned seeing one, doesn't mean
that there wasn't another. They mentioned the one with which they were
talking to. The fact that they didn't say he was an angel, doesn't mean he
wasn't. A man dressed in white, telling them about God. Hmmm...if it walks
like a duck...
>
>JOHN: Mary Magdalene ONLY went to the tomb. Stone was already moved, NO
>mention of anyone in white.
The word "ONLY" is missing from the text.
Mary is the only one mentioned, but this doesn't eliminate the possibility
of Mary mother of James also being there, just because she's not specified.
No contradiction.
Jn. 20:10,11 - "Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood
outside the tomb crying."
No mention of anyone in white? See Jn 20:12 "...and saw two angels in
white..."
>
>LUKE: The women (unspecified) go to the tomb. Stone was already rolled
>away and they saw TWO men in white clothes that "gleamed like
>lightning". Afraid, they fell down and bowed their faces to the ground.
No contradictions here.
Women is specified later in the same passage.
>MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James (ONLY) went to the
>tomb. Stone was NOT moved, there was a violent earthquake and an ANGEL
>came down from heaven and moved the stone. The angel's face was like
>lightning and his clothes were as white as snow.
The word "ONLY" is missing from the text, again.
The statements, about the earthquake, the angel's arival, and the stone
being moved are all in "Past perfect tense". Meaning they were already
accomplished when they arrived. For example, the text reads literally,
"There was a great earth quake"...[angel] "having descended out of
heaven,"..."having come rolled away the stone..."
Then the next statement is the first one in present tense. "and was sitting
on it [the stone]"
The apparent contradiction disappears when it's read with the proper tenses
in mind. (of course using a Greek interlinear helps.)
>First there are discrepancies about who actually went to the tomb (was
>it just Mary Magdalene, or was it all three women?).
Answered, see above.
> Then there are discrepancies over the number of "men-in-white" or angels
that were at
>the tomb.
Looks to me like there is Two. Where's the problem?
>Finally, you can see how the story was being embellished from
>having the stone already moved and a man-in-white,
Never does it say, "ONLY" one man or angel.
>to the stone already
>moved and TWO men-in-white who "gleamed like lightning", to finally a
>violent earthquake and an angel of the Lord coming down from heaven.
Actually this is where studying the original tenses helps out. The English
isn't quite as clear as Greek.
>Read it objectively - can't you see the making of a legend?
No. What I see is distraught women, thinking that someone stole Jesus body.
The real interesting mystery is how Jesus' body actually left if the story
is inaccurate. Here we have a group of Roman guards. Then the huge heavy
stone. It would take something stronger than the guards, and the stone to
remove the body. And if that was done, don't you think such would have made
head lines of that day, and would have squeched any claim by these upstart
Christ followers, that he was raised from the dead. Rather, we would have
heard that it was a big fraud.
The other thing that strikes me as completely non-legend like, is the fact
that the disciples didn't believe these women. They hid in a locked room,
afraid for their lives. Here, Jesus' body is stolen, they think, and the
authorities will be out looking for them, so they are hiding for their
lives. This is right in line with our human emotions, and what we would
expect. But, then as result of events that I'm sure any Atheist would
dispute, Jesus appeared to them, as a group. And suddenly, as if overnight.
They turned from timid little former believers/followers, to a group of
people who were so bold they stood up to the authorities of that day and
even established the Christian Church. All of whom gladly died for their
cause, except John. Now, if the cause of such a psychological transformation
was a legend, it must have been a good one. It seems far more rational to
think that the cause was a real event that they all witnessed first hand.
>
>Remember too that this is by no means the only contradictions between
>the gospels. There are many others, which I don't have time to list.
>Although if you go to a search engine and search under "biblical
>errancy" you will find such a list.
>
>Also, I have read Who Moved The Stone? and the author (Frank Morrison)
>does not address any of these issues. There is also quite a scathing
>critique of the book lying on the net somewhere.
>
>> As far as contradictions between them. They are insurmountable deal
>> breakers. Just because two different witnesses describe the same even
>> in different ways doesn't mean they are contradictory.
>
>Was the stone moved or unmoved? No matter how you describe the event, or
>whichever way you look at it (through Mary's eyes or through Peter's
>eyes) the stone is either moved or unmoved. If Mark saw a moved stone
>and Matthew saw an unmoved stone, and they both claimed to see the same
>event, I doubt that there is a judge that would accept their testimony.
Answered above.
>
>
>> Jewish Doctrine is based on the Torah and the writings contained what
>> we call the Old Testament, or "Old Contract". Christ taught directly
>> from these documents. And he was Jewish, and all of his early
>> followers were also.
>
>Yes, I agree with all this. But note too that the teachings of Christ
>stray quite far away from traditional Jewish teachings. Eg. Keeping the
>sabbath, women's inferiority as compared to men, etc.
"Stray quite far away" from the traditional teachings, yes. From the OT, no.
Even today we have "traditional" teachers, that teach a lot of things not
taught in the Bible.
>
>> The fact that the Jews of that time were expecting a Messiah to
>> deliver them from the Romans doesn't mean they were correct in their
>> thinking.
>
>No, but it means that Messianic prophecies are too vague and ambigious,
>and hence practically useless. If the Jews - who studied the Torah more
>than any other people - could not decipher the prophecies, who could?
Well, as is common, people want to have a conclusion. They will read
prophecies and try and fit them into what they know. Saying, "I don't know"
is not an easy thing to say, for some reason. They missed a few key issues.
One was that the Messiah was to suffer. They focused on the fact that he
would deliver them. Which is human nature.
Are they practically useless because they are too vague. I think some are.
Others I've heard are very specific. But, I'm not "into" prophecy, so to
speak.
A good example is the Y2K thing. Some Christians are really going overboard,
proclaiming the end is *really* near, etc. etc. Well, my response is, I
don't know. More of an agnostic response you might say.
>
>> In fact, God didn't do that, so it would appear that they weren't >
>correct were they?
>
>You are guilty of circular logic here. You are in effect using the
>gospels, to "prove" the gospels. Eg, Jesus is the Messiah because the
>gospels said he was, and the gospels are accurate because Jesus said
>they were. In any case, you are basing the above statement on your
>unproven premise that the gospels are accurate.
Not exactly. History shows that God didn't deliver them from the Romans as
they were teaching the Messiah would do.
>
>> Third, Jesus did die, but not for more than three days. If this wasn't
>> the case, the Jews of that era would have made it known to everyone.
>
>There are a host of hypotheses to answer this argument, from Jesus being
>resuscitated to another human taking Jesus' place. Many scholars (one of
>them being Barbara Thiering) support the former hypothesis because the
>word used for "resurrection" in the original scriptures is more
>accurately translated into English as "resuscitation".
Too bad that is false information.
>
>Also, I thought I'd bring in another contradiction or failed prophecy.
>Jesus told the Jews that no sign will be given to them except the sign
>of Jonah. Now Jonah, as you will know, was swallowed up by a fish (must
>have been a big fish) for three days and three nights. Jesus died for
>three days but only TWO nights as recorded by the bible. Hence, another
>failed prophecy.
Not exactly. Jesus also said, "on the third day..." Indicating that he will
be in the tomb in any part of three days. Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday
Morning. The phrase "day and night" doesn't have to mean 72 hours. It is
also used in the OT as figure of speech meaning any part of three days.
>
>> >> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
>> >
>> >Oh no, not another Josh McDowell book. I'd rather listen to Cliff
>> >Richard's Millenium Prayer 24 hours a day.
>>
>> Hey that sounds like fun!
>
>Please, tell me your joking!
Who is Cliff Richard?
take care,
dan
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> Deeply sorry, I was thinking Thomas all the while it was actually
> Barnabas.
I located one of the books on the Gospel of Thomas (The Unathorized
Version by Robin Lane Fox pp.148-150) and the opinion of many scholars
is that the Gospel of Thomas is at least as accurate as the bible four,
if not more so. Scholars have dated the Gospel of Thomas to be mid
second century and "probably earlier still". Yet the church, who
carefully screens the gospels for their inclusion in the bible, did not
like the teachings of the Gospel of Thomas - among others - and hence
branded it heretical.
So what we have here are numerous accounts of Jesus which contradict
each other. The church selects four that suits its purpose and condemns
the others as heretical. Now if this does not seem like a man-made
religion, I don't know what does.
Another quote: "There is general agreement among scholars that the four
gospels were not written by eyewitness or disciples of Jesus."
> The resurrection story is the very foundation to Christianity. For
> example. It's even found in Mark 16:6 which is not apart of the
> questionable section. It's in every single book in the New Testament.
> It permeates it. "For if Christ is not raised...."
This does not address the issue of the gospel writers copying each other
nor does it address the issue of why early manuscripts of Mark do not
include 16:9-20.
The problem with your reasoning is that you interpret everything though
the contorted view of NT teachings. Obviously the books in the NT are
going to preach the same doctrine of Christ's ressurection because
that's why they were selected in the first place! Your assertion that
"the resurrection story is the very foundation of Christianity" is a
narrow-minded view because you are only referring to Christianity today.
Before Constantine there existed many, many different Christian sects
(of which the Gnostics was one). Not all of them preached a
resurrection. Some of the ones that did, did not even preach a bodily
resurrection but a spirtitual one. The amalgamation of all these
different sects into one universal or catholic Christian religion was a
tedious and often bitter process, with the teachers of each sect
constantly bickering over doctrine. In the end it made no difference
since many sect leaders continued to preach their own particular flavour
of Christianity. The Christian church today has been manipulated in the
past by men to conform to their fickle views - any book on the history
of the church will tell you that.
> No contradiction here. Just because they mentioned seeing one, doesn't
> mean that there wasn't another. They mentioned the one with which they
> were talking to. The fact that they didn't say he was an angel,
> doesn't mean he wasn't. A man dressed in white, telling them about
> God. Hmmm...if it walks like a duck...
All these endeavours to reconcile the differences are feeble. If three
women went to the tomb, and I as a reporter only recorded one or two of
them, what does that say about my reporting skills and the accuracy of
my reports? If I am able to make these mistakes in one section of my
report, who is to say that I have not made mistakes in the other
sections?
In attempting to reconcile these differences, you are in effect saying
that all four gospel writers were lousy, inaccurate and totally
unreliable historians. Although they saw two angels/men, they only
record one of them. For the life of them, they could not differentiate
between a mighty angel and a man. Although all three women went to the
tomb (as you contend) some only recorded one and others two. Although
the angel was sitting on the rock as he spoke to Mary et al (Matthew)
the other gospel writers prefer to place him sitting inside the tomb.
And yet after all these errors, you still believe their words?
Hmmm ... if it sounds like a scam, smells like a scam ...
Note I use the term "ONLY" by exclusiveness.
> No. What I see is distraught women, thinking that someone stole Jesus
> body. The real interesting mystery is how Jesus' body actually left if
> the story is inaccurate. Here we have a group of Roman guards. Then >
the huge heavy stone. It would take something stronger than the >
guards, and the stone to remove the body. And if that was done, don't >
you think such would have made head lines of that day, and would have >
squeched any claim by these upstart Christ followers, that he was >
raised from the dead. Rather, we would have heard that it was a big >
fraud.
All this is irrevelant seeing that the validity of the gospels is under
question in the first place. How do we even know if the resurrection and
what follows even occured? If Jesus and his resurrection indeed occured,
how come Roman historians (who were gods compared to Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John) gave him such scant attention and space in their writings?
Remember that scholars are generally agreed that the gospels were NOT
written by eyewitnesses or any of Jesus' disciples.
>All of whom gladly died for their cause, except John. Now, if the cause
>of such a psychological transformation was a legend, it must have been
>a good one. It seems far more rational to think that the cause was a
>real event that they all witnessed first hand.
Muhammad gave up a life of wealth and riches to preach his Koran. He
risked his life fighting for his ideas. Although he could not read nor
write, he was able to dictate the Koran (widely held to be one of the
greatest works of literature). Unlike the Christian bible, the Koran is
relatively devoid of errors and has been preserved in its original form
up till present day. It has not been tampered with, and reads exactly
the same today as when Muhammad recited it off by heart 600 after
Christ. Does this make the Koran the "truth"?
> >Yes, I agree with all this. But note too that the teachings of Christ
> >stray quite far away from traditional Jewish teachings. Eg. Keeping
> >the sabbath, women's inferiority as compared to men, etc.
>
> "Stray quite far away" from the traditional teachings, yes. From the
> OT, no. Even today we have "traditional" teachers, that teach a lot of
> things not taught in the Bible.
Wrong, Jewish teachings ARE OT teachings! There is no difference! Or, if
you contend that there are differences, what are they?
The fact of the matter is Jesus strayed far away from OT teachings. The
two most blatant examples I can think of are fasting and keeping the
sabbath, although these are by no means the only ones.
> Well, as is common, people want to have a conclusion. They will read
> prophecies and try and fit them into what they know.
The exact same thing can be said about Christians today and their
interpretation of Messianic prophecies.
> They missed a few key issues. One was that the Messiah was to suffer.
> They focused on the fact that he would deliver them. Which is human >
nature.
You are referring to Isiah's prophecies here? Messianic prophecies
themselves are under question, and there is much debate about what the
prophecy is actually saying and whether it even refers to a messiah at
all.
> >There are a host of hypotheses to answer this argument, from Jesus
> >being resuscitated to another human taking Jesus' place. Many
> >scholars (one of them being Barbara Thiering) support the former
> >hypothesis because the word used for "resurrection" in the original
> >scriptures is more accurately translated into English as
> >"resuscitation".
>
> Too bad that is false information.
Says who?
> Not exactly. Jesus also said, "on the third day..." Indicating that he
> will be in the tomb in any part of three days. Friday night, >
Saturday, and Sunday Morning.
I'm referring to Mt 12:39-41 and Lk 11:29-32. Jesus is referring to the
sign of Jonah, who for three days and nights lived in the belly of a
fish.
> The phrase "day and night" doesn't have to mean 72 hours. It is also
> used in the OT as figure of speech meaning any part of three days.
This is wrong. Where did you get this from? In any case, if Jesus was
referring to three days and two nights - why did he say the "sign of
Jonah"? Why not simply say three days and two nights?
Interestingly (or perhaps predictably) at the time of the bible's
compilation the church intended to cut out the book of Jonah because of
this very prophecy.
I recommend that you vary your reading a little more. If you always read
Christian books (C.S. Lewis, Philip Yancy, J.I. Packer et al) you will
always see things from a Christian perspective. If you read about other
religions (Islam and Bhuddism for example) you will see (as I did) how
insignificant Christianity is.
> >> >> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
> >> >
> >> >Oh no, not another Josh McDowell book. I'd rather listen to Cliff
> >> >Richard's Millenium Prayer 24 hours a day.
> >>
> >> Hey that sounds like fun!
> >
> >Please, tell me your joking!
>
> Who is Cliff Richard?
>
Pop singer, who was quite popular in the 70s. Definitely not music for
Generation Next ...
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> The statements, about the earthquake, the angel's arival, and the
> stone being moved are all in "Past perfect tense". Meaning they were
> already accomplished when they arrived. For example, the text reads
> literally, "There was a great earth quake"...[angel] "having descended
> out of heaven,"..."having come rolled away the stone..."
>
> Then the next statement is the first one in present tense. "and was
> sitting on it [the stone]"
>
> The apparent contradiction disappears when it's read with the proper
> tense in mind. (of course using a Greek interlinear helps.)
Quoted directly from http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html
Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be
understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the
women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past)
tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account.
Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can
be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the
flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?
dan Hughes
----------
In article <385C6178...@charybdis1.net>, "J. Thomas Ford"
<fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
>dan Hughes wrote:
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: "J. Thomas Ford" <fo...@charybdis1.net>
>> >Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism
>> >Subject: Re: Keeping the faith
>> >Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999, 10:25 AM
>> >
>>
>> >dan Hughes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ----------
>> >> In article <38583570...@charybdis1.net>, "J. Thomas Ford"
>> >> <fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >dan Hughes wrote:
>> >> >>
>> ><snippage>
>> >
[snip]
>> >
>> >Really? Where did monogamy come from? The infallibility of the Church?
>>
>> Monogamy was created by God in the beginning. Adam and Eve.
>
>Official Genesis claims that a breeding pair was created first. It says
>nothing about what happens when more partners are available.
Right, but an example was set forth. One male, and one female. Further, when
the sons grew up they took one wife. Further, when Noah entered the Ark with
his family, he had his wife, and each son had their one wife. An example.
>
>> Further God
>> commanded it in Deut. 17:17.
>
>It is set forth not two verses earlier that these rules apply
>specifically to the King of Israel.
The point here is simple. God *never* commanded polygamy, but he did command
monogomy. You are correct, this particular commandment was directed at their
King.
>
>Also, a better translation than the KJV's ambiguous "multiplicity" would
>be "a large number." An Israelite king was forbidden to have more than
>eighteen wives (Sanhedrin 21b; Yad, Melakhim 3:2).
These aren't from the OT.
>BTW- the KJV would have the King of Israel own no more than one horse as
>well, if the word "multiplicity" means "more than one."
>
>> God never commanded polygamy, rather through
>> out the OT God repeatedly warns against polygamy.
>
>Where?
Deut. 17:17 mentioned above.
1 Kings 11:2 King Solomon was judged for not following Gods commandment.
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Nor can it be claimed that the writer
>> >> >> was the same Thomas of the New Testament.
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't. But, then, the same can be said for the canoniacal gospels, as
>> >> >well.
>> >>
>> >> Not if you honestly compare the evidence of both.
>> >
>> >Really? What evidence exists for the authorship of the Big Four being
>> >that of the Apostles who bear the same name?
>>
>> You want me to go through each and everyone?
>
>Pick a point and start.
OK, How about the Book of Luke. It appears to be a companion volume with the
Book of Acts, written to the same person, by the same author.
The book of Acts continues the story line of Luke. And in certain sections
of the Book of Acts the usage of "WE" saw, "WE" did, etc. is used. Speaking
in the first person, Luke reveals himself as Luke the Physician.
Ok.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> >Where is the evidence for the historical accuracy of
>> >> >the Big Four?
>> >>
>> >> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
>> >
>> >Yes. The Jesuits apologentsia is more scholarly, but even they don't
>> >have much in the way of objectivity. Where is the evidence for the
>> >historical accuracy of the Big Four?
>>
>> There are all sorts of historical clues and references, to list them all
>> would be too time consuming. How about a focus on one book, or a problem
>> area?
>
>The census. Choose any of the Big Four for it's description (or all of
>them, generally), then attempt to establish histriocity from
>non-Biblical sources.
why non-biblical sources only?
dan Hughes
----------
>
>
>
>> The statements, about the earthquake, the angel's arival, and the
>> stone being moved are all in "Past perfect tense". Meaning they were
>> already accomplished when they arrived. For example, the text reads
>> literally, "There was a great earth quake"...[angel] "having descended
>> out of heaven,"..."having come rolled away the stone..."
>>
>> Then the next statement is the first one in present tense. "and was
>> sitting on it [the stone]"
>>
>> The apparent contradiction disappears when it's read with the proper
>> tense in mind. (of course using a Greek interlinear helps.)
>
>Quoted directly from http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html
>
>Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be
>understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the
>women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past)
>tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account.
>Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can
>be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the
>flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?
First a little Greek lesson.
³The tense which in the indicative is used as the simple past tense is
called the aorist. It will be studied in Lesson XIV.
The tense which denotes continued action in past time is called the
imperfect.
The aorist active indicative of (LUO) means I loosed, etc., whereas the
imperfect active indicative means I was loosing, etc. This distinction
should be carefully observed.² (New Testament Greek for Beginners, Machen
1923, pg.65)
In Lesson XIV he notes, ³The past time distinction is carefully made; the
Greek language show no tendency whatever to confuse the aorist with the
imperfect.² (pg. 82)
Matt. 28:2: ³And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the
door, and sat upon it." (as cited from the Web site given above)
****Now from what we learned the tense must be imperfect, not aorist.
Inorder for your web quote to be correct. Yet, he even admits that it is in
the aorist form.***
First whats the tense of ³there was a great earthquake²?
The word in question is ³was². In the Greek this word, (GINOMAI) is dealt
with in Machin. It¹s not a simple ³was² verb. Rather, it¹s litteral meaning
is, ³appeared in history². And in the form as found in this passage
(EGENETO) does indicate it is in aorist tense. Meaning that the earthquake
had already occured "in history" or completed.
Second, the tense of ³descended²?
The word descended is translated from the Greek word KATABAINO. Now if it
was in the imperfect past tense it would have to have the ending ³UE². But
it does not, it has the ending ³AS², as in ³KATABAS². Now what does this
indicate? According to Machen the ending indicates it¹s in aorist tense
(pg.82).
So from this we learned that the Angel had already descended. It was a
completed action by the time the women arrived.
Third, the tense of ³came²:
The word is PROSERKOMAI. I came. If this word was in the Imperfect tense, it
would have an ³ESTO² ending. Instead it has an ³ON² ending indicating it is
in the aorist tense. A completed event.
Fourth, the tense of ³Rolled back²
The word APOKULIZO, if it were in the imperfect tense would have an ³UE²
ending. Instead we see that it has an ³SEN² ending. Indicating aorist tense.
Meaning that the rolling back of the stone was a completed act, before the
women arrived.
In summary. There is no contradiction between the different accounts. When
read in the Greek, they clearly state that the events mentioned have already
occured before they arrived. They are stated as ³completed² events in the
past, not as ongoing events. If this were so, they would have to be in the
imperfect tense, not the aorist tense.
take care,
dan
J. Thomas Ford
>
> ----------
> In article <385C6178...@charybdis1.net>, "J. Thomas Ford"
> <fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
>
> >dan Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> >From: "J. Thomas Ford" <fo...@charybdis1.net>
> >> >Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism
> >> >Subject: Re: Keeping the faith
> >> >Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999, 10:25 AM
> >> >
> >>
> >> >dan Hughes wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ----------
> >> >> In article <38583570...@charybdis1.net>, "J. Thomas Ford"
> >> >> <fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >dan Hughes wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> ><snippage>
> >> >
> [snip]
>
> >> >
> >> >Really? Where did monogamy come from? The infallibility of the Church?
> >>
> >> Monogamy was created by God in the beginning. Adam and Eve.
> >
> >Official Genesis claims that a breeding pair was created first. It says
> >nothing about what happens when more partners are available.
>
> Right, but an example was set forth.
And no law was given. Why are you reading Laws (with a captitol "L")
into the Bible where none exist?
> One male, and one female. Further, when
> the sons grew up they took one wife. Further, when Noah entered the Ark with
> his family, he had his wife, and each son had their one wife. An example.
Why, exactly, are you ignoring the majority of patriarchs, kings and
heroes that *did* take more than one wife?
> >
> >> Further God
> >> commanded it in Deut. 17:17.
> >
> >It is set forth not two verses earlier that these rules apply
> >specifically to the King of Israel.
>
> The point here is simple. God *never* commanded polygamy, but he did command
> monogomy.
Where?
> You are correct, this particular commandment was directed at their
> King.
>
> >
> >Also, a better translation than the KJV's ambiguous "multiplicity" would
> >be "a large number." An Israelite king was forbidden to have more than
> >eighteen wives (Sanhedrin 21b; Yad, Melakhim 3:2).
>
> These aren't from the OT.
These are laws that governed the kings of Israel. I thought it might be
easier than requiring you to learn a new language to see how badly the
"scholars" that made the KJV screwed up their translation.
At any rate, the use of the word "multiplicity" is at question, here.
Why do you believe that this passage means no more than one wife?
> >BTW- the KJV would have the King of Israel own no more than one horse as
> >well, if the word "multiplicity" means "more than one."
Are you skipping this? BTW- this verse was screwed up royally by the KJV
"translators" as well- the original wording is *not* similar to the
passage concerning wives, despite what appears in the KJV.
> >> God never commanded polygamy, rather through
> >> out the OT God repeatedly warns against polygamy.
> >
> >Where?
>
> Deut. 17:17 mentioned above.
No.
> 1 Kings 11:2 King Solomon was judged for not following Gods commandment.
...to not intermarry with another nationality. It does not imply that
YHWH would be anything less than pleased if he had stuck to 18 good
Hebrew lassies.
...not that he did.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Nor can it be claimed that the writer
> >> >> >> was the same Thomas of the New Testament.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I didn't. But, then, the same can be said for the canoniacal gospels, as
> >> >> >well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not if you honestly compare the evidence of both.
> >> >
> >> >Really? What evidence exists for the authorship of the Big Four being
> >> >that of the Apostles who bear the same name?
> >>
> >> You want me to go through each and everyone?
> >
> >Pick a point and start.
>
> OK, How about the Book of Luke. It appears to be a companion volume with the
> Book of Acts, written to the same person, by the same author.
I'm not seeing it. Are you using patterns of speech (writing style) to
come to this conclusion?
> The book of Acts continues the story line of Luke. And in certain sections
> of the Book of Acts the usage of "WE" saw, "WE" did, etc. is used. Speaking
> in the first person, Luke reveals himself as Luke the Physician.
IOW, you believe that there is a single author of both Luke and Acts and
that he is tacitly claiming to be the Luke prominently mentioned
therein.
What is offered as evidence that this is true?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hence it has either brought a
> >> >> >> totally new revelation with it that wipes out all of Jewish
> >thought, or it's
> >> >> >> made up it's own religion unto itself.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Both Statements are true about both the Gnostic Gospels and the Big
> >> >> >Four. That doesn't seem to bother modern Christians.
> >> >>
> >> >> Christianity, as opposed to gnostic teachings. Fits squarely with the
> >> >> writings and prophecies of the OT.
> >> >
> >> >Not as far as I can tell, though I've seen some amazing apologentsia
> >> >gymnastics attempting to esablish that.
> >> >
> >> >> The fact that some Jewish leaders didn't
> >> >> believe doesn't mean that jewish thought was wiped out. Gnostics and Jewish
> >> >> Mystics, are in the same boat.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not really getting how this responds to the above. Care to clarify?
> >>
> >> The fact that Jewish mystics existed at the same time, didn't wipe out
> >> Jewish thought, so to, neither does Gnostic ideas.
> >
> >I don't recall ever claiming any of this. Why do you bring it up?
Well?
> >> >
> >> >> >> The later is far more plausible.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> AS to the point of Killing anyone who disagrees with the Church. I'm sorry
> >> >> >> if this would disuade you from believing the truth,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It didn't keep you from assuming your conclusions-such as assuming the
> >> >> >Big Four have more than a passing resemblance to The Truth(tm).
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe based on historical facts. You find something "untrue" in the "big
> >> >> four"?
> >> >
> >> >I find little evidence to support the Big Four as historically accurate,
> >> >period.
> >>
> >> Tell me one or two of your favorite innacuracies.
> >
> >What part of "I find little evidence to support" do you not understand?
Well?
> >> >
<snip>
> >> Just because they made mistakes doesn't nullify the truth. The
> >> trustworthyness of the message that was given them is still intack. Why
> >> judge the message based on what the messenger looks like or does?
> >
> >I don't recall doing that. I *do* recall noting that their methods have
> >hoplessly muddied the historical verification process, and that the
> >malicious actions of the early church prevent us from simply "taking
> >their word" about it.
> >
> >> The
> >> message didn't originate with the messengers.
> >
> >Dan, Dan- you have yet to establish the origins of the "message." That's
> >the point of this conversation.
>
> Ok.
Ah! Communication!
<snip>
> >> There are all sorts of historical clues and references, to list them all
> >> would be too time consuming. How about a focus on one book, or a problem
> >> area?
> >
> >The census. Choose any of the Big Four for it's description (or all of
> >them, generally), then attempt to establish histriocity from
> >non-Biblical sources.
>
> why non-biblical sources only?
Using Biblical sources to support claims made in the Bible is:
a) Circular.
b) Evidence that someone believed that such events happened, not that
they actually did.
Objective evidence in support of the histriocity of the alleged census
would be found in contemporaneous roman or Hebrew records, or perhaps
obliquely through mention in the records of surrounding civilizations,
especially records that show no signs of more recent editing or
tampering.
dan Hughes
----------
>From: sam_p...@my-deja.com
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism
>Subject: Re: Keeping the faith
>
>
>
>> Deeply sorry, I was thinking Thomas all the while it was actually
>> Barnabas.
>
>I located one of the books on the Gospel of Thomas (The Unathorized
>Version by Robin Lane Fox pp.148-150) and the opinion of many scholars
>is that the Gospel of Thomas is at least as accurate as the bible four,
>if not more so. Scholars have dated the Gospel of Thomas to be mid
>second century and "probably earlier still". Yet the church, who
>carefully screens the gospels for their inclusion in the bible, did not
>like the teachings of the Gospel of Thomas - among others - and hence
>branded it heretical.
I found an exerpt in my bible dictionary. Interesting. I'm sure the early
church had it's reasons for not including it in the cannon.
>So what we have here are numerous accounts of Jesus which contradict
>each other.
No, *we* don't you have an opinion that this is the case. You've not proved
your case at all.
>The church selects four that suits its purpose and condemns
>the others as heretical. Now if this does not seem like a man-made
>religion, I don't know what does.
It may seem that way to you. But the Church obviously had different criteria
than you consider relevant. They were interested in authenticity.
>
>Another quote: "There is general agreement among scholars that the four
>gospels were not written by eyewitness or disciples of Jesus."
Arguement from Generality. Who are these scholars?
>> The resurrection story is the very foundation to Christianity. For
>> example. It's even found in Mark 16:6 which is not apart of the
>> questionable section. It's in every single book in the New Testament.
>> It permeates it. "For if Christ is not raised...."
>
>This does not address the issue of the gospel writers copying each other
>nor does it address the issue of why early manuscripts of Mark do not
>include 16:9-20.
First you've not said what the problems are with them copying each other.
Further, you've not stated that copying is either bad nor good. Rather, your
contention seems to be that if the stories contradict then they can't be
trusted. If you think they were copied one from another, don't you think
that they would be duplicates of each other?
Second, as you can read in any expository, the section wasn't in the oldest
manuscripts. So what. There are two views; one is that it should be included
because it was apart of the "received text" (Textus Receptus). The other is
that it shouldn't be included because it's not apart of the oldest group of
manuscripts we have. It's a real non issue, because removal of it takes
nothing away from the Doctrines of the bible. So, what's your point?
>
>The problem with your reasoning is that you interpret everything though
>the contorted view of NT teachings. Obviously the books in the NT are
>going to preach the same doctrine of Christ's ressurection because
>that's why they were selected in the first place! Your assertion that
>"the resurrection story is the very foundation of Christianity" is a
>narrow-minded view because you are only referring to Christianity today.
>Before Constantine there existed many, many different Christian sects
>(of which the Gnostics was one). Not all of them preached a
>resurrection. Some of the ones that did, did not even preach a bodily
>resurrection but a spirtitual one. The amalgamation of all these
>different sects into one universal or catholic Christian religion was a
>tedious and often bitter process, with the teachers of each sect
>constantly bickering over doctrine. In the end it made no difference
>since many sect leaders continued to preach their own particular flavour
>of Christianity. The Christian church today has been manipulated in the
>past by men to conform to their fickle views - any book on the history
>of the church will tell you that.
Any study of man will tell you that men don't often agree on everything. The
big difference with your arguement and the ones that the early church had
forming the Cannon, was that we have access to much more information than
they did. They already accepted the fact that Jesus was ressurected, which
you don't, their disagreement was how and what form it took.
Further the fact that you are able know about these events disproves your
point that the Church has hidden all this from us. Fact is, that it is the
Church that has preserved many of the documents that you are speaking about.
>> No contradiction here. Just because they mentioned seeing one, doesn't
>> mean that there wasn't another. They mentioned the one with which they
>> were talking to. The fact that they didn't say he was an angel,
>> doesn't mean he wasn't. A man dressed in white, telling them about
>> God. Hmmm...if it walks like a duck...
>
>All these endeavours to reconcile the differences are feeble. If three
>women went to the tomb, and I as a reporter only recorded one or two of
>them, what does that say about my reporting skills and the accuracy of
>my reports? If I am able to make these mistakes in one section of my
>report, who is to say that I have not made mistakes in the other
>sections?
Who said the writers were reporters? They never claimed to be such. Not I.
Not the Church. You are judging them with a "modern" mind set, as though
they are supposed to meet your standards of modern investigative reporting
before you consider them trustworthy. But, you have to remember their
historical/cultural context, not your own. They were writing to a specific
group of people, each Gospel writer to a different group. Hence, they are
emphasizing different aspects of the story to make a point and are not
contradicting each other as you suppose. Notice that Jesus is raised in
physical form in each of them. No contradiction, when read in context.
>In attempting to reconcile these differences, you are in effect saying
>that all four gospel writers were lousy, inaccurate and totally
>unreliable historians. Although they saw two angels/men, they only
>record one of them. For the life of them, they could not differentiate
>between a mighty angel and a man. Although all three women went to the
>tomb (as you contend) some only recorded one and others two. Although
>the angel was sitting on the rock as he spoke to Mary et al (Matthew)
>the other gospel writers prefer to place him sitting inside the tomb.
>And yet after all these errors, you still believe their words?
Again you make errors in assuming that each is telling about the exact same
time. You don't know if they actually spoke to the angel twice, once in the
tomb, and once outside.
Further, just because you think you can tell the difference between an
angel, doesn't mean that they could. What does an angel look like? How is it
that it's so easy to tell?
>
>Hmmm ... if it sounds like a scam, smells like a scam ...
>
>Note I use the term "ONLY" by exclusiveness.
What? You added it. It's not in the text.
>
>
>> No. What I see is distraught women, thinking that someone stole Jesus
>> body. The real interesting mystery is how Jesus' body actually left if
>> the story is inaccurate. Here we have a group of Roman guards. Then >
>the huge heavy stone. It would take something stronger than the >
>guards, and the stone to remove the body. And if that was done, don't >
>you think such would have made head lines of that day, and would have >
>squeched any claim by these upstart Christ followers, that he was >
>raised from the dead. Rather, we would have heard that it was a big >
>fraud.
>
>All this is irrevelant seeing that the validity of the gospels is under
>question in the first place. How do we even know if the resurrection and
>what follows even occured? If Jesus and his resurrection indeed occured,
>how come Roman historians (who were gods compared to Matthew, Mark, Luke
>and John) gave him such scant attention and space in their writings?
It's possible you may not have known this, but the Romans hated the
Christians. Reason enough for any historian to exlude wasting time, energy
and paper talking about them.
>
>Remember that scholars are generally agreed that the gospels were NOT
>written by eyewitnesses or any of Jesus' disciples.
Remember that just mentioning scholars carries no weight what so ever.
>>All of whom gladly died for their cause, except John. Now, if the cause
>>of such a psychological transformation was a legend, it must have been
>>a good one. It seems far more rational to think that the cause was a
>>real event that they all witnessed first hand.
>
>Muhammad gave up a life of wealth and riches to preach his Koran. He
>risked his life fighting for his ideas. Although he could not read nor
>write, he was able to dictate the Koran (widely held to be one of the
>greatest works of literature). Unlike the Christian bible, the Koran is
>relatively devoid of errors and has been preserved in its original form
>up till present day. It has not been tampered with, and reads exactly
>the same today as when Muhammad recited it off by heart 600 after
>Christ. Does this make the Koran the "truth"?
Joseph Smith did a very similar thing, he received the whole book of morman,
yet produced no documentation. But, neither Muhammed, nor Joseph Smith ever
claimed to have risen from the dead, nor do their followers ever claim that.
Further, none of the followers of either claim that for them. Jesus did
claim that he would, and then he did, and then those who saw him after he
died, even unbelievers who saw him, claimed that he rose from the dead.
>> >Yes, I agree with all this. But note too that the teachings of Christ
>> >stray quite far away from traditional Jewish teachings. Eg. Keeping
>> >the sabbath, women's inferiority as compared to men, etc.
>>
>> "Stray quite far away" from the traditional teachings, yes. From the
>> OT, no. Even today we have "traditional" teachers, that teach a lot of
>> things not taught in the Bible.
>
>Wrong, Jewish teachings ARE OT teachings! There is no difference! Or, if
>you contend that there are differences, what are they?
The pharisees and the saducees had many teachings that were not in the OT.
Your not familiar with them? What about what they could and could not do on
the Sabath. Jesus healed a man's arm on the Sabath, and they said he sinned.
Yet, he didn't break any laws except the ones they made up.
>
>The fact of the matter is Jesus strayed far away from OT teachings. The
>two most blatant examples I can think of are fasting and keeping the
>sabbath, although these are by no means the only ones.
Please cite an example. Because he also explained himself, to the accusing
jews at the time.
>
>
>> Well, as is common, people want to have a conclusion. They will read
>> prophecies and try and fit them into what they know.
>
>The exact same thing can be said about Christians today and their
>interpretation of Messianic prophecies.
If Christ is not raised, I would agree.
>> They missed a few key issues. One was that the Messiah was to suffer.
>> They focused on the fact that he would deliver them. Which is human >
>nature.
>
>You are referring to Isiah's prophecies here? Messianic prophecies
>themselves are under question, and there is much debate about what the
>prophecy is actually saying and whether it even refers to a messiah at
>all.
By those who don't believe what Jesus said, of course it would be, the
window of time has passed, and if it's not the Romans who were to be
destroyed, and not refering to Jesus, then it must not be a Messianic
prophecies after all.
>> >There are a host of hypotheses to answer this argument, from Jesus
>> >being resuscitated to another human taking Jesus' place. Many
>> >scholars (one of them being Barbara Thiering) support the former
>> >hypothesis because the word used for "resurrection" in the original
>> >scriptures is more accurately translated into English as
>> >"resuscitation".
>>
>> Too bad that is false information.
>
>Says who?
You've got to be kidding. She offers no greek scholorship on the subject,
and yet people listen to her contorted views because they already have
decided that Jesus couldn't have raised from the dead, for what ever reason.
>> Not exactly. Jesus also said, "on the third day..." Indicating that he
>> will be in the tomb in any part of three days. Friday night, >
>Saturday, and Sunday Morning.
>
>I'm referring to Mt 12:39-41 and Lk 11:29-32. Jesus is referring to the
>sign of Jonah, who for three days and nights lived in the belly of a
>fish.
>
>> The phrase "day and night" doesn't have to mean 72 hours. It is also
>> used in the OT as figure of speech meaning any part of three days.
>
>This is wrong. Where did you get this from?
In Esther they fasted three days and nights (4:16), yet it wasn't 72 hours,
because it says, "on the third day... (5:1) they appeared before the king.
The phrase "day and night" is an idiom, it doesn't have to mean 24 hours.
When the Psalmst refers to meditating on the Word "day and night" he's not
saying a literal 24 hours of meditation. Rather any part of the day and
night. (Psalm 1:2)
>In any case, if Jesus was
>referring to three days and two nights - why did he say the "sign of
>Jonah"? Why not simply say three days and two nights?
Mt 12:39-41 and Lk 11:29-32. It was an analogy, an illustration. Using
something they know about (story of Jonah) to teach them about something
they don't know anything about, the ressurection.
Why use a Jewish idiom? Because that's the exact same idiom that was used in
the book of Jonah, with which they were familiar.
>Interestingly (or perhaps predictably) at the time of the bible's
>compilation the church intended to cut out the book of Jonah because of
>this very prophecy.
>
>I recommend that you vary your reading a little more. If you always read
>Christian books (C.S. Lewis, Philip Yancy, J.I. Packer et al) you will
>always see things from a Christian perspective. If you read about other
>religions (Islam and Bhuddism for example) you will see (as I did) how
>insignificant Christianity is.
Sure. In my debates with my Muslim friend, I found how difficult to believe
Islam was. The stories and contradictions, and claims made by Muslims are
incredible.
>> >> >> Ever read "evidence that demands a verdict"?
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh no, not another Josh McDowell book. I'd rather listen to Cliff
>> >> >Richard's Millenium Prayer 24 hours a day.
>> >>
>> >> Hey that sounds like fun!
>> >
>> >Please, tell me your joking!
>>
>> Who is Cliff Richard?
>>
>
>Pop singer, who was quite popular in the 70s. Definitely not music for
>Generation Next ...
Oh. I used to listen to DEVO, before I became a Christian. Now, I'm not much
of an audiophile at all. I don't even listen to Christian music.
take care,
dan
J. Thomas Ford
>
> ----------
> >From: sam_p...@my-deja.com
> >Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism
> >Subject: Re: Keeping the faith
> >Date: Mon, Dec 20, 1999, 6:43 AM
> >
>
> >
> >
> >> Deeply sorry, I was thinking Thomas all the while it was actually
> >> Barnabas.
> >
> >I located one of the books on the Gospel of Thomas (The Unathorized
> >Version by Robin Lane Fox pp.148-150) and the opinion of many scholars
> >is that the Gospel of Thomas is at least as accurate as the bible four,
> >if not more so. Scholars have dated the Gospel of Thomas to be mid
> >second century and "probably earlier still". Yet the church, who
> >carefully screens the gospels for their inclusion in the bible, did not
> >like the teachings of the Gospel of Thomas - among others - and hence
> >branded it heretical.
>
> I found an exerpt in my bible dictionary. Interesting. I'm sure the early
> church had it's reasons for not including it in the cannon.
Yes. The problem is, tose reasons don't seem to have much to do with the
accuracy of the text and everything to do with dogma.
> >So what we have here are numerous accounts of Jesus which contradict
> >each other.
>
> No, *we* don't you have an opinion that this is the case. You've not proved
> your case at all.
Heh. Dan, it's up to *you* to establish that the canoniacal gospels are
actually
> >The church selects four that suits its purpose and condemns
> >the others as heretical. Now if this does not seem like a man-made
> >religion, I don't know what does.
>
> It may seem that way to you. But the Church obviously had different criteria
> than you consider relevant.
"Does it re-inforce our poistion or not?"
> They were interested in authenticity.
That's funny- that's exactly what *I've* been interested in for the past
eighteen years or so.
> >
> >Another quote: "There is general agreement among scholars that the four
> >gospels were not written by eyewitness or disciples of Jesus."
>
> Arguement from Generality. Who are these scholars?
>
> >> The resurrection story is the very foundation to Christianity. For
> >> example. It's even found in Mark 16:6 which is not apart of the
> >> questionable section. It's in every single book in the New Testament.
> >> It permeates it. "For if Christ is not raised...."
> >
> >This does not address the issue of the gospel writers copying each other
> >nor does it address the issue of why early manuscripts of Mark do not
> >include 16:9-20.
>
> First you've not said what the problems are with them copying each other.
If they are copying each other, they are obvously *not* eyewitness
accounts.
> Further, you've not stated that copying is either bad nor good.
It doesn't lend any support to the histriocity of the stories contained
there in. Furthermore, it does lend support to the theory that the Big
Four were written after the fact under direction of church leaders,
rather than the alleged eyewitnesses, or were editorialized.
> Rather, your
> contention seems to be that if the stories contradict then they can't be
> trusted. If you think they were copied one from another, don't you think
> that they would be duplicates of each other?
>
> Second, as you can read in any expository, the section wasn't in the oldest
> manuscripts. So what.
That means there is indisputable evidence that the gospels in question
were edited.
> There are two views; one is that it should be included
> because it was apart of the "received text" (Textus Receptus). The other is
> that it shouldn't be included because it's not apart of the oldest group of
> manuscripts we have. It's a real non issue, because removal of it takes
> nothing away from the Doctrines of the bible.
It sure as hell shoots down the concept of the gospels being the
"literal, inspired Word of God."
> So, what's your point?
If one found fecal matter in the appetizer, one would be rather dubious
of the rest of the meal, no?
> >
> >The problem with your reasoning is that you interpret everything though
> >the contorted view of NT teachings. Obviously the books in the NT are
> >going to preach the same doctrine of Christ's ressurection because
> >that's why they were selected in the first place! Your assertion that
> >"the resurrection story is the very foundation of Christianity" is a
> >narrow-minded view because you are only referring to Christianity today.
> >Before Constantine there existed many, many different Christian sects
> >(of which the Gnostics was one). Not all of them preached a
> >resurrection. Some of the ones that did, did not even preach a bodily
> >resurrection but a spirtitual one. The amalgamation of all these
> >different sects into one universal or catholic Christian religion was a
> >tedious and often bitter process, with the teachers of each sect
> >constantly bickering over doctrine. In the end it made no difference
> >since many sect leaders continued to preach their own particular flavour
> >of Christianity. The Christian church today has been manipulated in the
> >past by men to conform to their fickle views - any book on the history
> >of the church will tell you that.
>
> Any study of man will tell you that men don't often agree on everything. The
> big difference with your arguement and the ones that the early church had
> forming the Cannon, was that we have access to much more information than
> they did. They already accepted the fact that Jesus was ressurected, which
> you don't, their disagreement was how and what form it took.
Indeed. Assuming one's conclusions makes life much easier, no?
> Further the fact that you are able know about these events disproves your
> point that the Church has hidden all this from us. Fact is, that it is the
> Church that has preserved many of the documents that you are speaking about.
Are you meaning to tell us that the vatican had a copy of all those
gnostic gospels unearthed in 1948 all this time? Why didn't anyone else
know about it if, as you maintain, they weren't hiding them, then?
> >> No contradiction here. Just because they mentioned seeing one, doesn't
> >> mean that there wasn't another. They mentioned the one with which they
> >> were talking to. The fact that they didn't say he was an angel,
> >> doesn't mean he wasn't. A man dressed in white, telling them about
> >> God. Hmmm...if it walks like a duck...
> >
> >All these endeavours to reconcile the differences are feeble. If three
> >women went to the tomb, and I as a reporter only recorded one or two of
> >them, what does that say about my reporting skills and the accuracy of
> >my reports? If I am able to make these mistakes in one section of my
> >report, who is to say that I have not made mistakes in the other
> >sections?
>
> Who said the writers were reporters? They never claimed to be such. Not I.
> Not the Church. You are judging them with a "modern" mind set, as though
> they are supposed to meet your standards of modern investigative reporting
> before you consider them trustworthy. But, you have to remember their
> historical/cultural context, not your own. They were writing to a specific
> group of people, each Gospel writer to a different group. Hence, they are
> emphasizing different aspects of the story to make a point and are not
> contradicting each other as you suppose. Notice that Jesus is raised in
> physical form in each of them. No contradiction, when read in context.
Sure, sure. Because you already believe them, you are asking for special
consideration when we consider the "official" gospels.
Drek.
Not especially, since the events in question were supposedly so
remarkable.
Also, some events, such as the eclipse and earthquake, would have been
recorded without any reference to the execution of yet another messiah,
and yet they are not- either by the Romans or any of the surrounding
cultures. Why is this?
> >
> >Remember that scholars are generally agreed that the gospels were NOT
> >written by eyewitnesses or any of Jesus' disciples.
>
> Remember that just mentioning scholars carries no weight what so ever.
Remember that you have yet to establish the works' histriocity to begin
with.
> >>All of whom gladly died for their cause, except John. Now, if the cause
> >>of such a psychological transformation was a legend, it must have been
> >>a good one. It seems far more rational to think that the cause was a
> >>real event that they all witnessed first hand.
> >
> >Muhammad gave up a life of wealth and riches to preach his Koran. He
> >risked his life fighting for his ideas. Although he could not read nor
> >write, he was able to dictate the Koran (widely held to be one of the
> >greatest works of literature). Unlike the Christian bible, the Koran is
> >relatively devoid of errors and has been preserved in its original form
> >up till present day. It has not been tampered with, and reads exactly
> >the same today as when Muhammad recited it off by heart 600 after
> >Christ. Does this make the Koran the "truth"?
>
> Joseph Smith did a very similar thing, he received the whole book of morman,
> yet produced no documentation. But, neither Muhammed, nor Joseph Smith ever
> claimed to have risen from the dead, nor do their followers ever claim that.
Mithrais. Several Roman emperors. Ti and Do. David Koresh.
I fail to see why this claim is any different from any other miracle
claim without supporting evidence.
> Further, none of the followers of either claim that for them. Jesus did
> claim that he would, and then he did, and then those who saw him after he
> died, even unbelievers who saw him, claimed that he rose from the dead.
Or, rather, someone claims they have. Simply saying so carries no weight
whatsoever.
> >> >Yes, I agree with all this. But note too that the teachings of Christ
> >> >stray quite far away from traditional Jewish teachings. Eg. Keeping
> >> >the sabbath, women's inferiority as compared to men, etc.
> >>
> >> "Stray quite far away" from the traditional teachings, yes. From the
> >> OT, no. Even today we have "traditional" teachers, that teach a lot of
> >> things not taught in the Bible.
> >
> >Wrong, Jewish teachings ARE OT teachings! There is no difference! Or, if
> >you contend that there are differences, what are they?
>
> The pharisees and the saducees had many teachings that were not in the OT.
Of course they did. Judaism has *many* scriptures and law books. Why
Christianity chose to follow only parts of one is a matter for another
thread.
<snip>
> >
> >The fact of the matter is Jesus strayed far away from OT teachings. The
> >two most blatant examples I can think of are fasting and keeping the
> >sabbath, although these are by no means the only ones.
>
> Please cite an example. Because he also explained himself, to the accusing
> jews at the time.
> >
> >
> >> Well, as is common, people want to have a conclusion. They will read
> >> prophecies and try and fit them into what they know.
> >
> >The exact same thing can be said about Christians today and their
> >interpretation of Messianic prophecies.
>
> If Christ is not raised, I would agree.
...then perhaps you should concentrate on establishing that before you
do anything else.
<snip>
sam_p...@my-deja.com
Due to your obvious bias on this issue, it is not up to you to decide
whether I've proved my case or not.
>
> >The church selects four that suits its purpose and condemns
> >the others as heretical. Now if this does not seem like a man-made
> >religion, I don't know what does.
>
> It may seem that way to you. But the Church obviously had different
criteria
> than you consider relevant. They were interested in authenticity.
And what are these criteria? If there were interested in authenticity,
then why isn't the Gospel of Thomas included? After all, it is one of
the earliest accounts of Jesus and (it is generally agreed) just as
accurate if not more accurate than the bible four.
>
> >
> >Another quote: "There is general agreement among scholars that the
four
> >gospels were not written by eyewitness or disciples of Jesus."
>
> Arguement from Generality. Who are these scholars?
It's actually an argument from AUTHORITY. Argument from Generality is
something completely different. Does it matter who these scholars are?
Do I ask you to quote sources for your arguments? What purpose do you
have in mind for asking me to reference the scholars, other than to
throw a red herring? I've already refenced the book and the author.
>
> >> The resurrection story is the very foundation to Christianity. For
> >> example. It's even found in Mark 16:6 which is not apart of the
> >> questionable section. It's in every single book in the New
Testament.
> >> It permeates it. "For if Christ is not raised...."
> >
> >This does not address the issue of the gospel writers copying each
other
> >nor does it address the issue of why early manuscripts of Mark do not
> >include 16:9-20.
>
> First you've not said what the problems are with them copying each
other.
> Further, you've not stated that copying is either bad nor good.
Do I really have to say that copying is bad? I think this is quite
obvious to anyone.
If the gospel writers do copy, that means that they are producing a
secondary source. It also erases the notion of "idependent accounts".
Rather, your
> contention seems to be that if the stories contradict then they can't
be
> trusted. If you think they were copied one from another, don't you
think
> that they would be duplicates of each other?
I said that gospel writers COPY AND EMBELLISH each other's works.
>
> Second, as you can read in any expository, the section wasn't in the
oldest
> manuscripts. So what. There are two views; one is that it should be
included
> because it was apart of the "received text" (Textus Receptus). The
other is
> that it shouldn't be included because it's not apart of the oldest
group of
> manuscripts we have. It's a real non issue, because removal of it
takes
> nothing away from the Doctrines of the bible. So, what's your point?
There are more than your simplified "two views". The third view: it was
added later by Christians for their own purposes. Your ommission of
this possibility demonstrates how pigeon-holed your thinking is, as you
disallow the possibility that the church may have manipulated the
gospels.
And what is the difference between a reporter and a writer? (I would
really like an answer to this question.) You imply that writers are
somehow not subjected to the strict standards that reporters are. In
any case, what does it matter? Whatever they are (reporters, writers,
journalists, historians, etc) they produced inaccurate accounts. That
is the crux of my argument.
Yes, I do know this and it is EXACTLY the reason why I mentioned it. If
the Romans hated the Christians and considered them a real threat,
there would no doubt be negative propoganda about Jesus and Christians.
Think of China and Falun-Gong - China's newspapers decry the religion
every chance they get.
>
> >
> >Remember that scholars are generally agreed that the gospels were NOT
> >written by eyewitnesses or any of Jesus' disciples.
>
> Remember that just mentioning scholars carries no weight what so
> ever.
Why not? Do you doubt their qualifications? Do you think you know more
than scholars do?
If I can quote scholars to support my view as opposed to someone else
who is unable to quote scholars, my argument becomes all the more
stronger.
Do you agree or disagree with my premise that OT teachings are Jewish
teachings? You may argue that OT teachings form only part of Jewish
teachings, but it still matters not a mite to my assertion. OT
teachings ARE Jewish teachings, and Jesus broke two OT teachings:
1. Keeping the Sabbath
2. Fasting
>
> >
> >The fact of the matter is Jesus strayed far away from OT teachings.
The
> >two most blatant examples I can think of are fasting and keeping the
> >sabbath, although these are by no means the only ones.
>
> Please cite an example. Because he also explained himself, to the
accusing
> jews at the time.
See the above for the example.
No Greek scholarship? Which Barbara Thiering were you referring to?
Because the Barbara that I'm quoting is a professor with a PhD at a
major Australian University and is very influential among scholars.
Recently she received a scholarship/grant to continue her studies into
the Qumran scrolls. I'm sure you have not read any of her books,
otherwise you would not say such a thing. Do you know what technique
she uses to interpret the gospels?
>
> >> Not exactly. Jesus also said, "on the third day..." Indicating
that he
> >> will be in the tomb in any part of three days. Friday night, >
> >Saturday, and Sunday Morning.
> >
> >I'm referring to Mt 12:39-41 and Lk 11:29-32. Jesus is referring to
the
> >sign of Jonah, who for three days and nights lived in the belly of a
> >fish.
> >
> >> The phrase "day and night" doesn't have to mean 72 hours. It is
also
> >> used in the OT as figure of speech meaning any part of three days.
> >
> >This is wrong. Where did you get this from?
>
> In Esther they fasted three days and nights (4:16), yet it wasn't 72
> hours, because it says, "on the third day... (5:1) they appeared
> before the king.
I don't disagree that three days can be PART of three days. But I
totally disagree that TWO NIGHTS can be THREE NIGHTS.
>
> The phrase "day and night" is an idiom, it doesn't have to mean 24
> hours. When the Psalmst refers to meditating on the Word "day and
> night" he's not saying a literal 24 hours of meditation. Rather any
> part of the day and night. (Psalm 1:2)
Yes, that is quite obvious. My problem is not the days, but the NIGHTS.
Jonah - THREE NIGHTS. Jesus - TWO NIGHTS. That is the problem.
Anyway, I'll be away on holidays with some uni friends, so will not be
able to reply until Jan 6th.
-Sam
Al Klein
<fo...@charybdis1.net> wrote:
>dan Hughes wrote:
>> >The church selects four that suits its purpose and condemns
>> >the others as heretical. Now if this does not seem like a man-made
>> >religion, I don't know what does.
>> It may seem that way to you. But the Church obviously had different criteria
>> than you consider relevant.
>"Does it re-inforce our poistion or not?"
Actually, the only criterion of the Council of Nicea was, "Will
Constantine kill us for this?"
>> They were interested in authenticity.
>That's funny- that's exactly what *I've* been interested in for the past
>eighteen years or so.
But it's NOT what they were interested in. They reached consensus,
not accuracy. Even Christian scholars accept this.
>> Joseph Smith did a very similar thing, he received the whole book of morman,
>> yet produced no documentation. But, neither Muhammed, nor Joseph Smith ever
>> claimed to have risen from the dead, nor do their followers ever claim that.
>Mithrais. Several Roman emperors. Ti and Do. David Koresh.
Osiris, who was born of a virgin ...
>> Further, none of the followers of either claim that for them. Jesus did
>> claim that he would, and then he did, and then those who saw him after he
>> died, even unbelievers who saw him, claimed that he rose from the dead.
>Or, rather, someone claims they have. Simply saying so carries no weight
>whatsoever.
And Jesus claimed that he'd return during the lifetimes of at least
one of those hearing him. So who's the 2,000 year old man?
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
dan Hughes
----------
don't tell me, you are the unbiased one?
>> >The church selects four that suits its purpose and condemns
>> >the others as heretical. Now if this does not seem like a man-made
>> >religion, I don't know what does.
>>
>> It may seem that way to you. But the Church obviously had different
>criteria
>> than you consider relevant. They were interested in authenticity.
>
>And what are these criteria? If there were interested in authenticity,
>then why isn't the Gospel of Thomas included? After all, it is one of
>the earliest accounts of Jesus and (it is generally agreed) just as
>accurate if not more accurate than the bible four.
I don't know, I would have to investigate the reasons. I do recall reading
that the Gospel of Thomas does repeat many of the sayings already in the
Bible. Maybe you know, and can tell me.
Here is a quote from my Church history Text:
"Although churchmen in a literal sense created the cannon, they were only
recognizing the books that had stamped their own authority on the churches.
The criteria for accepting a book as canonical were sometimes comlex. Above
all, it had to be written or sponsored by an apostle, and also be
recognizably orthodox in content, and publicly used by a prominent church or
majority of churches. Known forgeries, such as the "Acts of Paul," were
rejected; as were other books which contained heretical teaching.
Some books suffered because of the unacceptable use other Christians
made of them. The Montanists' love of Revelation was made the excuse for
discrediting the book for a time. Some people were embarrassed about the
differences between John and the other Gospels; and also at the variations
and massive overlap between the synoptic Gospels.
But, the eventual shape of the New Testament shows that the early church
wanted to submit fully to the teachings of the apostles. It had been created
by their preaching and now grounded itself upon their writings." (Eerdmans
Handbook to the History of Christianity, '77, pg. 106)
>> >Another quote: "There is general agreement among scholars that the
>four
>> >gospels were not written by eyewitness or disciples of Jesus."
>>
>> Arguement from Generality. Who are these scholars?
>
>It's actually an argument from AUTHORITY. Argument from Generality is
>something completely different. Does it matter who these scholars are?
>Do I ask you to quote sources for your arguments? What purpose do you
>have in mind for asking me to reference the scholars, other than to
>throw a red herring? I've already refenced the book and the author.
Fact is that there is not general agreement amoung "all" scholars about much
of anything. For this reason alone it's important to quote who your
authority is. Otherwise it's not an authoritative statement, but a general
one.
Further, the scholars that I respect do think that the gospels were written
by the apostles, just as my Church history Text explains.
>> >> The resurrection story is the very foundation to Christianity. For
>> >> example. It's even found in Mark 16:6 which is not apart of the
>> >> questionable section. It's in every single book in the New
>Testament.
>> >> It permeates it. "For if Christ is not raised...."
>> >
>> >This does not address the issue of the gospel writers copying each
>other
>> >nor does it address the issue of why early manuscripts of Mark do not
>> >include 16:9-20.
>>
>> First you've not said what the problems are with them copying each
>other.
>> Further, you've not stated that copying is either bad nor good.
>
>Do I really have to say that copying is bad? I think this is quite
>obvious to anyone.
>
>If the gospel writers do copy, that means that they are producing a
>secondary source. It also erases the notion of "idependent accounts".
If you apply modern day literature rules, then yes, you have a point. But,
they didn't write under our modern day cultural rules. They wrote under
their own. And for them it wasn't seen as a "bad" thing to copy from one
another. Rather, they saw it as a retelling of the same true story. Since
the written word was few in number, compared to today, having a copy was
just as good as having the original.
Your idea that these are no longer independent accounts. I'm not sure where
you got that from. Sure they are independent authors, but many of the
accounts, or sources were the same. The same thing happens today. Multiple
reporters interview the same sources and get the same story. Doesn't render
the stories any less true.
>Rather, your
>> contention seems to be that if the stories contradict then they can't
>be
>> trusted. If you think they were copied one from another, don't you
>think
>> that they would be duplicates of each other?
>
>I said that gospel writers COPY AND EMBELLISH each other's works.
Happened all the time in the ancient world. In the case of the Four Gospels,
each were written to a different audience, emphazising different aspects of
the same story, for the purpose of communicating to their specific target
audience.
>> Second, as you can read in any expository, the section wasn't in the
>oldest
>> manuscripts. So what. There are two views; one is that it should be
>included
>> because it was apart of the "received text" (Textus Receptus). The
>other is
>> that it shouldn't be included because it's not apart of the oldest
>group of
>> manuscripts we have. It's a real non issue, because removal of it
>takes
>> nothing away from the Doctrines of the bible. So, what's your point?
>
>There are more than your simplified "two views". The third view: it was
>added later by Christians for their own purposes. Your ommission of
>this possibility demonstrates how pigeon-holed your thinking is, as you
>disallow the possibility that the church may have manipulated the
>gospels.
Ok, lets assume this third case is true. Changes nothing. The older
manuscripts are still intact and can be read today. No changes can be made
to them, by these supposed evil christians who wanted to change the bible.
[snip]
They didn't produce inaccurate accounts. You've not demonstrated this point,
please provide the evidence that they are inaccurate.
The difference is between a modern reporter and an ancient writer. Until you
read the bible with the idea in mind that it's not written to you, in your
culture, or your language. You will continue to misread, misinterpret it.
Everything has to be read in context. I cannot over emphasize this point.
Everything.
Who was the author? Who was he writing to? Why was he writing? When was he
writing? What are some of the cultural idioms or practices of that day
influencing his writing? These questions have to be answered before
interpreting anyone's writing. Context is everything.
Maybe you are also familiar with the citations in the "Annals of Imperial
Rome." Where Tacitus describes how the Emperor Nero attempted to blame these
hated Christians for a fire that occured. Dated about AD 64.
OR possibly you are familiar with Pliny's letters to Trajan complaining
about the christians, and asking advice about what to do about them. It
seems that in that city (Bithynia) the pagan temples were becoming deserted,
and those who sold animals for the sacrifices in those temples were having a
hard time finding buyers. These letters are dated around 112 AD. And they
confirm what 1 Peter 1:1 says, that there were believers in Bithynia.
Or maybe you have heard about the reference to Christians by Suetonius in AD
49. Where he writes that he expelled the Jews from Rome because of
disturbances they caused in reaction to the presence of the Christians.
The fact that some of the Christians are referenced, but not Christ himself
is explained in part, by the custom of the era. Not to mention or talk about
Crosses or Crucifixtions. IT was their form of capital punishment. No one
desired to talk about it, expecially if it was a convicted Jew.
Another answer that I heard on the Discovery Channel not long ago, is the
fact that only about 15 percent of ancient cities such as Ephesus have been
excavated.
>> >Remember that scholars are generally agreed that the gospels were NOT
>> >written by eyewitnesses or any of Jesus' disciples.
>>
>> Remember that just mentioning scholars carries no weight what so
>> ever.
>
>Why not? Do you doubt their qualifications? Do you think you know more
>than scholars do?
>
>If I can quote scholars to support my view as opposed to someone else
>who is unable to quote scholars, my argument becomes all the more
>stronger.
Sure it does. So, quote away. cite your references. You think you can prove
that scholars are generally agreed that the gospels were not written by who
the early church claimed they were? Be my guest.
I agree with your assertion that OT teachings are Jewish teachings.
I do not agree that Jesus broke those two teachings. Please cite where he
broke them, and cite the specific OT law or teaching broken.
>> >The fact of the matter is Jesus strayed far away from OT teachings.
>The
>> >two most blatant examples I can think of are fasting and keeping the
>> >sabbath, although these are by no means the only ones.
>>
>> Please cite an example. Because he also explained himself, to the
>accusing
>> jews at the time.
>
>See the above for the example.
No specific example is cited above.
You are correct, I've not read them. Please tell me this technique she uses
to interpret the gospels.
>> >> Not exactly. Jesus also said, "on the third day..." Indicating
>that he
>> >> will be in the tomb in any part of three days. Friday night, >
>> >Saturday, and Sunday Morning.
>> >
>> >I'm referring to Mt 12:39-41 and Lk 11:29-32. Jesus is referring to
>the
>> >sign of Jonah, who for three days and nights lived in the belly of a
>> >fish.
>> >
>> >> The phrase "day and night" doesn't have to mean 72 hours. It is
>also
>> >> used in the OT as figure of speech meaning any part of three days.
>> >
>> >This is wrong. Where did you get this from?
>>
>> In Esther they fasted three days and nights (4:16), yet it wasn't 72
>> hours, because it says, "on the third day... (5:1) they appeared
>> before the king.
>
>I don't disagree that three days can be PART of three days. But I
>totally disagree that TWO NIGHTS can be THREE NIGHTS.
Well then I guess you can read it how ever you wish. But a Jewish idiom is a
Jewish idiom. Just like a piece of cake isn't always a piece of cake.
>> The phrase "day and night" is an idiom, it doesn't have to mean 24
>> hours. When the Psalmst refers to meditating on the Word "day and
>> night" he's not saying a literal 24 hours of meditation. Rather any
>> part of the day and night. (Psalm 1:2)
>
>Yes, that is quite obvious. My problem is not the days, but the NIGHTS.
>Jonah - THREE NIGHTS. Jesus - TWO NIGHTS. That is the problem.
Here is where you are mistaken. In the book of Jonah, there are no specific
references to time. The same idiom is used, it doesn't tell you exactly how
long he was in the Big Fish. It doesn't say, he entered on Wednesday, and on
Saturday morning....etc. Those descriptions are not in the Book of Jonah.
Awaiting your return.
take care,
dan
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> >Mithrais. Several Roman emperors. Ti and Do. David Koresh.
>
Some more Messiahs, all of whom predate Christ
==============================================
Gautama Buddha: Born of the virgin Maya around 600BC.
Dionysus: Greek god born of a vigin in a stable. Turned water to wine.
Quirrnus: An early Roman saviour born of a virgin.
Attis: Born of the virgin Nama in Phrygia around 200BC.
Indra: Born of a virgin in Tibet around 700BC.
Adonis: Babylonian god born of the virgin Ishtar.
Krishna: Hindu deity born of the virgin Devaki in around 1200BC.
Zoroaster: Born of a virgin in around 1500 - 1200BC.
Mithra: Born of a virgin in a stable on the 25th of Dec (happy
birthday) around 600BC. His ressurection is celebrated at Easter.
Jeff/addesign
>----------
>In article <83tcmp$hd2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>There are more than your simplified "two views". The third view: it was
>>added later by Christians for their own purposes. Your ommission of
>>this possibility demonstrates how pigeon-holed your thinking is, as you
>>disallow the possibility that the church may have manipulated the
>>gospels.
>Ok, lets assume this third case is true. Changes nothing. The older
>manuscripts are still intact and can be read today. No changes can be made
>to them, by these supposed evil christians who wanted to change the bible.
The oldest Xian manuscripts extant are not likely earlier than the
second or third century. I don't believe any original manuscripts
exist of any of the gospels. Known errors and deliberate
mistranslations can be documented in some cases. One of the church
fathers was guilty of this, to support his particular bent on an
issue. I 'd have to dig for the data, but I believe it was Augustine,
and there is documentation that another church father disagreed with
Augustine altering text to suit his end. I'll try to find the cite.
>>And what is the difference between a reporter and a writer? (I would
>>really like an answer to this question.) You imply that writers are
>>somehow not subjected to the strict standards that reporters are. In
>>any case, what does it matter? Whatever they are (reporters, writers,
>>journalists, historians, etc) they produced inaccurate accounts. That
>>is the crux of my argument.
>They didn't produce inaccurate accounts. You've not demonstrated this point,
>please provide the evidence that they are inaccurate.
When was the crucifixion, relative to passover? the goespels disagree.
How long was Jesus' ministry? one year or three, depending upon
gospel. Who discovered the tomb was empty, who was there? the gospels
disagree.
>The difference is between a modern reporter and an ancient writer. Until you
>read the bible with the idea in mind that it's not written to you, in your
>culture, or your language. You will continue to misread, misinterpret it.
>Everything has to be read in context. I cannot over emphasize this point.
>Everything.
>Who was the author? Who was he writing to? Why was he writing? When was he
>writing? What are some of the cultural idioms or practices of that day
>influencing his writing? These questions have to be answered before
>interpreting anyone's writing. Context is everything.
And, was he lying? Did he make it up? Is he repeating and embellishing
second or third hand information? Is his reporting biased by his point
of view? You could well ask that about today's reporters as well, and
find many of them as suspect. I know half of them usualy don't know
what they are talking about, and seldom research deeper than cue
cards, press releases, or the popular beliefs of their political
group.
>>Yes, I do know this and it is EXACTLY the reason why I mentioned it. If
>>the Romans hated the Christians and considered them a real threat,
>>there would no doubt be negative propoganda about Jesus and Christians.
>>Think of China and Falun-Gong - China's newspapers decry the religion
>>every chance they get.
>Maybe you are also familiar with the citations in the "Annals of Imperial
>Rome." Where Tacitus describes how the Emperor Nero attempted to blame these
>hated Christians for a fire that occured. Dated about AD 64.
Tacitus was about 9 at the time. Nero was much maligned in ancient
manuscripts, but recent research shows that he was nowhere near Rome
when it burned, so he could neither be responsible, nor have to blame
the xians to cover his own butt. He may have persecuted xians, but
that's to be expected. Xian rebels most prabably DID start the fires
in Rome.
>OR possibly you are familiar with Pliny's letters to Trajan complaining
>about the christians, and asking advice about what to do about them. It
>seems that in that city (Bithynia) the pagan temples were becoming deserted,
>and those who sold animals for the sacrifices in those temples were having a
>hard time finding buyers. These letters are dated around 112 AD. And they
>confirm what 1 Peter 1:1 says, that there were believers in Bithynia.
We know there were xians. That does not validate what they believed.
Not then, not now.
>Or maybe you have heard about the reference to Christians by Suetonius in AD
>49. Where he writes that he expelled the Jews from Rome because of
>disturbances they caused in reaction to the presence of the Christians.
No, what did he say? was he born in 49 a.d.? He was a contemporary of
Pliny and accompanied him to Bithynia in 112 a.d. You 'd better check
your dates and sources. Are sure you mean Suetonius?
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
dan Hughes
----------
In article <s673c9...@corp.supernews.com>, adde...@interaccess.com
(Jeff/addesign) wrote:
>"dan Hughes" <dhu...@toysrbob.com> wrote:
>
>>----------
>>In article <83tcmp$hd2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>>There are more than your simplified "two views". The third view: it was
>>>added later by Christians for their own purposes. Your ommission of
>>>this possibility demonstrates how pigeon-holed your thinking is, as you
>>>disallow the possibility that the church may have manipulated the
>>>gospels.
>
>>Ok, lets assume this third case is true. Changes nothing. The older
>>manuscripts are still intact and can be read today. No changes can be made
>>to them, by these supposed evil christians who wanted to change the bible.
>
>The oldest Xian manuscripts extant are not likely earlier than the
>second or third century. I don't believe any original manuscripts
>exist of any of the gospels. Known errors and deliberate
>mistranslations can be documented in some cases. One of the church
>fathers was guilty of this, to support his particular bent on an
>issue. I 'd have to dig for the data, but I believe it was Augustine,
>and there is documentation that another church father disagreed with
>Augustine altering text to suit his end. I'll try to find the cite.
The addition of that part the text of Mark that is "not in the oldest
manuscripts" is what changes nothing.
Your argument is different. I didn't claim that we can read the original
documents. Known errors and deliberate mistranslations are detected for the
very same reason that that we know that the Mark section isn't appart of the
oldest manuscripts. Which is that we have so many copies that we can create
a "nearly original" document from them. Much the same way a teacher who has
lost his notes, can reconstruct them using the students copies. Copies while
they are not always perfect, do give a good representation of the original.
"Mistranslations" however, in general, is an erronous arguement. Because
we are reading these copies in their original languages. No translations are
needed. You are correct that the oldest extent manuscripts are from the
second century. But the problem with the theory that these have been changed
is that we have so many of them. Thousands in fact. The reason for that is
because the early churches copied and shared their copies with other
churches.
>
>>>And what is the difference between a reporter and a writer? (I would
>>>really like an answer to this question.) You imply that writers are
>>>somehow not subjected to the strict standards that reporters are. In
>>>any case, what does it matter? Whatever they are (reporters, writers,
>>>journalists, historians, etc) they produced inaccurate accounts. That
>>>is the crux of my argument.
>
>>They didn't produce inaccurate accounts. You've not demonstrated this point,
>>please provide the evidence that they are inaccurate.
>
>When was the crucifixion, relative to passover? the goespels disagree.
The Crucifixion was after the passover. Just as the gospels say.
>How long was Jesus' ministry? one year or three, depending upon
>gospel.
Three years, who says it's one year?
> Who discovered the tomb was empty, who was there? the gospels
>disagree.
They don't disagree at all. I've dealt with this one before.
>
>>The difference is between a modern reporter and an ancient writer. Until you
>>read the bible with the idea in mind that it's not written to you, in your
>>culture, or your language. You will continue to misread, misinterpret it.
>
>>Everything has to be read in context. I cannot over emphasize this point.
>>Everything.
>
>>Who was the author? Who was he writing to? Why was he writing? When was he
>>writing? What are some of the cultural idioms or practices of that day
>>influencing his writing? These questions have to be answered before
>>interpreting anyone's writing. Context is everything.
>
>And, was he lying? Did he make it up? Is he repeating and embellishing
>second or third hand information? Is his reporting biased by his point
>of view? You could well ask that about today's reporters as well, and
>find many of them as suspect. I know half of them usualy don't know
>what they are talking about, and seldom research deeper than cue
>cards, press releases, or the popular beliefs of their political
>group.
Right, which is why not all ancient literature that talks about Jesus' life
is included in the Cannon of the New Testament.
>
>>>Yes, I do know this and it is EXACTLY the reason why I mentioned it. If
>>>the Romans hated the Christians and considered them a real threat,
>>>there would no doubt be negative propoganda about Jesus and Christians.
>>>Think of China and Falun-Gong - China's newspapers decry the religion
>>>every chance they get.
>
>>Maybe you are also familiar with the citations in the "Annals of Imperial
>>Rome." Where Tacitus describes how the Emperor Nero attempted to blame these
>>hated Christians for a fire that occured. Dated about AD 64.
>
>Tacitus was about 9 at the time. Nero was much maligned in ancient
>manuscripts, but recent research shows that he was nowhere near Rome
>when it burned, so he could neither be responsible, nor have to blame
>the xians to cover his own butt. He may have persecuted xians, but
>that's to be expected. Xian rebels most prabably DID start the fires
>in Rome.
You can disgree with the Annals of Imperial Rome, is you wish, but it still
stands as evidence.
>
>>OR possibly you are familiar with Pliny's letters to Trajan complaining
>>about the christians, and asking advice about what to do about them. It
>>seems that in that city (Bithynia) the pagan temples were becoming deserted,
>>and those who sold animals for the sacrifices in those temples were having a
>>hard time finding buyers. These letters are dated around 112 AD. And they
>>confirm what 1 Peter 1:1 says, that there were believers in Bithynia.
>
>We know there were xians. That does not validate what they believed.
>Not then, not now.
It validates their existence, which confirms that the fact that Paul wasn't
just writing letters to himself. Also, it also confirms that their beliefs
were not to sacrifice to the pegan gods.
Pliny's letters are the earliest surviving non-Christian description of what
Christians believed and how they lived. That they regarded Christ as God.
And amoung other things that they met on the first day of every week. (found
in "Is the New Testament Reliable? A look at the Historical Evidence" by
Paul Barnett, 1986, pg.18)
>
>>Or maybe you have heard about the reference to Christians by Suetonius in AD
>>49. Where he writes that he expelled the Jews from Rome because of
>>disturbances they caused in reaction to the presence of the Christians.
>
>No, what did he say? was he born in 49 a.d.? He was a contemporary of
>Pliny and accompanied him to Bithynia in 112 a.d. You 'd better check
>your dates and sources. Are sure you mean Suetonius?
>
No, you are correct. It was Claudius who expelled the Jews in 49 AD, the
historian/writer was Suetonius.
take care,
dan
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> >And what are these criteria? If there were interested in
> >authenticity, then why isn't the Gospel of Thomas included? After
> >all, it is one of
> >the earliest accounts of Jesus and (it is generally agreed) just as
> >accurate if not more accurate than the bible four.
>
> I don't know, I would have to investigate the reasons. I do recall
> reading that the Gospel of Thomas does repeat many of the sayings
> already in the Bible. Maybe you know, and can tell me.
Simply saying "I don't know why they chose some gospels over others but
there are good reasons for doing so" is not a sound argument.
> Fact is that there is not general agreement amoung "all" scholars
> about much of anything. For this reason alone it's important to quote
> who your authority is. Otherwise it's not an authoritative statement,
> but a general one.
- Elaine Pagels (bible scholar) in her book "The Gnostic Gospels".
Believes that the gospels were written by followers (not disciples or
eye witnesses) of Jesus from information passed on by word of mouth,
which is especially vulnerable to alterations and embellishments.
- E. P. Sanders (Prof. at Duke University) in his book "The Historical
Figure of Jesus". Writes that some parts of the gospels were fabricated
by early Christians wanting to impose their doctrines. Many sayings
were quoted out of their original context. Estimates that the write-up
of all four gospels took place around 70-90 AD. Writes that the
authorship of the gospels is uncertain.
- Owen Chadwick (Prof. of Modern History at Cambridge University) in
his book "A History of Christianity". Is of the opinion that the
gospels were not written by the disciple but by later followers of
Jesus. Also writes that the gospels were written by knowledge coming
from word of mouth, and that they were manipulated by the early
Christians. Dates the authorship of the gospels to be sometime late in
the first century.
- J. L. Houlden (Prof. of Theology) in his book "Jesus: A Question of
Identity". Believes that the gospels were subjected to much
alterations, and holds the view that their authorship cannot be
verified, although it is improbable that they were written by the
disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Estimates that the gospels were
written sometime during 70-90 AD.
The following authors are not "scholars" in the academic sense. But all
of them in their respective books quote scholars and references which
attest that the gospels were not written by disciples nor eye witnesses
of Jesus.
- The Hiram Key, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas
- The Unathorized Version, Robin Lane Fox
- A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson, pp.26-27. This author
believes that the gospels were manipulated in many ways to accomodate
OT prophecies, a virgin birth (which was popular among Gods at that
time), events of the Last Supper and the resurrection.
Maybe now you should quote some of your sources which suggest
otherwise - that the gospels were written by the same disciples who
witnessed Jesus and his ministry first hand.
> >If the gospel writers do copy, that means that they are producing a
> >secondary source. It also erases the notion of "idependent accounts".
>
> If you apply modern day literature rules, then yes, you have a point.
> But, they didn't write under our modern day cultural rules. They
> wrote under their own. And for them it wasn't seen as a "bad" thing
> to copy from one another. Rather, they saw it as a retelling of the
> same true story. Since the written word was few in number, compared
> to today, having a copy was just as good as having the original.
It doesn't matter whether they thought it was "good" or a "bad" thing
to copy. Copied works are deemed secondary sources and have less
validity than primary sources.
> Your idea that these are no longer independent accounts. I'm not sure
> where you got that from. Sure they are independent authors, but many
> of the accounts, or sources were the same. The same thing happens
> today. Multiple reporters interview the same sources and get the same
> story.
> Doesn't render the stories any less true.
Multiple reporters interviewing the same sources and getting the same
story - those are independent accounts.
One writer copying from another writer - that is not an independent
account for the very reason that his gospel did not arrive
independently from the one he copied. This is the case with the
gospels, and hence their validity is to be questioned.
> >> Second, as you can read in any expository, the section wasn't in
> >> the oldest manuscripts. So what. There are two views; one is that
> >> it should be included because it was apart of the "received text"
> >> (Textus Receptus). The other is that it shouldn't be included
> >> because it's not apart of the oldest group of manuscripts we have.
> >> It's a real non issue, because removal of it takes nothing away
> >> from the Doctrines of the bible. So, what's your point?
> >
> >There are more than your simplified "two views". The third view: it
> >was
> >added later by Christians for their own purposes. Your ommission of
> >this possibility demonstrates how pigeon-holed your thinking is, as
> >you
> >disallow the possibility that the church may have manipulated the
> >gospels.
>
> Ok, lets assume this third case is true. Changes nothing. The older
> manuscripts are still intact and can be read today. No changes can be
> made to them, by these supposed evil christians who wanted to change
> the bible.
First of all, it takes much away from Christianity's strong dependence
on the resurrection, for a great deal about the resurrection account is
removed when you ignore the latter section of Mark. Since Matthew, Luke
and John are very likely to be secondary sources, their accounts are
questionable.
Secondly if you accept that the Church has manipulated the gospels,
then your salvation is in doubt because the Church may well have
manipulated that doctrine, and others that are central to Christianity.
Lastly you mention that the "older manuscripts can be read today" and
no one can change anything. Yet you forget that the validity of these
older manuscripts are themselves questionable, because of the
conflicting accounts between them and the Nag Hammadi gospels.
> >And what is the difference between a reporter and a writer? (I
> >would really like an answer to this question.) You imply that
> >writers are
> >somehow not subjected to the strict standards that reporters are. In
> >any case, what does it matter? Whatever they are (reporters, writers,
> >journalists, historians, etc) they produced inaccurate accounts. That
> >is the crux of my argument.
>
> They didn't produce inaccurate accounts. You've not demonstrated this
> point, please provide the evidence that they are inaccurate.
So you do not know what is the difference then between a reporter and a
writer although you distinguished between them in an earlier post?
The gospels have contradictions in them. What time did the women leave?
How many women went? Were there two angels or just one? Where were they
situated? Who did Jesus first appear to after the resurrection? How
long did Jesus spend on earth after the resurrection? Where did he
ascend into heaven? The four gospels provide different answers to all
these questions (and possibly more). There is no doubt that these are
contradictions, or in the very least, faulty recording.
> Everything has to be read in context. I cannot over emphasize this
> point. Everything.
> Who was the author? Who was he writing to? Why was he writing? When
> was he
> writing? What are some of the cultural idioms or practices of that day
> influencing his writing? These questions have to be answered before
> interpreting anyone's writing. Context is everything.
Context is not anything when is boils down to historical accuracy. Any
historian will tell you that historical accuracy is an objective
measure, independent of context. It doesn't matter who the author is,
who he is writing to, why he was writing, when he was writing, what the
cultural idioms are - accuracy is accuracy.
If you still persist in this argument (that contradictions are OK
because they have to be taken in proper context) tell me this: Who are
the different audiences to which Matthew and John are writing to? And
for what reason does Matthew mention two women going to the tomb but
John only mentions one? Or, what is it about John's audience that he
finds it fit to only mention one woman?
Failure to answer this or provide a reason betrays a weak argument.
> >> Again you make errors in assuming that each is telling about the
> >> exact same
> >> time. You don't know if they actually spoke to the angel twice,
> >> once
> >> in the
> >> tomb, and once outside.
First of all, your whole reasoning here is based on presumptions and
assumptions. Although the gospels never mention it, you ASSUME that the
angel(s) spoke to the women once outside the tomb, and once inside the
tomb. All this is speculative.
I could speculate that the angel(s) spoke to the women three times, but
neither of the gospel writers recorded it. I could speculate that there
were fifty angels there, although because of the context, all of the
authors failed to mention it. I could speculate anything, and my
speculations are backed up by as much hard evidence as yours - none.
> >> Further, just because you think you can tell the difference
> >> between an
> >> angel, doesn't mean that they could. What does an angel look like?
> >> How is it
> >> that it's so easy to tell?
Well, if someone "came down from heaven" and rolled over a great big
stone by himself, is it possible that he could be a man?
> The fact that some of the Christians are referenced, but not Christ
> himself is explained in part, by the custom of the era. Not to
> mention or talk about Crosses or Crucifixtions. IT was their form of
> capital punishment. No one desired to talk about it, expecially if it
> was a convicted Jew.
This is rubbish. What was the custom of the era? If Jesus truly
performed miracles and resurrection he would surely be named personally.
> >If I can quote scholars to support my view as opposed to someone else
> >who is unable to quote scholars, my argument becomes all the more
> >stronger.
>
> Sure it does. So, quote away. cite your references. You think you can
> prove that scholars are generally agreed that the gospels were not
> written by who the early church claimed they were? Be my guest.
All references are cited above. Obviously it is not a comprehensive
list. I have yet to see your citations and sources.
> >Do you agree or disagree with my premise that OT teachings are Jewish
> >teachings? You may argue that OT teachings form only part of Jewish
> >teachings, but it still matters not a mite to my assertion. OT
> >teachings ARE Jewish teachings, and Jesus broke two OT teachings:
> >1. Keeping the Sabbath
> >2. Fasting
>
> I agree with your assertion that OT teachings are Jewish teachings.
> I do not agree that Jesus broke those two teachings. Please cite
> where he broke them, and cite the specific OT law or teaching broken.
1. Keeping the Sabbath
OT teachings from Exodus 20:8-11.
Jesus broke them in Matthew Chp 12, Luke 13:10-17, John 5:1-8.
Because Jesus did not obey the Sabbath commandment, Christians
(generally) do not keep the Sabbath. It is now perfectly fine for a
Christian to work on Sundays. Do you think working on the Sabbath is
permissible? If so why?
2. Fasting
OT teachings from Zec 7:5 and 8:19.
Jesus' disciples did not fast in Mark 2:18-22, Matthew 9:14-17 and Luke
33-38. As before, tell me this: Do you think Christians should fast?
And if not, why?
> You are correct, I've not read them. Please tell me this technique
> she uses to interpret the gospels.
It is known as the pesher technique, which is based very much in Greek.
So saying that Thiering has no Greek scholarship is rubbish.
> Here is where you are mistaken. In the book of Jonah, there are no
> specific references to time. The same idiom is used, it doesn't tell
> you exactly how long he was in the Big Fish. It doesn't say, he
> entered on Wednesday, and on Saturday morning....etc. Those
> descriptions are not in the Book of Jonah.
Jonah 1:17 But the Lord provided a great fist to swallow Jonah, and
Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
> >> >In any case, if Jesus was
> >> >referring to three days and two nights - why did he say the "sign
> >> >of Jonah"? Why not simply say three days and two nights?
> >> >Mt 12:39-41 and Lk 11:29-32. It was an analogy, an illustration.
> >> >Using something they know about (story of Jonah) to teach them
> >> >aboutsomething
> >> >they don't know anything about, the ressurection.
> >> >Why use a Jewish idiom? Because that's the exact same idiom that
> >> >was used in
> >> >the book of Jonah, with which they were familiar.
But you miss the point. The analogy does not correlate with the facts.
Jonah spent three nights, while Jesus spent two nights. Just because it
is a Jewish idiom does not mean that we can simply ignore the one night
difference. In fact, Jesus himself tells us that this is more than a
simple analogy or illustration: it is a "miraculous sign" or more
accurately, a prophecy. Unfortunately, the prophecy appears to have
failed.
- Sam
dan Hughes
----------
>
>> >And what are these criteria? If there were interested in
>> >authenticity, then why isn't the Gospel of Thomas included? After
>> >all, it is one of
>> >the earliest accounts of Jesus and (it is generally agreed) just as
>> >accurate if not more accurate than the bible four.
>>
>> I don't know, I would have to investigate the reasons. I do recall
>> reading that the Gospel of Thomas does repeat many of the sayings
>> already in the Bible. Maybe you know, and can tell me.
>
>Simply saying "I don't know why they chose some gospels over others but
>there are good reasons for doing so" is not a sound argument.
Since I found a copy of the Gospel of Thomas I can see why it's not included
in the cannon.
http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/gosthom.html
There are many statements that don't even sound right. Many that don't even
agree with OT teachings. It doesn't cite many historical references, is
mostly a collection of sayings. Many do agree with the NT, but those aren't
what we are concerned with. Those that disagree.
Funny thing that struck me is how it's contruction is very similar to the
Koran.
I think it's unlikely that John was written after 70AD. Although possible.
Consider John 5:2, "Now there *is* a pool..." He couldn't have written this
if Jerusalem had been destroyed already.
>
>The following authors are not "scholars" in the academic sense. But all
>of them in their respective books quote scholars and references which
>attest that the gospels were not written by disciples nor eye witnesses
>of Jesus.
>
>- The Hiram Key, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas
>- The Unathorized Version, Robin Lane Fox
>- A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson, pp.26-27. This author
>believes that the gospels were manipulated in many ways to accomodate
>OT prophecies, a virgin birth (which was popular among Gods at that
>time), events of the Last Supper and the resurrection.
>
>Maybe now you should quote some of your sources which suggest
>otherwise - that the gospels were written by the same disciples who
>witnessed Jesus and his ministry first hand.
There are far to many for me to list. And more that I know. I can only give
you a couple from the books that I have in my possesion. I'm not sure that
will help too much though. That is, unless you are interested in reading
them.
>
>> >If the gospel writers do copy, that means that they are producing a
>> >secondary source. It also erases the notion of "idependent accounts".
>>
>> If you apply modern day literature rules, then yes, you have a point.
>> But, they didn't write under our modern day cultural rules. They
>> wrote under their own. And for them it wasn't seen as a "bad" thing
>> to copy from one another. Rather, they saw it as a retelling of the
>> same true story. Since the written word was few in number, compared
>> to today, having a copy was just as good as having the original.
>
>It doesn't matter whether they thought it was "good" or a "bad" thing
>to copy. Copied works are deemed secondary sources and have less
>validity than primary sources.
Each was a primary source.
see below.
>
>> Your idea that these are no longer independent accounts. I'm not sure
>> where you got that from. Sure they are independent authors, but many
>> of the accounts, or sources were the same. The same thing happens
>> today. Multiple reporters interview the same sources and get the same
>> story.
>> Doesn't render the stories any less true.
>
>Multiple reporters interviewing the same sources and getting the same
>story - those are independent accounts.
>
>One writer copying from another writer - that is not an independent
>account for the very reason that his gospel did not arrive
>independently from the one he copied. This is the case with the
>gospels, and hence their validity is to be questioned.
Matthew was a disciple. Independent witness.
Mark was the writer for Peter, a disciple.
Luke was the writer who traveled with Paul, and gathered information
independantly of the others.
John was a disciple, probably wrote after the other three were written, and
diliberatly used a different format.
All four are independent from each other, in the sense you are speaking of.
>> >> Second, as you can read in any expository, the section wasn't in
>> >> the oldest manuscripts. So what. There are two views; one is that
>> >> it should be included because it was apart of the "received text"
>> >> (Textus Receptus). The other is that it shouldn't be included
>> >> because it's not apart of the oldest group of manuscripts we have.
>> >> It's a real non issue, because removal of it takes nothing away
>> >> from the Doctrines of the bible. So, what's your point?
>> >
>> >There are more than your simplified "two views". The third view: it
>> >was
>> >added later by Christians for their own purposes. Your ommission of
>> >this possibility demonstrates how pigeon-holed your thinking is, as
>> >you
>> >disallow the possibility that the church may have manipulated the
>> >gospels.
>>
>> Ok, lets assume this third case is true. Changes nothing. The older
>> manuscripts are still intact and can be read today. No changes can be
>> made to them, by these supposed evil christians who wanted to change
>> the bible.
>
>First of all, it takes much away from Christianity's strong dependence
>on the resurrection, for a great deal about the resurrection account is
>removed when you ignore the latter section of Mark. Since Matthew, Luke
>and John are very likely to be secondary sources, their accounts are
>questionable.
Not at all. Your assumption is that they are secondary sources. Even if that
view was correct, the resurrection is still at the very foundation of
Christian doctrine. Look at the book of Acts. If Christ is not raised, no
one would have preached christ as being raised, physically, from the dead.
Look at all the Pauline writings. He makes a specific point to squelch any
idea that Christ was not raised physically. Even the book of Revelation
doesn't make any sense if Christ is not raised.
But I don't agree with your assumption. I believe the traditional view, that
Luke collected his information from various sources, namely from travelling
with Paul (see the "WE" passages in the book of Acts). That Matthew and John
were eyewitnesses to most of the events, as disciples. That Mark was a
writer for Peter, and traveled with Peter and had heard the story so many
times that he and Peter made it into a small book so that it could be read
and distributed. And that all of this was guided by the Holy Spirit.
>
>Secondly if you accept that the Church has manipulated the gospels,
>then your salvation is in doubt because the Church may well have
>manipulated that doctrine, and others that are central to Christianity.
I don't accept that the church has manipulated anything. My position is that
they cannonized what the body as a whole already considered true.
>
>Lastly you mention that the "older manuscripts can be read today" and
>no one can change anything. Yet you forget that the validity of these
>older manuscripts are themselves questionable, because of the
>conflicting accounts between them and the Nag Hammadi gospels.
You're going to have to be more specific about these conflicting accounts.
And the gospels contained in the Nag Hammadi collection. From what I've
read, I'm not sure how any of those gospels can be trusted when compared to
the biblical gospels. Further, it's not just those four gospels that the Nag
Hammadi disagree with. It's major portions of the OT doctrine, and NT
Doctrine. Non of the disciples taught gnosticism.
>
>
>> >And what is the difference between a reporter and a writer? (I
>> >would really like an answer to this question.) You imply that
>> >writers are
>> >somehow not subjected to the strict standards that reporters are. In
>> >any case, what does it matter? Whatever they are (reporters, writers,
>> >journalists, historians, etc) they produced inaccurate accounts. That
>> >is the crux of my argument.
>>
>> They didn't produce inaccurate accounts. You've not demonstrated this
>> point, please provide the evidence that they are inaccurate.
>
>So you do not know what is the difference then between a reporter and a
>writer although you distinguished between them in an earlier post?
Like you said what does it matter. I say they were writers, writing for a
purpose, to pursuade their intended audience of the factual events that
occured. For that time period, you could also call them reporters, but 20th
century standards don't apply.
>
>The gospels have contradictions in them. What time did the women leave?
>How many women went? Were there two angels or just one? Where were they
>situated? Who did Jesus first appear to after the resurrection? How
>long did Jesus spend on earth after the resurrection? Where did he
>ascend into heaven? The four gospels provide different answers to all
>these questions (and possibly more). There is no doubt that these are
>contradictions, or in the very least, faulty recording.
I can if you wish, go through each one, and show that they are not
contradictions as you contend, rather are bits of the same story. Just as if
you listened to bits of a conversation your friends were having, which
sounded like they didn't like someone, you wouldn't at the very outset
assume that they didn't. Because you would give them the benefit of the
doubt.
The same situation is here with the gospels. Each supposed contradiction
you mention, is in fact only one aspect of the whole picture. If you assume
at the outset that the story is faulty, fraudulant, and manufactured, then
your conclusions will follows your assumptions. But if you assume, instead,
that these were real people, telling real stories, and that these supposed
contradictions are merely parts of the whole story, then it makes sense.
I mean seriously, if you have 6 different eyewitnesses to the same traffic
accident, you also have six different accounts of the same event. Does this
mean that the event didn't happen, does this mean that the different
accounts are contradictory? Wouldn't you agree that people see and record
things differently in their memory? Just because they appear to be
contradictory on the surface doesn't make is so.
Inorder for there to be a real contradiction, you need directly
contradicting statements.
>
>> Everything has to be read in context. I cannot over emphasize this
>> point. Everything.
>> Who was the author? Who was he writing to? Why was he writing? When
>> was he
>> writing? What are some of the cultural idioms or practices of that day
>> influencing his writing? These questions have to be answered before
>> interpreting anyone's writing. Context is everything.
>
>Context is not anything when is boils down to historical accuracy. Any
>historian will tell you that historical accuracy is an objective
>measure, independent of context. It doesn't matter who the author is,
>who he is writing to, why he was writing, when he was writing, what the
>cultural idioms are - accuracy is accuracy.
I'm sorry, but I can see too many problems with this system of historical
interpretation. Give you one example. Say an author is writing about boots,
trunks, and hoods. What are these?? Please tell me what they are, without a
context.
>
>If you still persist in this argument (that contradictions are OK
>because they have to be taken in proper context) tell me this: Who are
>the different audiences to which Matthew and John are writing to? And
>for what reason does Matthew mention two women going to the tomb but
>John only mentions one? Or, what is it about John's audience that he
>finds it fit to only mention one woman?
>
>Failure to answer this or provide a reason betrays a weak argument.
My argument is that they are not really contradictions when the contexts are
understood.
Who was Matthew writing to? Greek speaking Jews. His purpose was to prove to
them that Jesus was the Messiah.
John was writting to the world. His purpose was to show the world that Jesus
was the son of God.
As for why John mentions only one woman, and Matthew mentions two. I think
it's clear from John 20:2, that Mary Magdalene was the one who told Peter
and John directly what she saw. And since the story line doesn't go into
fine details, only the high points are mentioned, hence, only the Mary who
spoke to them was mentioned. This doesn't create a contradiction, as John
doesn't say "only" one woman saw this event. Rather it leads to his greater
point that Jesus was actually resurrected as evidenced by the folded head
cloth. Jn. 20:7, which only John mentions. If it was a grave robbery, the
head cloth wouldn't have been folded.
Says do not work.
>Jesus broke them in Matthew Chp 12,
Jesus broke no law. He didn't work. Rather he walked and picked grain, and
ate what he picked. He was not harvesting grain. Rather just eating
handfulls as he walked. Just as is permissable by the OT law in Deut. 23:25.
Jesus healed a man's hand also. Was this work? Is that your contention?
Luke 13:10-17,
Just as pulling one's Ox out of a pit is not equivilant to work, in the same
way, healing one woman is not work. If this were so, then
Preachers/Pastors/leaders would be violating the Sabbath by managing the
concregation on that day. Fact is that the Sabbath was a time to focus on
God, and what better way than to have a good healing?
John 5:1-8.
The ministry of healing is not forbidden by Exodus on the Sabbath.
>Because Jesus did not obey the Sabbath commandment, Christians
>(generally) do not keep the Sabbath. It is now perfectly fine for a
>Christian to work on Sundays. Do you think working on the Sabbath is
>permissible? If so why?
It is permissible, because we do not live under the law, but are under
Grace. It is, however, inadvisable to work seven days a week without resting
at least one day. But it is not unlawful, and no Christian will be judged
for doing so.
>2. Fasting
>OT teachings from Zec 7:5
No commands to fast.
>and 8:19.
No commands to fast here either.
>Jesus' disciples did not fast in Mark 2:18-22, Matthew 9:14-17 and Luke
>33-38. As before, tell me this: Do you think Christians should fast?
>And if not, why?
I do think Christians should fast. But, not as a restriction or obedience to
some law. Rather as a personal or collective focus on God.
In conclusion, Jesus followed all OT law. Did not break any of the Law. He
did break with the traditions of the Pharisees who added their own
interpretations and traditions to OT law.
>
>> You are correct, I've not read them. Please tell me this technique
>> she uses to interpret the gospels.
>
>It is known as the pesher technique, which is based very much in Greek.
>So saying that Thiering has no Greek scholarship is rubbish.
>
>> Here is where you are mistaken. In the book of Jonah, there are no
>> specific references to time. The same idiom is used, it doesn't tell
>> you exactly how long he was in the Big Fish. It doesn't say, he
>> entered on Wednesday, and on Saturday morning....etc. Those
>> descriptions are not in the Book of Jonah.
>
>Jonah 1:17 But the Lord provided a great fist to swallow Jonah, and
>Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Idiom above. See below.
>
>> >> >In any case, if Jesus was
>> >> >referring to three days and two nights - why did he say the "sign
>> >> >of Jonah"? Why not simply say three days and two nights?
>> >> >Mt 12:39-41 and Lk 11:29-32. It was an analogy, an illustration.
>> >> >Using something they know about (story of Jonah) to teach them
>> >> >aboutsomething
>> >> >they don't know anything about, the ressurection.
>> >> >Why use a Jewish idiom? Because that's the exact same idiom that
>> >> >was used in
>> >> >the book of Jonah, with which they were familiar.
>
>But you miss the point. The analogy does not correlate with the facts.
>Jonah spent three nights, while Jesus spent two nights. Just because it
>is a Jewish idiom does not mean that we can simply ignore the one night
>difference. In fact, Jesus himself tells us that this is more than a
>simple analogy or illustration: it is a "miraculous sign" or more
>accurately, a prophecy. Unfortunately, the prophecy appears to have
>failed.
If you came to my group of friends, who are all skateboarders (long ago),
and you listened to our conversations, you might hear us talk about getting
air, and grinding this or that. Now this would be especially confusing if
you could only hear us, and not watch us. Also, if you were a diver and not
a skateboarder. You would think that we were talking about getting "oxygen"
when we referenced "getting air." Or you might think that we were grinding
slaige off a weld if you were welder. Idioms are used every day by everyone.
The same is true in the Bible, and any piece of literature.
Now your contention is that Jonah was in the whale three nights. The problem
is that the text doesn't say that. IT says, "three days and three nights".
Which is the exact same phrase used by Jesus. The text also doesn't say,
"Jonah was spit out after the third night." It doesn't reference any
specific day of the week, or night of the week either. Rather this idiom is
used.
Now, it is my goal to read the text "as it was intended" in it's historical
context. In other words, what the author meant, when he wrote to his
original audience, is the meaning. Not the precise wording picked out,
thousands of years later. And interpreted without keeping in mind what the
authors usage of the language was.
Just as with my skateboarding buddies, we had our own idioms, words that
meant things other than their precise literal meaning.
take care,
dan
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> >Simply saying "I don't know why they chose some gospels over others
> >but
> >there are good reasons for doing so" is not a sound argument.
>
> Since I found a copy of the Gospel of Thomas I can see why it's not
> included
> in the cannon.
>
> http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/gosthom.html
>
> There are many statements that don't even sound right. Many that
> don't even
> agree with OT teachings. It doesn't cite many historical references,
> is
> mostly a collection of sayings. Many do agree with the NT, but those
> aren't
> what we are concerned with. Those that disagree.
> Funny thing that struck me is how it's contruction is very similar to
> the Koran.
Which statements are these? First you say the Gospel of Thomas is quite
similar to the other gospels, now you say that they don't "sound"
right. Why not? The NT does not agree with all OT teachings either -
eg. dietary laws.
It doesn't matter when you think John was written. Unless you are able
to provide some references (as I have above) your argument here carries
no weight.
> >The following authors are not "scholars" in the academic sense. But
> >all
> >of them in their respective books quote scholars and references which
> >attest that the gospels were not written by disciples nor eye
> >witnesses
> >of Jesus.
> >
> >- The Hiram Key, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas
> >- The Unathorized Version, Robin Lane Fox
> >- A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson, pp.26-27. This author
> >believes that the gospels were manipulated in many ways to accomodate
> >OT prophecies, a virgin birth (which was popular among Gods at that
> >time), events of the Last Supper and the resurrection.
> >
> >Maybe now you should quote some of your sources which suggest
> >otherwise - that the gospels were written by the same disciples who
> >witnessed Jesus and his ministry first hand.
>
> There are far to many for me to list. And more that I know. I can
> only give you a couple from the books that I have in my possesion.
> I'm not sure that will help too much though. That is, unless you are
> interested in reading them.
I would still be very interested in seeing your sources. After all, you
asked for mine and I provided. Cite whatever sources you can; the
university library here has a great heap of books, and I might be able
to find some of your books. Personally though, I doubt that there are
many books (if at all) which suggest that the gospels were written
earlier than 70AD.
> >One writer copying from another writer - that is not an independent
> >account for the very reason that his gospel did not arrive
> >independently from the one he copied. This is the case with the
> >gospels, and hence their validity is to be questioned.
>
> Matthew was a disciple. Independent witness.
> Mark was the writer for Peter, a disciple.
> Luke was the writer who traveled with Paul, and gathered information
> independantly of the others.
> John was a disciple, probably wrote after the other three were
> written, and
> diliberatly used a different format.
>
> All four are independent from each other, in the sense you are
> speaking of.
All of the above sources I quoted believed that the gospels were NOT
written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Hence, they are secondary
sources. Your contention here assumes that the disciple Matthew wrote
Matthew and so on, but scholars do not believe this is the case.
> >First of all, it takes much away from Christianity's strong
> >dependence
> >on the resurrection, for a great deal about the resurrection account
> >is
> >removed when you ignore the latter section of Mark. Since Matthew,
> >Luke
> >and John are very likely to be secondary sources, their accounts are
> >questionable.
>
> Not at all. Your assumption is that they are secondary sources.
Not my assumption. It is the opinion of many scholars and academics
that they are secondary sources. See my references above.
A large number of works were found at the Nag Hammadi find. Some of the
writings of these gospels were that:
*Jesus and Mary were intimately linked
*There is a God above Jehovah, called Sophia
*It paints a nasty picture of Jehovah - one who plays mischief upon
mankind
There are much more than this too. The best book that I've read on the
Gnostic Gospels is by Elaine Pagels, titled the "Gnostic Gospels".
> And the gospels contained in the Nag Hammadi collection. From what
> I've
> read, I'm not sure how any of those gospels can be trusted when
> compared to
> the biblical gospels. Further, it's not just those four gospels that
> the Nag
> Hammadi disagree with. It's major portions of the OT doctrine, and NT
> Doctrine. Non of the disciples taught gnosticism.
The NT also disagrees with much of OT doctrine. That is why the Jews do
not accept it. You seem entrenched in the idea that the bible is
absolutely correct and true, and your whole argument above is simply
based on circular logic since what we are discussing is the validity of
the bible, ie. you can't you use the bible to disprove the Gnostic
works because the issue under discussion here is whether or not the
bible is correct and true.
> >So you do not know what is the difference then between a reporter
> >and a
> >writer although you distinguished between them in an earlier post?
>
> Like you said what does it matter.
OK, so now you say there is no difference. So you have changed your
stance?
> I say they were writers, writing for a
> purpose, to pursuade their intended audience of the factual events
> that
> occured. For that time period, you could also call them reporters,
> but 20th
> century standards don't apply.
It doesn't matter. 20th century reporting accuracy is the same as 1st
century reporting accuracy.
> >The gospels have contradictions in them. What time did the women
> >leave?
> >How many women went? Were there two angels or just one? Where were
> >they
> >situated? Who did Jesus first appear to after the resurrection? How
> >long did Jesus spend on earth after the resurrection? Where did he
> >ascend into heaven? The four gospels provide different answers to all
> >these questions (and possibly more). There is no doubt that these are
> >contradictions, or in the very least, faulty recording.
>
> I can if you wish, go through each one, and show that they are not
> contradictions as you contend, rather are bits of the same story.
> Just as if
> you listened to bits of a conversation your friends were having, which
> sounded like they didn't like someone, you wouldn't at the very outset
> assume that they didn't. Because you would give them the benefit of
> the doubt.
OK, let's start with this. How many days did Jesus spend on earth after
his resurrection?
> I mean seriously, if you have 6 different eyewitnesses to the same
> traffic
> accident, you also have six different accounts of the same event.
> Does this
> mean that the event didn't happen, does this mean that the different
> accounts are contradictory? Wouldn't you agree that people see and
> record
> things differently in their memory? Just because they appear to be
> contradictory on the surface doesn't make is so.
A traffic accident is a bad analogy. Why?
1. Traffic accidents occur in a split second and so it is very hard to
see what is going on.
2. The discrepancies between these accounts are small one, such as who
turned first, who signalled first, what speed he was travelling at.
If you read the works of Roman historians at that time, their records
were almost perfect and correlate very nicely with each other. Even
though they saw different events from different points of view, they
managed to each product independent accounts which supported each
other. Why didn't the gospel writers do that?
Furthermore, your argument here suggests that you now admit that there
are differing accounts in the resurrection story. This is not what I
would expect from a divine work of God.
> Inorder for there to be a real contradiction, you need directly
> contradicting statements.
Depends what you mean by "directly contradicting" statement. And in any
case, there are directly contradicting statements in the bible too.
> >
> >If you still persist in this argument (that contradictions are OK
> >because they have to be taken in proper context) tell me this: Who
> >are
> >the different audiences to which Matthew and John are writing to? And
> >for what reason does Matthew mention two women going to the tomb but
> >John only mentions one? Or, what is it about John's audience that he
> >finds it fit to only mention one woman?
> >
> >Failure to answer this or provide a reason betrays a weak argument.
>
> My argument is that they are not really contradictions when the
> contexts are understood.
>
> Who was Matthew writing to? Greek speaking Jews. His purpose was to
> prove to
> them that Jesus was the Messiah.
>
> John was writting to the world. His purpose was to show the world
> that Jesus
> was the son of God.
There is no evidence that Matthew and John were writing to different
audiences. Where is your evidence for this?
> As for why John mentions only one woman, and Matthew mentions two. I
> think it's clear from John 20:2, that Mary Magdalene was the one who
> told Peter and John directly what she saw. And since the story line
> doesn't go into fine details, only the high points are mentioned,
> hence, only the Mary who spoke to them was mentioned. This doesn't
> create a contradiction, as John doesn't say "only" one woman saw this
> event. Rather it leads to his greater point that Jesus was actually
> resurrected as evidenced by the folded head cloth. Jn. 20:7, which
> only John mentions. If it was a grave robbery, the head cloth
> wouldn't have been folded.
You've still not answered why John only mentions one woman and Matthew
two. If, as you say, John is writing to the world and Matthew to Greek
Jews, why are Greek Jews privy to knowing that two women visited Jesus
while the rest of the world is only told one woman went?
Furthermore your argument is invalid. Why? Because the same argument
can be applied to Mark. Mark is the shortest gospel and only contains
the main points of the story. But he still nevertheless mentions three
women visiting the tomb.
> >First of all, your whole reasoning here is based on presumptions and
> >assumptions. Although the gospels never mention it, you ASSUME that
> >the
> >angel(s) spoke to the women once outside the tomb, and once inside
> >the
> >tomb. All this is speculative.
> >
> >I could speculate that the angel(s) spoke to the women three times,
> >but neither of the gospel writers recorded it. I could speculate
> >that there
> >were fifty angels there, although because of the context, all of the
> >authors failed to mention it. I could speculate anything, and my
> >speculations are backed up by as much hard evidence as yours - none.
No rebuttal for this?
> >Well, if someone "came down from heaven" and rolled over a great big
> >stone by himself, is it possible that he could be a man?
You accept this reasoning then?
> >This is rubbish. What was the custom of the era? If Jesus truly
> >performed miracles and resurrection he would surely be named
> >personally.
> >> I agree with your assertion that OT teachings are Jewish teachings.
> >> I do not agree that Jesus broke those two teachings. Please cite
> >> where he broke them, and cite the specific OT law or teaching
> >>broken.
> >
> >1. Keeping the Sabbath
> >OT teachings from Exodus 20:8-11.
> Says do not work.
>
> >Jesus broke them in Matthew Chp 12,
> Jesus broke no law. He didn't work. Rather he walked and picked
> grain, and
> ate what he picked. He was not harvesting grain. Rather just eating
> handfulls as he walked. Just as is permissable by the OT law in Deut.
> 23:25.
> Jesus healed a man's hand also. Was this work? Is that your
> contention?
Yes, this was work according the religious teachers of that day. Jesus
himself said: "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath made
for man." So if the Sabbath was made for man, then man can choose to do
whatever they liked on the Sabbath.
>
> Luke 13:10-17,
>
> Just as pulling one's Ox out of a pit is not equivilant to work, in
the same
> way, healing one woman is not work. If this were so, then
> Preachers/Pastors/leaders would be violating the Sabbath by managing
the
> concregation on that day. Fact is that the Sabbath was a time to
focus on
> God, and what better way than to have a good healing?
>
> John 5:1-8.
> The ministry of healing is not forbidden by Exodus on the Sabbath.
You are using NT teachings, to support your contention at NT teachings
override OT teachings. This is, again, circular reasoning.
> >Because Jesus did not obey the Sabbath commandment, Christians
> >(generally) do not keep the Sabbath. It is now perfectly fine for a
> >Christian to work on Sundays. Do you think working on the Sabbath is
> >permissible? If so why?
>
> It is permissible, because we do not live under the law, but are under
> Grace. It is, however, inadvisable to work seven days a week without
> resting at least one day. But it is not unlawful, and no Christian
> will be judged for doing so.
This is typical of how Christian apologists explain away NT teachings
which contradict OT teachings: "We are under a different covenant, so
OT teachings do not apply." So then are the Ten Commandments still
valid since they are OT teachings? Why OT teachings does the NT
specifically override? No one knows.
> >2. Fasting
> >OT teachings from Zec 7:5
> No commands to fast.
>
> >and 8:19.
> No commands to fast here either.
>
> >Jesus' disciples did not fast in Mark 2:18-22, Matthew 9:14-17 and
Luke
> >33-38. As before, tell me this: Do you think Christians should fast?
> >And if not, why?
>
> I do think Christians should fast. But, not as a restriction or
> obedience to some law. Rather as a personal or collective focus on
> God.
I will get back to you on this, I need to check up on some other stuff
to be sure first.
> In conclusion, Jesus followed all OT law. Did not break any of the
> Law. He
> did break with the traditions of the Pharisees who added their own
> interpretations and traditions to OT law.
Well, if he didn't break any OT law why is there a new convenant with
new rules? Why don't we have to follow the dietary laws anymore? Or any
of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?
> >Jonah 1:17 But the Lord provided a great fist to swallow Jonah, and
> >Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Idiom above. See below.
There is no evidence that the three days and three nights is an idiom
or metaphorical writings. In fact, it is quite clear and literal.
Yes, but there is NO evidence of "three days and three nights" being an
idiom. You've simply said this without any evidence. In any case, tell
me what the phrase really means then?
Now, maybe salvation, heaven and hell could be idioms too. Just like
you, I can argue that heaven and hell are both idioms. They are not
literal places. This is just as valid as your statement that the "three
days and three nights" phrase is an idiom.
> Now your contention is that Jonah was in the whale three nights. The
> problem
> is that the text doesn't say that. IT says, "three days and three
> nights".
> Which is the exact same phrase used by Jesus.
Huh? The text says "three days and three nights". I contend that Jonah
was in the whale for "three days and three nights". What's the problem?
> The text also doesn't say,
> "Jonah was spit out after the third night." It doesn't reference any
> specific day of the week, or night of the week either. Rather this
> idiom is
> used.
The text says Jonah was in the whale for three days and three nights.
It is quite obvious to anyone that this means Jonah was spat out after
three days and three nights, and not a day or a night more. The text
doesn't have to say "Jonah was spat out after the third night", this is
quite obvious.
Think about it: Can Jonah be spat out after the second night if he
spent three nights in the whale? Can Jonah be spat out after the fourth
night if he spent three nights in the whale? I don't know why you have
a problem with this ...
> Now, it is my goal to read the text "as it was intended" in it's
> historical
> context. In other words, what the author meant, when he wrote to his
> original audience, is the meaning. Not the precise wording picked out,
> thousands of years later. And interpreted without keeping in mind
> what the
> authors usage of the language was.
So how do you know what are idioms are what are not?
G & G
<snip>
>There are far to many for me to list. And more that I know. I can only give
>you a couple from the books that I have in my possesion. I'm not sure that
>will help too much though. That is, unless you are interested in reading
>them.
In other words, you ask for the other person's sources and you get them but
when you are asked for your sources you simply gloss over the request with
"There are far to (sic) many fo me to list". SHEESH
<big snip>
And this attempt to explain away stuff is directly in opposition to your
earlier statement that ". . . all of this was guided by the Holy Spirit."
One would think that something guided by the holy spirit would not be so
bloomin difficult to reconcile.
<snip all the rest>
xo...@my-deja.com
questions for you.
In article <387a...@nntp-out.newsnerds.com>,
"dan Hughes" <dhu...@toysrbob.com> wrote:
> Who was Matthew writing to? Greek speaking Jews.
His purpose was to prove to
> them that Jesus was the Messiah.
>
> John was writting to the world. His purpose was
to show the world that Jesus
> was the son of God.
Why, if Matthew was an Aramaic-speaking intellectual of some sort who
lived by the Sea of Galilee, would he have chosen to write in Greek to
convince fellow Jews that Jesus was their king? Why not Hebrew or
Aramaic? I'll tell you why: Matthew (if he existed) did not write
"Matthew." Rather, some Greek-speaking author must have, and this
probably means that the author did not have firsthand knowledge of the
events described. At least this makes more sense than trying to
understand why a Jew from Judeah would write to his fellow Jews on a
Jewish matter in Greek.
You seem to understand the improbability of a Jew speaking another idiom
when discussing theology when you analyze the Jonah "idiom" below.
> >Jonah 1:17 But the Lord provided a great fist
to swallow Jonah, and
> >Jonah was inside the fish three days and three
nights.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Idiom above. See
below.
> >
> >> >> >In any case, if Jesus was
> >> >> >referring to three days and two nights -
why did he say the "sign
> >> >> >of Jonah"? Why not simply say three days
and two nights?
> >> >> >Mt 12:39-41 and Lk 11:29-32. It was an
analogy, an illustration.
> >> >> >Using something they know about (story of
Jonah) to teach them
> >> >> >aboutsomething
> >> >> >they don't know anything about, the
ressurection.
> >> >> >Why use a Jewish idiom? Because that's
the exact same idiom that
> >> >> >was used in
> >> >> >the book of Jonah, with which they were
familiar.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dan Hughes
----------
In article <sUIe4.1700$8X5....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "G & G"
<gri...@gte.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>There are far to many for me to list. And more that I know. I can only give
>>you a couple from the books that I have in my possesion. I'm not sure that
>>will help too much though. That is, unless you are interested in reading
>>them.
>
>In other words, you ask for the other person's sources and you get them but
>when you are asked for your sources you simply gloss over the request with
>"There are far to (sic) many fo me to list". SHEESH
If you want them all I will compile a list. I'm sorry if it appears that I'm
asking for something I'm not giving. In fact, I've give quite a few sources
already. I honestly didn't know where Sam was getting his information. But
if you go into any christian book store and there are loads of reference
books. I've not seen a agnostic book store lately so wasn't aware there was
that much out there supporting those views. I'm happy to see it. Now maybe
we can move on to *what* they say, and *why* they say that.
>
><big snip>
>And this attempt to explain away stuff is directly in opposition to your
>earlier statement that ". . . all of this was guided by the Holy Spirit."
>One would think that something guided by the holy spirit would not be so
>bloomin difficult to reconcile.
You might think that. I wouldn't. Enter the human element. Just because the
holy spirit guides the writers and the processes involved, doesn't deminish
the fact that the message is grounded in the first century's historical
context of the humans of that time. Using the language, idioms, and thinking
of that day. The fact that each book has a slightly different purpose and
intended audience contributes to these supposed contradictions.
take care,
dan
Jeff/addesign
<snip>
>Why, if Matthew was an Aramaic-speaking intellectual of some sort who
>lived by the Sea of Galilee, would he have chosen to write in Greek to
>convince fellow Jews that Jesus was their king? Why not Hebrew or
>Aramaic? I'll tell you why: Matthew (if he existed) did not write
>"Matthew." Rather, some Greek-speaking author must have, and this
>probably means that the author did not have firsthand knowledge of the
>events described. At least this makes more sense than trying to
>understand why a Jew from Judeah would write to his fellow Jews on a
>Jewish matter in Greek.
Depends upon which Jews he was talking to. Palestine had been under
Greek control before Rome, and there were a couple of centuries of
hellenization. I have no doubt numerous Jews spoke greek fluently. One
of the big internecine tussles in the intertestamental period was
between Hellenized (greekized) Jews, and those who sought to restore
the xenophobic isolationist state of pre-hellenization. The Maccabbean
revolt sprang from anti-hellenistic Jews.
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
If the religion of any Church become, therefore, true and saving,
because the head of that sect, the prelates and priests, and
those of that tribe, do all of them, with all their might, extol
and praise it, what religion can ever be accounted erroneous,
false, and destructive?--John Locke, Letters on Toleration
xo...@my-deja.com
Is there a Jewish philosopher of the period based in Palestine or
writing on Jewish themes who wrote in Greek? It wouldn't surprise me if
Philo did because he was based in Alexandria, but did Hillel or anyone
else involved in the major Jewish controversies of the day? I can't
imagine it, but perhaps you know of an example or two.
Jeff/addesign
>In article <s7nloo1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> adde...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
>> xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
>> >events described. At least this makes more sense than trying to
>> >understand why a Jew from Judeah would write to his fellow Jews on a
>> >Jewish matter in Greek.
>>
>> Depends upon which Jews he was talking to. Palestine had been under
>> Greek control before Rome, and there were a couple of centuries of
>> hellenization. I have no doubt numerous Jews spoke greek fluently. One
>> of the big internecine tussles in the intertestamental period was
>> between Hellenized (greekized) Jews, and those who sought to restore
>> the xenophobic isolationist state of pre-hellenization. The Maccabbean
>> revolt sprang from anti-hellenistic Jews.
>Is there a Jewish philosopher of the period based in Palestine or
>writing on Jewish themes who wrote in Greek? It wouldn't surprise me if
>Philo did because he was based in Alexandria, but did Hillel or anyone
>else involved in the major Jewish controversies of the day? I can't
>imagine it, but perhaps you know of an example or two.
Yes, Philo was a Greek. Along with Hellenizing Palestine, there was a
large Jewish population in Greece.
I am reasonably certain Hillel spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, but as a
scholarly person, he probably spoke Greek as well. Couldn't tell you
about others without doing some research, which you could probably do
yourself. Look for anything about Hellenization in Palestine, and who
were Philo's contemporaries and cronies.
xo...@my-deja.com
I did start looking into it on line last night, but nothing was leaping
out at me and it was getting extremely late. I also skimmed a bit of
Sholem's Trends in Jewish Mysticism for references to Jewish writers who
wrote in Greek; I came up empty. Until I find evidence that other Jews
in the first century, especially those based in Palestine, wrote in
Greek, I will remain skeptical about the idea that a follower of Jesus
would choose to write about him in a language other than Hebrew or
Aramaic.
> Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
> ****************************************************************
> Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
> "So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
> ****************************************************************
> If the religion of any Church become, therefore, true and saving,
> because the head of that sect, the prelates and priests, and
> those of that tribe, do all of them, with all their might, extol
> and praise it, what religion can ever be accounted erroneous,
> false, and destructive?--John Locke, Letters on Toleration
>
>
dan Hughes
----------
>
>
>> >Simply saying "I don't know why they chose some gospels over others
>> >but
>> >there are good reasons for doing so" is not a sound argument.
>>
>> Since I found a copy of the Gospel of Thomas I can see why it's not
>> included
>> in the cannon.
>>
>> http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/gosthom.html
>>
>> There are many statements that don't even sound right. Many that
>> don't even
>> agree with OT teachings. It doesn't cite many historical references,
>> is
>> mostly a collection of sayings. Many do agree with the NT, but those
>> aren't
>> what we are concerned with. Those that disagree.
>> Funny thing that struck me is how it's contruction is very similar to
>> the Koran.
>
>Which statements are these? First you say the Gospel of Thomas is quite
>similar to the other gospels, now you say that they don't "sound"
>right. Why not? The NT does not agree with all OT teachings either -
>eg. dietary laws.
I hadn't read the gospel of Thomas before. I was mistaken, I was think of a
different work. It is simply a collection of sayings. No telling if they
came from Jesus or not. You are correct that the NT teachings of dietary
laws doesn't agree with the OT one, because there is no teaching of any
dietary laws in the NT.
I will work on it.
And on what basis does she put the sayings found in the gnostic gospels
above the biblical gospels?
>
>> And the gospels contained in the Nag Hammadi collection. From what
>> I've
>> read, I'm not sure how any of those gospels can be trusted when
>> compared to
>> the biblical gospels. Further, it's not just those four gospels that
>> the Nag
>> Hammadi disagree with. It's major portions of the OT doctrine, and NT
>> Doctrine. Non of the disciples taught gnosticism.
>
>The NT also disagrees with much of OT doctrine. That is why the Jews do
>not accept it. You seem entrenched in the idea that the bible is
>absolutely correct and true, and your whole argument above is simply
>based on circular logic since what we are discussing is the validity of
>the bible, ie. you can't you use the bible to disprove the Gnostic
>works because the issue under discussion here is whether or not the
>bible is correct and true.
If you are going to prove something is correct and true, that thing must be
referenced. What does it teach? Internal evidence is just as valid as
external evidence. For if the "thing" doesn't stand up to internal scrutiny,
as you have contended, then that is evidence against it's validity. Just as
if it does stand up to such scrutiny, that is evidence in it's favor.
It is no more circular reasoning than assuming an accused man, innocent at
the outset. In other words, it shouldn't matter what our assumptions are,
the validity or in validity of the "thing" should stand no matter what we
believe at the outset.
>> >So you do not know what is the difference then between a reporter
>> >and a
>> >writer although you distinguished between them in an earlier post?
>>
>> Like you said what does it matter.
>
>OK, so now you say there is no difference. So you have changed your
>stance?
I didn't say there was no difference, rather that it doesn't matter.
>
>> I say they were writers, writing for a
>> purpose, to pursuade their intended audience of the factual events
>> that
>> occured. For that time period, you could also call them reporters,
>> but 20th
>> century standards don't apply.
>
>It doesn't matter. 20th century reporting accuracy is the same as 1st
>century reporting accuracy.
Not exactly. What do you mean by accuracy? Do you mean that they had to
include all the details that you think ought to have been included?
>
>> >The gospels have contradictions in them. What time did the women
>> >leave?
>> >How many women went? Were there two angels or just one? Where were
>> >they
>> >situated? Who did Jesus first appear to after the resurrection? How
>> >long did Jesus spend on earth after the resurrection? Where did he
>> >ascend into heaven? The four gospels provide different answers to all
>> >these questions (and possibly more). There is no doubt that these are
>> >contradictions, or in the very least, faulty recording.
>>
>> I can if you wish, go through each one, and show that they are not
>> contradictions as you contend, rather are bits of the same story.
>> Just as if
>> you listened to bits of a conversation your friends were having, which
>> sounded like they didn't like someone, you wouldn't at the very outset
>> assume that they didn't. Because you would give them the benefit of
>> the doubt.
>
>OK, let's start with this. How many days did Jesus spend on earth after
>his resurrection?
40 days
>
>> I mean seriously, if you have 6 different eyewitnesses to the same
>> traffic
>> accident, you also have six different accounts of the same event.
>> Does this
>> mean that the event didn't happen, does this mean that the different
>> accounts are contradictory? Wouldn't you agree that people see and
>> record
>> things differently in their memory? Just because they appear to be
>> contradictory on the surface doesn't make is so.
>
>A traffic accident is a bad analogy. Why?
>1. Traffic accidents occur in a split second and so it is very hard to
>see what is going on.
>2. The discrepancies between these accounts are small one, such as who
>turned first, who signalled first, what speed he was travelling at.
>
>If you read the works of Roman historians at that time, their records
>were almost perfect and correlate very nicely with each other. Even
>though they saw different events from different points of view, they
>managed to each product independent accounts which supported each
>other. Why didn't the gospel writers do that?
Unlike historians. The gospel writers were preachers. They had a point, a
message to prove, to pursuade. Leaving out details that they didn't think
necessary to their point is nothing new, and is done today all the time.
Which is why I get so frusterated with the liberal media covering the
Liberal white house. They leave details out. They have a point, they want to
pursuade. Does this make the story untrue?
>
>Furthermore, your argument here suggests that you now admit that there
>are differing accounts in the resurrection story. This is not what I
>would expect from a divine work of God.
What is that you expect? You expect God to come down and write the book
himself?
You expect it to have perfect grammer, spelling, and not be written from the
perspectives of the human instrument?
>
>> Inorder for there to be a real contradiction, you need directly
>> contradicting statements.
>
>Depends what you mean by "directly contradicting" statement. And in any
>case, there are directly contradicting statements in the bible too.
I'm game, where are they?
>
>> >
>> >If you still persist in this argument (that contradictions are OK
>> >because they have to be taken in proper context) tell me this: Who
>> >are
>> >the different audiences to which Matthew and John are writing to? And
>> >for what reason does Matthew mention two women going to the tomb but
>> >John only mentions one? Or, what is it about John's audience that he
>> >finds it fit to only mention one woman?
>> >
>> >Failure to answer this or provide a reason betrays a weak argument.
>>
>> My argument is that they are not really contradictions when the
>> contexts are understood.
>>
>> Who was Matthew writing to? Greek speaking Jews. His purpose was to
>> prove to
>> them that Jesus was the Messiah.
>>
>> John was writting to the world. His purpose was to show the world
>> that Jesus
>> was the son of God.
>
>There is no evidence that Matthew and John were writing to different
>audiences. Where is your evidence for this?
The evidence is derived from the books themselves. It's called internal
evidences. The arguements used, the structure. John is always referencing
the divinity of Jesus. Mathew refers to Jesus' messianic claims and quotes
from the OT.
>
>> As for why John mentions only one woman, and Matthew mentions two. I
>> think it's clear from John 20:2, that Mary Magdalene was the one who
>> told Peter and John directly what she saw. And since the story line
>> doesn't go into fine details, only the high points are mentioned,
>> hence, only the Mary who spoke to them was mentioned. This doesn't
>> create a contradiction, as John doesn't say "only" one woman saw this
>> event. Rather it leads to his greater point that Jesus was actually
>> resurrected as evidenced by the folded head cloth. Jn. 20:7, which
>> only John mentions. If it was a grave robbery, the head cloth
>> wouldn't have been folded.
>
>You've still not answered why John only mentions one woman and Matthew
>two. If, as you say, John is writing to the world and Matthew to Greek
>Jews, why are Greek Jews privy to knowing that two women visited Jesus
>while the rest of the world is only told one woman went?
I've no real answer. I can only speculate as to why. Why do people write
like they do? Why do people have personalities like they do? Fact is there
could be many reasons. Doesn't make the story any less accurate, or invalid.
Johns point was made by mentioning only one woman. Maybe he didn't want to
the reader to get bogged down in details, that while true, were not germaine
to the story, in his opinion.
>
>Furthermore your argument is invalid. Why? Because the same argument
>can be applied to Mark. Mark is the shortest gospel and only contains
>the main points of the story. But he still nevertheless mentions three
>women visiting the tomb.
My argument is not invalid, unless you can provide a reason why John should
have included details that he appears to think not necessary to the main
point of the story. Was Jesus God? Did he over come death as he claimed? Was
there two women there or not? This last question really doesn't add anything
to the story.
>> >First of all, your whole reasoning here is based on presumptions and
>> >assumptions. Although the gospels never mention it, you ASSUME that
>> >the
>> >angel(s) spoke to the women once outside the tomb, and once inside
>> >the
>> >tomb. All this is speculative.
>> >
>> >I could speculate that the angel(s) spoke to the women three times,
>> >but neither of the gospel writers recorded it. I could speculate
>> >that there
>> >were fifty angels there, although because of the context, all of the
>> >authors failed to mention it. I could speculate anything, and my
>> >speculations are backed up by as much hard evidence as yours - none.
>
>No rebuttal for this?
No rebuttal is needed. Your contentions are based on speculations. No
evidence for the contradictions you mentioned. The fact that these writers
mentioned parts of the whole event, is a plausable arguement. Because it
happens all the time. There is no compelling reason to assume that these
writers have made things up, attempted to deceive their readers. What's the
point of making up a book where honesty is paramount?
>
>> >Well, if someone "came down from heaven" and rolled over a great big
>> >stone by himself, is it possible that he could be a man?
>
>You accept this reasoning then?
I don't recall what your original point was. I do recall you saying that you
thought it surprising that Mary didn't recognize them as angels. And my
question was something along the lines of, what does an angel look like? How
easy is it to tell? How many have you seen?
>
>> >This is rubbish. What was the custom of the era? If Jesus truly
>> >performed miracles and resurrection he would surely be named
>> >personally.
>
>> >> I agree with your assertion that OT teachings are Jewish teachings.
>> >> I do not agree that Jesus broke those two teachings. Please cite
>> >> where he broke them, and cite the specific OT law or teaching
>> >>broken.
>> >
>> >1. Keeping the Sabbath
>> >OT teachings from Exodus 20:8-11.
>> Says do not work.
>>
>> >Jesus broke them in Matthew Chp 12,
>> Jesus broke no law. He didn't work. Rather he walked and picked
>> grain, and
>> ate what he picked. He was not harvesting grain. Rather just eating
>> handfulls as he walked. Just as is permissable by the OT law in Deut.
>> 23:25.
>> Jesus healed a man's hand also. Was this work? Is that your
>> contention?
>
>Yes, this was work according the religious teachers of that day. Jesus
>himself said: "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath made
>for man." So if the Sabbath was made for man, then man can choose to do
>whatever they liked on the Sabbath.
Sorry, but your original contention was that Jesus broke the OT law, not the
teachings of those of that day.
>
>>
>> Luke 13:10-17,
>>
>> Just as pulling one's Ox out of a pit is not equivilant to work, in
>the same
>> way, healing one woman is not work. If this were so, then
>> Preachers/Pastors/leaders would be violating the Sabbath by managing
>the
>> concregation on that day. Fact is that the Sabbath was a time to
>focus on
>> God, and what better way than to have a good healing?
>>
>> John 5:1-8.
>> The ministry of healing is not forbidden by Exodus on the Sabbath.
>
>You are using NT teachings, to support your contention at NT teachings
>override OT teachings. This is, again, circular reasoning.
And I didn't see one OT law broken by Jesus as you contended.
>
>> >Because Jesus did not obey the Sabbath commandment, Christians
>> >(generally) do not keep the Sabbath. It is now perfectly fine for a
>> >Christian to work on Sundays. Do you think working on the Sabbath is
>> >permissible? If so why?
>>
>> It is permissible, because we do not live under the law, but are under
>> Grace. It is, however, inadvisable to work seven days a week without
>> resting at least one day. But it is not unlawful, and no Christian
>> will be judged for doing so.
>
>This is typical of how Christian apologists explain away NT teachings
>which contradict OT teachings: "We are under a different covenant, so
>OT teachings do not apply." So then are the Ten Commandments still
>valid since they are OT teachings? Why OT teachings does the NT
>specifically override? No one knows.
What does the OT teaching, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" mean?
>
>> >2. Fasting
>> >OT teachings from Zec 7:5
>> No commands to fast.
>>
>> >and 8:19.
>> No commands to fast here either.
>>
>> >Jesus' disciples did not fast in Mark 2:18-22, Matthew 9:14-17 and
>Luke
>> >33-38. As before, tell me this: Do you think Christians should fast?
>> >And if not, why?
>>
>> I do think Christians should fast. But, not as a restriction or
>> obedience to some law. Rather as a personal or collective focus on
>> God.
>
>I will get back to you on this, I need to check up on some other stuff
>to be sure first.
>
>> In conclusion, Jesus followed all OT law. Did not break any of the
>> Law. He
>> did break with the traditions of the Pharisees who added their own
>> interpretations and traditions to OT law.
>
>Well, if he didn't break any OT law why is there a new convenant with
>new rules? Why don't we have to follow the dietary laws anymore? Or any
>of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?
As Jesus said while on the cross. "It is finished." He fulfilled the old
contract, and created a new one. Once he did that the old one is no longer
binding. The OT dietary laws, and other teachings are good for guidence, but
are no longer binding. We are no longer required to offer up sacrifices for
our sin, as that is what Jesus did, "once and for all."
>
>> >Jonah 1:17 But the Lord provided a great fist to swallow Jonah, and
>> >Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Idiom above. See below.
>
>There is no evidence that the three days and three nights is an idiom
>or metaphorical writings. In fact, it is quite clear and literal.
Principles of interpretation require us to read it as it was intended. How
did the original recipients understand it? Paul, a learned Jew, understood
it to mean "On the third day." (1 cor. 15:4).
As I've said before, it means any part of three 24 hour periods. The
evidence is found in it's usage in both the Psalms, and the NT. Doing
something "day and night" doesn't mean 24 hours literally, as you are
forcing on the passage.
>
>Now, maybe salvation, heaven and hell could be idioms too. Just like
>you, I can argue that heaven and hell are both idioms. They are not
>literal places. This is just as valid as your statement that the "three
>days and three nights" phrase is an idiom.
You could argue that. But, you would have trouble explaining how Stephen had
a vision of an idiom. OR how the alogory of Lazarus and the King was just an
idiom.
>
>> Now your contention is that Jonah was in the whale three nights. The
>> problem
>> is that the text doesn't say that. IT says, "three days and three
>> nights".
>> Which is the exact same phrase used by Jesus.
>
>Huh? The text says "three days and three nights". I contend that Jonah
>was in the whale for "three days and three nights". What's the problem?
It doesn't say three 24 hour periods. That's my point.
>
>> The text also doesn't say,
>> "Jonah was spit out after the third night." It doesn't reference any
>> specific day of the week, or night of the week either. Rather this
>> idiom is
>> used.
>
>The text says Jonah was in the whale for three days and three nights.
>It is quite obvious to anyone that this means Jonah was spat out after
>three days and three nights, and not a day or a night more. The text
>doesn't have to say "Jonah was spat out after the third night", this is
>quite obvious.
>
>Think about it: Can Jonah be spat out after the second night if he
>spent three nights in the whale? Can Jonah be spat out after the fourth
>night if he spent three nights in the whale? I don't know why you have
>a problem with this ...
I've no problem with it. Jonah could just as easily been spat out on the
third night. And the statement would still be true.
>
>> Now, it is my goal to read the text "as it was intended" in it's
>> historical
>> context. In other words, what the author meant, when he wrote to his
>> original audience, is the meaning. Not the precise wording picked out,
>> thousands of years later. And interpreted without keeping in mind
>> what the
>> authors usage of the language was.
>
>So how do you know what are idioms are what are not?
Based on how the original audience understood it. What do the commentaries,
or teachings of that day say about the document?
I noticed my question reguarding interpreting what the meaning of, "Boot,
hood, and trunk" without referencing their respective historical contexts is
missing. Does this mean that you agree with me, that a historical context is
a necessary part of interpretation?
take care,
dan
G & G
>>And this attempt to explain away stuff is directly in opposition to your
>>earlier statement that ". . . all of this was guided by the Holy Spirit."
>>One would think that something guided by the holy spirit would not be so
>>bloomin difficult to reconcile.
>
>
>You might think that. I wouldn't. Enter the human element. Just because the
>holy spirit guides the writers and the processes involved, doesn't deminish
>the fact that the message is grounded in the first century's historical
>context of the humans of that time. Using the language, idioms, and
thinking
>of that day. The fact that each book has a slightly different purpose and
>intended audience contributes to these supposed contradictions.
>
Clearly there is a human element at work here that just as clearly shows
there is virtually no guidance by any omniscient omnipotent being. For many
years I guided people in their work and never was the result of their work
as confusing, contradictory, ignorant, and meaningless as the bible. If I,
an admittedly imperfect specimen, can get a large group people to produce a
consistent product why couldn't god be even slightly better? The fact that
you have to make excuses and grasping-at-straws justifications for god's
obvious inability to do a reasonable job of guiding these folks indicates,
at least to me, that you are not willing to consider that the problems in
the bible are there because HUMANS did it all by themselves, not because god
had a difficult time organizing or directing the "human element." Even more
compelling would be a document that was at least accurate on things that
should have been well known even at the time it was written, let alone a
document that would stand up to in-depth scrutiny over the ages. If god was
directing or influencing the writing of the bible there should be NO
inaccuracies. Errors and inconsistencies are incompatible with any concept
of an omniscient omnipotent god directing the process. We are talking about
an omnipotent omniscient being here, aren't we? Such a being would never,
in my opinion, even select authors in the first place who wouldn't
accurately put to paper what they were being inspired to write. Or, are you
implying that the authors accurately wrote as god inspired them and that,
therefore, god intended for the errors to be there or that he didn't really
know better? Certainly an omniscient being would have a better plan than
what actually happened, don't you think? Certainly he would have known that
I would, in the year 2000, be doubting his very existence based solely on
his holy word and it, therefore, should not be riddled with inconsistencies
and errors.
Jeff/addesign
>In article <s7ovtl...@corp.supernews.com>,
> adde...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
>> Yes, Philo was a Greek. Along with Hellenizing Palestine, there was a
>> large Jewish population in Greece.
>>
>> I am reasonably certain Hillel spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, but as a
>> scholarly person, he probably spoke Greek as well. Couldn't tell you
>> about others without doing some research, which you could probably do
>> yourself. Look for anything about Hellenization in Palestine, and who
>> were Philo's contemporaries and cronies.
>I did start looking into it on line last night, but nothing was leaping
>out at me and it was getting extremely late. I also skimmed a bit of
>Sholem's Trends in Jewish Mysticism for references to Jewish writers who
>wrote in Greek; I came up empty. Until I find evidence that other Jews
>in the first century, especially those based in Palestine, wrote in
>Greek, I will remain skeptical about the idea that a follower of Jesus
>would choose to write about him in a language other than Hebrew or
>Aramaic.
It's safe to assume some other multi-ligualism as well, with an influx
of Babylonian Jews in those middle centuries, bringing in some
Zoroastrian principles. The Talmud got its birth in the Babylonian
exile, if my memory isn't too fuzzy. But you are right to be
especially sceptical about Jesus and his followers, since most of the
more recent reading that I've been doing (mostly in re The Dead Sea
Scrolls) suggests he was probably a Zealot leader. Even if cast as an
Essene, he'd have been scholarly, but xenophobic. Zealot or Esssene,
these folks would be vociforous and trenchent in their opposition to
hellenism, and I doubt they'd pay attention to any treatises in Greek.
dan Hughes
----------
>In article <s7ovtl...@corp.supernews.com>,
> adde...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
>> Yes, Philo was a Greek. Along with Hellenizing Palestine, there was a
>> large Jewish population in Greece.
>>
>> I am reasonably certain Hillel spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, but as a
>> scholarly person, he probably spoke Greek as well. Couldn't tell you
>> about others without doing some research, which you could probably do
>> yourself. Look for anything about Hellenization in Palestine, and who
>> were Philo's contemporaries and cronies.
>
>
>I did start looking into it on line last night, but nothing was leaping
>out at me and it was getting extremely late. I also skimmed a bit of
>Sholem's Trends in Jewish Mysticism for references to Jewish writers who
>wrote in Greek; I came up empty. Until I find evidence that other Jews
>in the first century, especially those based in Palestine, wrote in
>Greek, I will remain skeptical about the idea that a follower of Jesus
>would choose to write about him in a language other than Hebrew or
>Aramaic.
The fact that the whole Jewish bible was translated in to Greek and was used
by the common jewish man of that day gives credience to the idea that
Matthew wrote to his fellow jewish brothers in their common every day
language. He quoted from both the Hebrew and Greek versions. Just the same
situation would occur today, he wouldn't use Hebrew, but English as his
primary language.
take care,
dan
xo...@my-deja.com
But the Jews of Palestine spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The Septuagint was a
Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah commissioned by an Egyptian king
for the Alexandrian library. It was read by Hellenized Jews in
Alexandria and other Greek parts of the world, but apparently it was
more widely used by pagans who were interested in Jewish thought and
religion. It seems highly unlikely that the Jews in Palestine would have
had much use for a Greek version of their holy book, or for commentaries
on it written in Greek.
What do you make of this brief history of the translation?
http://www2.imagine.com/economy1/Brenton%20intro.htm
"A writer, who calls himself Aristeas, says that when Ptolemy
Philadelphus was engaged in the formation of the Alexandrian Library, he
was advised by Demetrius Phalereus to procure a translation of the
sacred books of the Jews. The king accordingly, as a preliminary,
purchased the freedom of more than one hundred thousand Jewish captives,
and he then sent a deputation, of which Aristeas himself was one, to
Eleazar the high-priest to request a copy of the Jewish Law and
seventy-two interpreters, six out of each tribe. To this the priest is
represented to have agreed; and after the arrival of the translators and
their magnificent reception by the king, they are said to have been
conducted to an island by Demetrius, who wrote down the renderings on
which they agreed by mutual conference; and thus the work is stated to
have been completed in seventy-two days. The translators are then said
to have received from the king most abundant rewards; and the Jews are
stated to have asked permissions to take copies of the version.
"Other additions were subsequently made to this story: some said that
each translator was shut into a separate cell, and that all by divine
inspiration made their versions word for word alike; others said that
there were two in each cell, accompanied by an amanuensis; but at all
events miracle and direct inspiration were supposed to be connected with
the translation: hence we cannot wonder that the authority attached to
this version in the minds of those who believed these stories was almost
unbounded.
"The basis of truth which appears to be under this story seems to be,
that it was an Egyptian king who caused the translation to be made, and
that it was from the Royal Library at Alexandria that the Hellenistic
Jews received the copies which they used.
"In examining the version itself, it bears manifest proof that it was
not executed by Jews of Palestine, but by those of Egypt: -- there are
words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin: this
alone would be a sufficient demonstration that the narrative of Aristeas
is a mere fiction. It may also be doubted whether in the year 285 B.C.
there were Jews in Palestine who had sufficient intercourse with the
Greeks to have executed a translation into that language; for it must be
borne in mind how recently they had become the subjects of Greek
monarchs, and how differently they were situated from the Alexandrians
as to the influx of Greek settlers.
"Some in rejecting the fabulous embellishments have also discarded all
connected with them: they have then sought to devise new hypotheses as
to the origin of the version. Some have thus supposed that the
translation was made by Alexandrian Jews for their own use, in order to
meet a neccesity which they felt to have a version of the Scriptures in
the tongue which had become vernacular to them.
"There would be, however, many difficulties in the way of this
hypothesis. We would hardly suppose that in a space of thirty-five years
the Alexandrian Jews had found such a translation needful or desirable:
we must also bear in mind that we find at this period no trace of any
versions having been made by Jews into the languages of other countries
in which they had continued for periods much longer than that of their
settlement at Alexandria.
"The most reasonable conclusion is, that the version was executed for
the Egyptian king; and that the Hellenistic Jews afterwards used it as
they became less and less familiar with the language of the original."
For an entertainingly stinging critique of the accuracy of the
Septuagint, by the way, see
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/ra1fic2.htm#5
dan Hughes
>
>I would still be very interested in seeing your sources. After all, you
>asked for mine and I provided. Cite whatever sources you can; the
>university library here has a great heap of books, and I might be able
>to find some of your books. Personally though, I doubt that there are
>many books (if at all) which suggest that the gospels were written
>earlier than 70AD.
References That I have:
³Is the New Testament Reliable? A look at the Historical Evidence², Dr.
Paul Barnett, Intervarsity Press, 1986.
³He Walked Among Us; Evidence for the Historical Jesus², Josh McDowell &
Bill Wilson, Here¹s Life Pub., 1988.
³The New Testament Documents, are they reliable?², F.F. Bruce, M.A., D.D.
Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis in the University of
Manchester, Eerdmands pub., 1960.
³Eerdmans¹ Handbook to the History of Christianity², Organizing Editor
Dr.Tim Dowley, Eerdmands pub., 1985.
³How to Read the Bible for all its worth: A Guide to understanding the
Bible², Dr. Gordon Fee, Zondervan publishing, 1982.
³Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible², John W. Haley, Baker Book house
company, first printing 1874.
³When Critics ask - A popular Handbook on Bible difficulties², Dr. Norman
Geisler & Thomas Howe, Victor Books, 1992.
take care,
dan