Which of These 12 Facts About Jesus Do You Believe Are True? [Archive]

Biblo

24th August 2009, 08:58 PM

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 09:00 PM

The ones for which there is evidence.

Thunder

24th August 2009, 09:01 PM

#12 is the only one that has any evidence to back it up.

arthwollipot

24th August 2009, 09:03 PM

Biblo

24th August 2009, 09:05 PM

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 09:05 PM

Biblo

24th August 2009, 09:06 PM

#12 is the only one that has any evidence to back it up.
So Paul converted, but he must have had an experience do you agree that would cause him to convert?

Biblo

24th August 2009, 09:09 PM

Oh, I think #9 is pretty factual.
You agree the Church was born and grew. What was it founded on?

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 09:09 PM

So Paul converted, but he must have had an experience do you agree that would cause him to convert?

Or temporal lobe epilepsy.

http://www.uni-graz.at/~schulter/se04_religiosity.pdf

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 09:10 PM

You agree the Church was born and grew. What was it founded on?

Various myths woven around a disciple of John the Baptist who promoted apocalyptic thinking and died some time before 40 CE.

arthwollipot

24th August 2009, 09:11 PM

Which one is not premised on Jesus existing?

What would you need as more evidence than already exists?#12.

Oh, I think #9 is pretty factual.And #9. Ten of the twelve.

You're going to make me go through them all now, aren't you?

six7s

24th August 2009, 09:11 PM

Which of These 12 Facts About Jesus Do You Believe Are True?In discussions on such topics, I try to avoid using words like 'belief' and ''faith', etc... preferring instead words like 'think'

7. The resurrection was the central message.Of the 12 options in the OP, this seems to be the only one that can be discussed without resorting to logical fallacies

PixyMisa

24th August 2009, 09:12 PM

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
While crucifixion was used by the Romans, there is no evidence of a specific historical Jesus, much less that he was crucified.

2. He was buried.There is no evidence that he existed in the first place.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.There is no evidence that he or his disciples existed.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).There is no evidence of a tomb.

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
There is no evidence that Jesus or his disciples existed in the first place. What experiences they may or may not have had is therefore moot.

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.If they existed at all, that might be true, but irrelevant.

7. The resurrection was the central message.That's opinion, rather than fact. Who knows?

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.Well, someone did, at some point. That much is established. The disciples? No evidence for their existence.

9. The Church was born and grew.Yeeees. Yes, I think we can grant that one.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.By what calendar?

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).No evidence that Jesus or James existed, much less that there was a resurrection.

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).Well, someone wrote those letters, and it might as well have been some guy who took the name of Paul, and it appears that he was a convert.

So, 9, perhaps 10 and 12.

Elizabeth I

24th August 2009, 09:12 PM

You agree the Church was born and grew. What was it founded on?

I also agree that the Aztecs built impressive temples to their gods, and carried out elaborate rituals of worship. Upon what was that worship founded?

PixyMisa

24th August 2009, 09:17 PM

You agree the Church was born and grew. What was it founded on?
The same things every religion is founded on. Ignorance. Fear. Greed. Hope. Love. A fundamental mistunderstanding of formal logic, statistical methods, and neuroscience.

People, in other words.

arthwollipot

24th August 2009, 09:20 PM

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.If he existed.
2. He was buried.If he existed.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.If he existed.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).If he existed.
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).If he existed.
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.Okay, I have to stop here. The disciples were doubters? I don't see any justification for this even in the gospels. Thomas only doubted after Jesus was resurrected. If he existed.
7. The resurrection was the central message.If he existed. And anyway, I thought the sacrifice was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.In as much as the disciples themselves existed, this may well be true.
9. The Church was born and grew.Undeniable.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.If they believed in Christ, wouldn't they be Christians and not Orthodox Jews?
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).If he existed.
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).This may also be true.

Apart from anything else, by asking a binary question "true or not true" you are completely missing the point of the Bible. The point is not whether the events described in the Bible are historically accurate or not. Many of them may have been based on actual events but were elaborated or embellished by subsequent retellings. What's important is the message of the Bible - Christ's sacrifice and atonement for the Sin of Adam.

What's more important? The words of the Bible, or living your life in Christ?

boloboffin

24th August 2009, 09:33 PM

"Believe to be true" is a loaded term in a religious discussion.

So I'll divide this into several classes - what I know to be true, what I consider to be true, what I consider to be false, what I know to be false, and right in the middle what I don't have any problem being true or false.

As has been pointed out, many of these rely on Jesus having existed. I consider that to be true. That means that all of those at most can only be considered to be true by me.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion. - No problem, lean toward true
2. He was buried. - Consider to be true
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. - Consider to be true
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested). - Consider to be false
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). - No problem, lean toward false
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. - Consider to be false
7. The resurrection was the central message. - Consider to be true
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem. - Know to be true
9. The Church was born and grew. - Know to be true
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. - You mean "devout", and then I have no problem either way, but lean toward false
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic). - Consider to be false
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).- Know to be true

I have this feeling that you mean this list to be considered chronologically, and so I point out that I consider the preaching of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem something that happened well after the birth and growth of what would become the Christian religion. I consider the letter of James one of the earliest examples of this movement, representative of the kind of thing James would have sent with his emissaries, if not an actual letter, that riled Paul up when he spoke of people coming from James. Those people would have had something of James' to prove they were from him and a letter usually served such purpose. That makes Paul's letter to the Galatians a response to the type of trouble stirred up by people with this letter (or something like it) in hand.

And there is nothing in the letter of James that requires a teaching of Jesus' resurrection. Even the "coming of the Lord" section can be read without resurrection.

Biblo

24th August 2009, 09:38 PM

2. He was buried. - Consider to be true
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. - Consider to be true
7. The resurrection was the central message. - Consider to be true
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem. - Know to be true
9. The Church was born and grew. - Know to be true
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).- Know to be true

So did they make up the story about seeing Jesus alive from the dead?

How would Paul genuinely convert to the faith if he didn't lie?

arthwollipot

24th August 2009, 09:39 PM

So did they make up the story about seeing Jesus alive from the dead?There could be any number of explanations for why it is reported that the Disciples said that they saw Jesus.

Biblo

24th August 2009, 09:43 PM

There could be any number of explanations for why it is reported that the Disciples said that they saw Jesus.
Name the most likely one.

arthwollipot

24th August 2009, 09:46 PM

Name the most likely one.I'm not qualified to say which is most likely, I can only give you an opinion. And my opinion is that the Gospels were written down so long after the events that they purport to describe that it is pretty much inevitable that there was a certain amount of embellishment of the original oral history. That's what humans do - just ask any folklorist. Legends may well be based on actual events, but they almost never report them 100% accurately.

I think it's quite possible that an itinterant street preacher annoyed the wrong people and was executed by the Romans. I think it's also quite possible that the stories that have been built up around his divinity are greatly exaggerated.

paximperium

24th August 2009, 09:48 PM

Hey, I'll play this game. I'll be super generous and accept ALL of your premises to be true. So?

Biblo

24th August 2009, 09:50 PM

Hey, I'll play this game. I'll be super generous and accept ALL of your premises to be true. So?
Is that genuinely what you believe?

paximperium

24th August 2009, 09:51 PM

Is that genuinely what you believe?
Not one bit but why does it matter? You were trying to make some sort of point but are unwilling to be honest and instead play this game instead.

So let's not play this little dishonest game. I'll accept your premises. Now what?

PixyMisa

24th August 2009, 09:53 PM

So did they make up the story about seeing Jesus alive from the dead?
Did who make up the story? There's no evidence that either Jesus or the disciples existed.

How would Paul genuinely convert to the faith if he didn't lie?
By believing in something without any evidence.

This has been known to happen.

Biblo

24th August 2009, 10:20 PM

Gospels were written down so long after the events that they purport to describe
I have 3 points:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.

Piscivore

24th August 2009, 10:21 PM

So Paul converted, but he must have had an experience do you agree that would cause him to convert?

Sure. He experienced the realisation that this faith presented the opportunity to fleece superstitious rubes of their ducats.

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 10:22 PM

RandFan

24th August 2009, 10:23 PM

What would you need as more evidence than already exists?

We need to ask some questions.

Are there alternative explanations for the existence of the claims? Yes.
Do the claims fit with what we know about the laws of physics and the natural world? No.
Stories documented long after the fact are too easily mis-rememberd, embelished or misheard. Of course there are alternative explanations. People lie and or are sincerly deluded or simply mistaken. There are examples all around us and throughout history.

Some day people might legitimatly argue that Paul Bunyan had a giant blue ox.

If thousands of people sincerly believe that they saw the sun dance in the sky but that doesn't fit the laws of physics and the natural world then we have reason enough to dismiss it without better evidence.

Eyewitness testiomny is poor evidence. Third hand eyewitness testimony is piss-poor to say the least.

The amazing thing about human nature is that anyone would believe in the claims giving all of what we know about people and thier ability to turn mythology and oral tradition into rock solid beliefs.

SezMe

24th August 2009, 10:27 PM

Biblo, you kicked off this thread with a title which prevents, as has already been demonstrated by the responses so far, a fruitful discussion. Let's take a look at your title and explore its implications.

Which of These 12 Facts About Jesus Do You Believe Are True?

First, your 12 "Facts" are not all facts. Thus, you start with some presumptions that we do not buy into yet you call them facts. You'd be better off starting with "12 hypotheses" or something like that. Then we could have a good discussion about those hypotheses.

Secondly, people do not "believe" facts. "Facts" are, by definition, not subject to belief. Obama is President of the USA. California is one of the 50 states. Those are "facts" which is not subject to belief. You would be well advised to understand the difference between facts and beliefs.

Finally, please explain how a "fact" could not be "true". Is there an alternative?

IOW, you need to sharpen the focus of your OP if you wish to have any useful discussion of whatever topic it is that you want to explore.

24th August 2009, 10:29 PM

when they are all FACTS like claimed in the OP. why should we not belive them?
all you need i s credible evidence and not hearsay.

RandFan

24th August 2009, 10:36 PM

I have 3 points:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galations says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.

We don't have originals.
We have interpretations of interpretations.
We know that there are contradictions between versions.
We know that there were different mindsets and motivations of the authors to convey different and conflicting messages.
3 years is a long, long time and that's generous to give you that. In the end we can't prove when it was written. There's no forensic data. Your argument is circular. You are dating the text based on the text as if someone couldn't possibly lie or make a mistake.

That said, your argument is silly, even if it were all true and I'm confident that much of it is wrong it isn't the highest standard of anything.

Bart Ehrman started out trying to prove that the NT was an historical account of the life of Jesus. He come to the conclusion (he understood the facts) that there are significant differences in the different manuscripts and those differences reveal the motivation of the authors and the blatant inventions to satisfy their own world view of this new interest in an aleged guy named Jesus.

Then again, Obi Wan was either a lunatic or he had the force. You decide.

PixyMisa

24th August 2009, 10:37 PM

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.
Then you need more knowledge. If you accept the Roman Republic and Empire as "antiquity" (and it appears you do) we have a huge number of contemporary, first-hand accounts of events of all sorts.

RandFan

24th August 2009, 10:37 PM

Obama is President of the USA.Not legally, prove he was born in the US? ;)

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 10:38 PM

Secondly, people do not "believe" facts. "Facts" are, by definition, not subject to belief. Obama is President of the USA.

Try telling that to one of the Birthers. :cool:

ETA: Darn you to heck, RandFan!

RandFan

24th August 2009, 10:40 PM

Try telling that to one of the Birthers. :cool:

ETA: Darn you to heck, RandFan!I know some Birthers. I'm embarrased to admit it.

Remember: Perception is reality.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 10:43 PM

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 10:46 PM

So Paul converted, but he must have had an experience do you agree that would cause him to convert?
If there was a Paul who converted it was due to temporal lobe epilepsy causing a vision.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 10:52 PM

I also agree that the Aztecs built impressive temples to their gods, and carried out elaborate rituals of worship. Upon what was that worship founded?
Blasphemy against Quezacotl...how dare you :)

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 10:54 PM

If they believed in Christ, wouldn't they be Christians and not Orthodox Jews?
If they were baptized they would be considered christians. If they aren't, I have personally heard a rabbi say they were still jews, just bad ones but still jews.

arthwollipot

24th August 2009, 10:56 PM

I have 3 points:...Mmm. Interesting.

When were the Gospels written?

SezMe

24th August 2009, 11:06 PM

Not legally, prove he was born in the US? ;)

Try telling that to one of the Birthers. :cool:
Actually, I paused as I was typing that post, wondering if that was a good example to use. I decided that it was not but then decided I was too damn lazy to change it.

That's a fact. :)

Biblo

24th August 2009, 11:12 PM

When were the Gospels written?
They could have been written a day after the events took place but based on the evidence within 10 years of the cross. Does that seem reasonable?

3 points:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 11:16 PM

They could have been written a day after the events took place but based on the evidence within 10 years of the cross. Does that seem reasonable?

No, especially when considering the contradictions between the epistles (generally thought to be the earliest Christian writings) and the gospels/Acts. Also, as RandFan noted, we simply do not have any of the originals, but interpretations of interpretations. It was interesting to see the differences between the documents found at Nag Hammadi and what we traditionally think of as the bible.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 11:17 PM

based on the evidence
What evidence?

RandFan

24th August 2009, 11:18 PM

Actually, I paused as I was typing that post, wondering if that was a good example to use. I decided that it was not but then decided I was too damn lazy to change it.

That's a fact. :)I think it is a great example. Here you've got excellent documentation that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is a brith certificate and a newspaper anouncement and yet there are folks that will shake their heads and refuse to accept what is so bloody obvious. Evidence, or the lack of evidence means nothing to those who choose to believe what they want regardless.

It's all post hoc apologetic cherry picking to construct something to hold on to in the face of evidence.

There is no analog to a newspaper birth anouncement. There was no organization at the time dedicated to archiving such documentation. We know that our current versions of the NT are copies of copies.

If our only evidence of Obama's birth was a hand written copy of a hand written copy of something someone wrote down after seeing an alleged birth certificate and birth anouncement then the Birthers might actually have a point.

RandFan

24th August 2009, 11:24 PM

They could have been written a day after the events took place but based on the evidence within 10 years of the cross. Does that seem reasonable?

3 points:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.All thoroughly dealt with.

We've no idea when they were written or how many copies of copies separated the originals from current versions.
We've no way to verify the veracity of the authors or even who they were to any degree of certainty far from beyond reasonable doubt or even preponderance of the evidence. Legally we might be able to conclude that Christ lived but we could not determine if there was crucifiction or resurrection.
We know there are serious contridictions between manuscripts.
The oldest copies we have are Greek. Jesus and his contemporaries spoke in Aramaic.
Paul could have lied.
Paul could have been mistaken.
Paul's words could have been edited or mistranslated.
The events contradict what we know about the natural world and the laws of physics.
Parsimony would dictate that the positing of unknown entitites and forces coupled with plausible alternate explanations puts the claims of the NT firmly out of the realm of serious consideration.

Biblo

24th August 2009, 11:24 PM

They could have been written a day after the events took place but based on the evidence within 10 years of the cross. Does that seem reasonable?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602
Repeated post replaced by link.
Please do not flood the forum with cut-and-pasted posts.

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 11:25 PM

They could have been written a day after the events took place but based on the evidence within 10 years of the cross. Does that seem reasonable?

The answer is still no.

24th August 2009, 11:26 PM

ah i see, they are not facts, they are belives.

have fun

RandFan

24th August 2009, 11:28 PM

They could have been written a day after the events took place but based on the evidence within 10 years of the cross. Does that seem reasonable?

3 points:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.The answer to your question isn't going to change just because you keep asking it.

All thoroughly dealt with.

We've no idea when they were written or how many copies of copies separated the originals from current versions.
We've no way to verify the veracity of the authors or even who they were to any degree of certainty far from beyond reasonable doubt or even preponderance of the evidence. Legally we might be able to conclude that Christ lived but we could not determine if there was crucifiction or resurrection.
We know there are serious contridictions between manuscripts.
The oldest copies we have are Greek. Jesus and his contemporaries spoke in Aramaic.
Paul could have lied.
Paul could have been mistaken.
Paul's words could have been edited or mistranslated.
The events contradict what we know about the natural world and the laws of physics.
Parsimony would dictate that the positing of unknown entitites and forces coupled with plausible alternate explanations puts the claims of the NT firmly out of the realm of serious consideration.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 11:29 PM

based on the evidence
What evidence?

Biblo

24th August 2009, 11:31 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602)
Repeated post replaced by link.
Please do not flood the forum with cut-and-pasted posts.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 11:34 PM

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 11:35 PM

They could have been written a day after the events took place but based on the evidence within 10 years of the cross. Does that seem reasonable?

Still a "No".

arthwollipot

24th August 2009, 11:38 PM

Deja vu. the unnerving sensation that you have been somewhere, or done something, before.

Biblo

24th August 2009, 11:39 PM

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 11:40 PM

They could have been written a day after the events took place but based on the evidence within 10 years of the cross. Does that seem reasonable?

Still "No".

Although this is becoming amusing.

Biblo

24th August 2009, 11:40 PM

Forgive me but I don't think anyone has addressed these points to doubt the early dating of the writings.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 11:41 PM

Now we know some christians have brain damage.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 11:43 PM

Forgive me but I don't think anyone has addressed these points to doubt the early dating of the writings.
And I really think nobody should and we should all put you on ignore for being a spammer. But we thank you for solidifying what we already knew about some christians being intolerable idiots.

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 11:43 PM

Forgive me but I don't think anyone has addressed these points to doubt the early dating of the writings.

No, especially when considering the contradictions between the epistles (generally thought to be the earliest Christian writings) and the gospels/Acts. Also, as RandFan noted, we simply do not have any of the originals, but interpretations of interpretations. It was interesting to see the differences between the documents found at Nag Hammadi and what we traditionally think of as the bible.

Biblo

24th August 2009, 11:49 PM

No, especially when considering the contradictions between the epistles (generally thought to be the earliest Christian writings) and the gospels/Acts. Also, as RandFan noted, we simply do not have any of the originals, but interpretations of interpretations. It was interesting to see the differences between the documents found at Nag Hammadi and what we traditionally think of as the bible.
How would any alleged contradictions infringe on these points?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602)
Repeated post replaced by link.
Please do not flood the forum with cut-and-pasted posts.

Hokulele

24th August 2009, 11:50 PM

How would any alleged contradictions infringe on these points?

Did Paul get along with the church in Jerusalem? What did he do after his conversion experience?

ETA: Answering these questions will show how unlikely it was that Luke based Acts on any direct experience with Paul.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 11:51 PM

How would any alleged contradictions infringe on these points?

3 points:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.
5th time you posted this tripe. Are you trying to make jesus cry?

24th August 2009, 11:51 PM

cant wait until he brings up evidence.

~enigma~

24th August 2009, 11:53 PM

cant wait until he brings up evidence.
Keep waiting...

PixyMisa

24th August 2009, 11:54 PM

Point 3 is categorically false.

Biblo

24th August 2009, 11:57 PM

Point 3 is categorically false.
Since point 1 and 2 are true, can you name a document in antiquity dated closer to its events for point 3?

If not that seals the deal so that the dating of the NT writings ought not to be an issue for you.

Even if you could, the NT are so closely dated anyway.

25th August 2009, 12:01 AM

Keep waiting...

yeah i expect to get the evidence for Harry potter beeing a factual historical account earlier than that evidence for Jesus.

~enigma~

25th August 2009, 12:01 AM

Since point 1 and 2 are true
Evidence please.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 12:02 AM

Evidence please.
Evidence:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602)
Repeated post replaced by link.
Please do not flood the forum with cut-and-pasted posts.

~enigma~

25th August 2009, 12:05 AM

Evidence:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.
#6 for the intolerable christian...BTW, are you going to provide evidence or is your belief due to a temporal lobe disorder?

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 12:06 AM

Deja vu. the unnerving sensation that you have been somewhere, or done something, before.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 12:09 AM

Why don't you think this is evidence for adequate dating?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602)
Repeated post replaced by link.
Please do not flood the forum with cut-and-pasted posts.

Magyar

25th August 2009, 12:09 AM

Name the most likely one.

The MOST likely? GREED, just like scientology and any one of the fake, "you're healed in the name of Jebus" crowd there was something in it for THEM.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 12:11 AM

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 12:12 AM

Deja vu. the unnerving sensation that you have been somewhere, or done something, before.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 12:15 AM

In your own mind are you addressing these 3 points?

25th August 2009, 12:20 AM

In your own mind are you addressing these 3 points?

what is this evidence supposed to prove?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 12:20 AM

In my experience silence usually means the opposition has no more tricks up their sleaves and concede the point.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 12:21 AM

what is this evidence supposed to prove?
This evidence proves that there was not enough time for legend to develop:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5041602#post5041602)
Repeated post replaced by link.
Please do not flood the forum with cut-and-pasted posts.

boloboffin

25th August 2009, 12:25 AM

So did they make up the story about seeing Jesus alive from the dead?

How would Paul genuinely convert to the faith if he didn't lie?

Well, the premise that Paul didn't lie isn't one I accept.

And you are arguing chronologically, so let me amend #7 to something more in concert with what I believe - the resurrection became a central part of the message. There's no evidence I've seen that the Palestinian iteration of what became Christianity knew anything about a resurrection doctrine.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 12:31 AM

This evidence proves that there was not enough time for legend to develop:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

But Luke got a number of details wrong, there is evidence that Luke relied on Mark, and Mark was apparently written during or after the Jewish revolt in 66 CE. Your insistence on this point is based on an assumption (Luke would have mentioned Paul's death), rather than on fact.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

But that says nothing about when Paul wrote the epistles, and says nothing regarding the veracity of Paul's account. Especially when you consider the fact that how Paul documents meeting with James is very different from Luke's account. Which one of them got it wrong?

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.

That is just silly. We have first hand accounts of earlier events. First hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico

PixyMisa

25th August 2009, 12:32 AM

Since point 1 and 2 are true
I certainly don't grant you points 1 and 2 at this point. I'm merely noting that point 3 is an utter absurdity.

can you name a document in antiquity dated closer to its events for point 3?Of course I can.

Here's just one example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#Letters_at_Ugarit) (well, actually, four examples): The letters found at Ugarit during the reign of Hammurabi relating to the invasion of the Sea Peoples. These letters were written and sent while the invasion was happening. Not years or even months later, but during the events. Not third-hand retellings, but letters between rulers of cities attempting to co-ordinate a defense against invaders. (They ultimately failed - this is the time of the Bronze Age collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse).)

These are first hand, immediately contemporary, verified and dated accounts from over a thousand years before the Roman Empire was founded.

If not that seals the deal so that the dating of the NT writings ought not to be an issue for you.Double non-sequitur.

Even if you could, the NT are so closely dated anyway.Biblical scholars seem to disagree with you there.

boloboffin

25th August 2009, 12:34 AM

This evidence proves that there was not enough time for legend to develop:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

Did you ever consider that ending Acts with a death narrative for Paul would have upstaged the end of Luke, and that's why the author didn't go into Paul's death?

And you have no evidence for a 33 CE death for Jesus. The closest you get is Luke's introduction to the ministry of Jesus, and that's 29 CE, IIRC.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

Five years is plenty of time for the story to change.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.

So the quicker pen hits paper, the more likely it's true? No, that's not a high standard at all. That just shows the motivation for getting your side of the story out.

Magyar

25th August 2009, 12:35 AM

This evidence proves that there was not enough time for legend to develop:

FIRST - HORSH8 We have EVIDENCE - WHICH YOU HAVE STILL NOT PROVIDED FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS - from modern times with documentation that your claim is patently false

Mormons and Scientologist both developed followings with all kinds of silly belief in a matter of years and this is in a time of relatively easily accessible information, the existence of higher education and learning not in the back woods of some dirt country with a bunch of illiterates.

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.

Second - you still have not provided ANY evidence that these dates are anything OTHER than some lame apologists attempt to resolve the obvious contradictions in your little fairy tales.

Edit
As pointed out by several others these are based on NOTHING but copies of copies that were edited/miss-translated and possibly forged.

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 12:39 AM

In your own mind are you addressing these 3 points?Have you considered when De Bello Gallico was written?

PixyMisa

25th August 2009, 12:39 AM

That is just silly. We have first hand accounts of earlier events. First hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico
While Julius Caesar's accounts of the Gallic wars are first hand and well-verified, they weren't written as the events unfolded, but a few years later.

Of course, the Romans were meticulous record-keepers, and though much of that was lost in the collapse of the Empire, there's still quite a lot left.

I like the much older letters at Ugarit as an example, though, because we know precisely who wrote them, who they were addressed to, what they were about, and when they were sent - and the events they describe are backed up both by other immediately contemporary accounts and by archaeological evidence.

And because they show how much we know, directly from the participants, about events that occurred long before the supposed time of Christ. Which throws the complete lack of any contemporary mention of Christ into sharp relief.

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 12:40 AM

In my experience silence usually means the opposition has no more tricks up their sleaves and concede the point.In my experience mindless cut & pasting of the same text usually means that the opposition has no more tricks up their sleeve and has to resort to playground bullying.

PixyMisa

25th August 2009, 12:43 AM

Honestly, I thought the forum was playing up until I saw that he was adding short, irrelevant prefaces.

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 12:51 AM

Honestly, I thought the forum was playing up until I saw that he was adding short, irrelevant prefaces.Reminds me of someone... can't quite put my finger on it...

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 12:51 AM

While Julius Caesar's accounts of the Gallic wars are first hand and well-verified, they weren't written as the events unfolded, but a few years later.

Of course, the Romans were meticulous record-keepers, and though much of that was lost in the collapse of the Empire, there's still quite a lot left.

I like the much older letters at Ugarit as an example, though, because we know precisely who wrote them, who they were addressed to, what they were about, and when they were sent - and the events they describe are backed up both by other immediately contemporary accounts and by archaeological evidence.

And because they show how much we know, directly from the participants, about events that occurred long before the supposed time of Christ. Which throws the complete lack of any contemporary mention of Christ into sharp relief.

The Ugarit letters are a great example, and I agree, better than Caeser's account. That was just the first thing I could think of (yes, my high school did have Latin classes). Since Biblo never clarified what type of documentation he was talking about we have plenty of records from Babylonian and Chinese governmental affairs as well. True, they are massively boring (census and taxation data), but they are written as the events unfold.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 12:53 AM

Hey, I'll play this game. I'll be super generous and accept ALL of your premises to be true. So?

Is that genuinely what you believe?

Not one bit but why does it matter? You were trying to make some sort of point but are unwilling to be honest and instead play this game instead.

So let's not play this little dishonest game. I'll accept your premises. Now what?
Awwww, so Biblo has no point at all? And I was so generous to grant all of his premises.

25th August 2009, 12:55 AM

This evidence proves that there was not enough time for legend to develop:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.

:confused: 5 years isnt enough?
it is, it is.
it took no 5 years untill, Silverstein's "Pull it" turned legend.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 12:55 AM

So if Paul didn't exist, who wrote half of the NT claiming to be Paul? And why did Luke and Peter talk about Paul in their writings if Paul didn't exist? Why did the church fathers talk about Paul dying in the 64-65 Neronian persecutions if Paul didn't exist?

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 12:56 AM

The Ugarit letters are a great example, and I agree, better than Caeser's account. That was just the first thing I could think of (yes, my high school did have Latin classes). Since Biblo never clarified what type of documentation he was talking about we have plenty of records from Babylonian and Chinese governmental affairs as well. True, they are massively boring (census and taxation data), but they are written as the events unfold.Indeed. I will withdraw my questions about De Bello Gallico (I had high school latin too, which is why I thought of it) in favour of the Ugarit letters.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 12:58 AM

5 years isnt enough? it is, it is. it took no 5 years untill, Silverstein's "Pull it" turned legend.
I don't know who you are referring to.

But 5 years after the cross Paul heard from Peter and James they saw Jesus resurrected, so who is lying here, Paul or James and Peter?

paximperium

25th August 2009, 12:59 AM

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:01 AM

I don't know who you are referring to.

But 5 years after the cross Paul heard from Peter and James they saw Jesus resurrected, so who is lying here, Paul or James and Peter?
My boy not so fast.

You can't do things like ASSUME that all the characters in your story are true to support the truth of your story can you? Otherwise people call that a Circular Argument.

pakeha

25th August 2009, 01:02 AM

This evidence proves that there was not enough time for legend to develop:

1) Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two.

2) Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing recorded in antiquity so close to the events that happened. Therefore, it is holding the highest of standards of historical record.

1/ The evidence for dating is the your belief in the veracity of Luke and Acts?
2/ Still awaiting evidence Paul existed, wrote the Epistles and told the truth in them.
3/'highest of standards of historical record". Sorry, aren't we talking about copies of documents for which there is no original? Documents written by believers for believers?

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 01:02 AM

I don't know who you are referring to.

But 5 years after the cross Paul heard from Peter and James they saw Jesus resurrected, so who is lying here, Paul or James and Peter?Possibly none of them.

Do you understand the term "hearsay"? Do you know why it is not admissible as evidence in a court of law?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:03 AM

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:05 AM

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:06 AM

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:08 AM

Possibly none of them. Do you understand the term "hearsay"? Do you know why it is not admissible as evidence in a court of law?
So if they weren't lying they were telling each other the truth they believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Wouldn't you agree?

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:08 AM

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:08 AM

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:09 AM

That's nice. So?
So dating is not an issue. Wouldn't you agree?

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:10 AM

So if they weren't lying they were telling each other the truth they believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Wouldn't you agree?
Sure, I'll even grant you that. 2 fellas told some fella they saw some dude who claimed to be god incarnate come back to life.

I heard the same thing from some guy recently. So?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:10 AM

Do you believe that Paul wrote all of the epistles attributed to him?
That is not essential to the proof.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:11 AM

So dating is not an issue. Wouldn't you agree?
Sure, why the heck not? Have you gotten to your point yet? I'm getting bored.

pakeha

25th August 2009, 01:18 AM

There are 5600 original manuscripts for Christianity. 643 for Homer's Illiad. 49 for Plato Tetralogies. 7 for Aristotle (any one work). Span between composition and oldest copy for the NT max. 50 years. Homer's Illiad 500 years. Plato's Tetralogies 1300 years. Aristotle (any one work) 1400 years.

An interesting post.
It would be more interesting yet if a source and link were provided for these figures.
And even more interesting yet if Biblo could explain what the words '5600 original manuscripts' means in the context of the NT.
I'm looking forward to seeing where Biblo sourced this information.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:19 AM

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 01:21 AM

So if they weren't lying they were telling each other the truth they believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Wouldn't you agree?Do you understand the term "hearsay"? Do you know why it is not admissible as evidence in a court of law?

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:22 AM

So since dating is not an issue, then legend is not an issue. Therefore, Paul really believed what he wrote in Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15; therefore, if there is naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness claims, then would it not be God?

Nope, temporal lobe epilepsy describes it perfectly well.

And since we are on the topic of Galatians 1 & 2, did Paul go directly to Arabia, as stated here, or did he stay in Damascus as Luke claims? Did he get along with James and Peter, even fear them a bit, as Luke claims, or did he chew them out for being a hypocritical prig?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:22 AM

It would be more interesting yet if a source and link were provided for these figures.
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdit, CA: Her's Life, 1972, 1992.

And even more interesting yet if Biblo could explain what the words '5600 original manuscripts' means in the context of the NT.
5600 actual parchments preserved.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:23 AM

So since dating is not an issue, then legend is not an issue. Therefore, Paul really believed what he wrote in Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15; therefore, if there is naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness claims, then would it not be God?
Woah cowboy. Slow down. Nope.
Tell me what they claim to have seen and then we can work from there.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:24 AM

Josh McDowell

*facepalm*

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:24 AM

Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdit, CA: Her's Life, 1972, 1992. That explains this "argument".

5600 actual parchments preserved. No. You forgot to add FRAGMENTS before parchments.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:24 AM

Nope, temporal lobe epilepsy describes it perfectly well.
But they all had this medical condition? Seems like a stretch.

And since we are on the topic of Galatians 1 & 2, did Paul go directly to Arabia, as stated here, or did he stay in Damascus as Luke claims? Did he get along with James, even fear him a bit, as Luke claims, or did he chew James out for being a hypocritical prig?
I don't think that's relevant.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:25 AM

*facepalm*
Exactly. Can't Christians at least read a book by someone who know what they are talking about?

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:26 AM

But they all had this medical condition? Seems like a stretch. Nope. Only Paul.

I don't think that's relevant.You mean how the gospels contradict one another is not relevant? Okay.

So have you gotten to your point yet?

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 01:29 AM

5600 actual parchments preserved.Are you referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and Judas? The Books of Enoch?

I just want to be sure here that you include all of the Apocrypha in Biblical canon.

pakeha

25th August 2009, 01:31 AM

Ok so you don't admit anything from Luke or Acts, and you think maybe Paul never existed despite the church fathers recording his life. Does that seem like a reasonable approach to take as he has been recorded dying in 64-65 AD in the Neronian persecutions? Why would you think there is no first original copy just because it has not be preserved?
Sorry.
Is Biblo claiming that because the Church Fathers talk about Paul, that is proof of that person's existence?
Is that a reasonable approach to take?

Why would you think there is no first original copy just because it has not be preserved?

I think this an example of a 'strawman' argument.
In any case, looking forward to reading the sources for the figures Biblo quoted earlier of 'original manscripts'.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:31 AM

Nope. Only Paul.
How does that explain those with Paul saw the light, heard the voice and fell down to the ground in what Paul experienced but saw Jesus? Usual epileptic seizures don't affect others present.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:32 AM

I've been really really generous in granting so many unsupported premises to Biblo and he still hasn't gotten to his punchline yet. Now that's just rude.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:33 AM

But they all had this medical condition? Seems like a stretch.

We only have Paul's account. The "500 witnesses" from 1 Corinthians is simply hearsay, there is no corroboration any of that happened. At least Paul's account has a similar reference in Luke (well, two references that contradict each other, but that is another story and not quite as damning as the contradiction regarding Paul's disagreements with the church in Jerusalem).

I don't think that's relevant.

Ah, so when Luke agrees with Paul, it is relevant, but when he disagrees, it isn't.

Hmmm...

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:33 AM

Are you referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and Judas? The Books of Enoch?

I just want to be sure here that you include all of the Apocrypha in Biblical canon.
Just the Bible, the 66 books.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:33 AM

How does that explain those with Paul saw the light, heard the voice and fell down to the ground in what Paul experienced but saw Jesus? Usual epileptic seizures don't affect others present.
You mean the people with Paul, that Paul CLAIMED were with him?

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:34 AM

How does that explain those with Paul saw the light, heard the voice and fell down to the ground in what Paul experienced but saw Jesus? Usual epileptic seizures don't affect others present.

Did they hear the voice or not? Luke contradicts himself on that one.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:35 AM

Just the Bible, the 66 books.
I'm even going to be really nice and grant you this claim. You know what, I'm even going to grant that New Testament is an EXACTLY the same as what the original's were. So?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:37 AM

Is Biblo claiming that because the Church Fathers talk about Paul, that is proof of that person's existence? Is that a reasonable approach to take?
Polycarp was a student of John. Clement of Rome knew Peter. What's the problem? And they reported the Neronian persecution Paul died in. Paul knew Peter and John.

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 01:38 AM

Just the Bible, the 66 books.Okay, that seems... rather a lot. Do you have any support for this claim? Like, museum records or something?

ETA: I notice that you still haven't answered my questions about hearsay.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 01:39 AM

Doesn't the 5600 include manuscripts up to the seventeenth century?

Here's the wiki article categorising them all ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts

Oh look, according to that (which follows the standard scholarly model), there are precisely NO manuscripts dating from before 150CE in existence, and only 3 which are before 200CE (with another 6 they're not so certain about, but are probably between 200-300CE).

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:39 AM

Polycarp was a student of John. Clement of Rome knew Peter. What's the problem? And they reported the Neronian persecution Paul died in. Paul knew Peter and John.
Hey, I've already granted that some guy named Paul existed. So?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:43 AM

Okay, that seems... rather a lot. Do you have any support for this claim? Like, museum records or something?

ETA: I notice that you still haven't answered my questions about hearsay.
What hearsay? Paul is reporting he saw Jesus and reporting the Apostles told him they saw Jesus. Peter reports he saw Jesus in Peter. James reports he saw Jesus in James. Matthew in Matthew. John and John, John 1,2,3 and Revelation. Jude in Jude.

Look into the explanation of how each Bible is formulated in their explanatory notes. I am sure you can buy books on Textual Criticism that will explain more.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:44 AM

Hey, I've already granted that some guy named Paul existed. So?
Paul said he saw Jesus resurrected and met the Apostles who said the same.

25th August 2009, 01:46 AM

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:46 AM

Paul said he saw Jesus resurrected and met the Apostles who said the same.

Paul claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision, which can easily be explained by neuroscience. Who is to say that it didn't happen to at least one of the others, and the rest played along in an attempt to look like True ApostlesTM?

Never underestimate the power of self-delusion or the lure of belonging to a cult.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:47 AM

Paul said he saw Jesus resurrected and met the Apostles who said the same.
Okay. So?

25th August 2009, 01:49 AM

Paul said he saw Jesus resurrected and met the Apostles who said the same.

Mayn many people tell about theyr abduction by Aliens.
some of them are still alive.

boloboffin

25th August 2009, 01:52 AM

James reports he saw Jesus in James.

The author of James says no such thing.

boloboffin

25th August 2009, 01:53 AM

Joseph Smith saw the golden plates and the angel Moroni, and Joseph Smith died for his beliefs.

arthwollipot

25th August 2009, 01:54 AM

What hearsay?Okay, so the answer to my questions is "no". You don't understand what hearsay is, or why it is not permissible as evidence in a court of law.

Thanks for clarifying that, Biblo. It helps.

This is probably going to be one of those threads that grows by several hundred replies by the time I get back to it tomorrow. I apologise in advance if I have to skip some.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:54 AM

Seeing some plates is the same thing as seeing someone alive from the dead?

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:55 AM

Seeing some plates is the same thing as seeing someone alive from the dead?
Actually seeing some plates is way more probable. Dead people don't come back from the dead.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:56 AM

You don't understand what hearsay is, or why it is not permissible as evidence in a court of law.
What hearsay am I relying on?

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:56 AM

Seeing some plates is the same thing as seeing someone alive from the dead?

Hallucinations are hallucinations, regardless of the subject matter.

25th August 2009, 01:56 AM

I don't know who you are referring to.

But 5 years after the cross Paul heard from Peter and James they saw Jesus resurrected, so who is lying here, Paul or James and Peter?

John, Tom and Susanne all saw Elvis long after he was death.

who is lying? Tom John Susanne or Elvis?

boloboffin

25th August 2009, 01:56 AM

Seeing some plates is the same thing as seeing someone alive from the dead?

The Angel was the same Moroni who hid the plates after a huge battle. He died, was resurrected, and turned into an angel to guard the plates until the Prophet Joseph Smith showed up.

So, yeah.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:57 AM

What hearsay am I relying on?

Have you actually read the entire bible?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:57 AM

Hallucinations are hallucinations, regardless of the subject matter.
Group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology, e.g. DM-3 and DM-4.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:57 AM

What hearsay am I relying on?
Oh, someone claimed to have seen some dude come back from the dead.

boloboffin

25th August 2009, 01:58 AM

Group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology, e.g. DM-3 and DM-4.

Yes, well, the 500 witnesses Paul (and nobody else) talked about was one of his more egregious lies.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:58 AM

Have you actually read the entire bible?
Yes.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 01:58 AM

Biblio, what branch of Christianity do you follow? Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 01:59 AM

Group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology, e.g. DM-3 and DM-4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux

paximperium

25th August 2009, 01:59 AM

Group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology, e.g. DM-3 and DM-4.
What group hallucinations are you referring to? Oh, you mean the one where one person claims to have been with a group when he had a seizure?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 01:59 AM

Oh, someone claimed to have seen some dude come back from the dead.
Not just someone, but many.

Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people:

1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18), Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5), Jesus' brother (insider skeptic) James (1 Cor. 15.7).
2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10).
3) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13; Luke 24.13-34).
4) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.35-43; John 20.19-25).
5) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5).
6) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14).
7) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20).
8) A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6).
9) "Then to all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7) which includes the Twelve plus all the other apostles.
10) Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24.44-49).
11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Mark 16.19,20; Luke 24.50-53; Acts 1.3-8).
12) Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present and as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10).

paximperium

25th August 2009, 02:00 AM

Not just someone, but many.

Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people:

1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18), Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5), Jesus' brother (insider skeptic) James (1 Cor. 15.7).
2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10).
3) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13; Luke 24.13-34).
4) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.35-43; John 20.19-25).
5) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5).
6) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14).
7) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20).
8) A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6).
9) "Then to all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7) which includes the Twelve plus all the other apostles.
10) Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24.44-49).
11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Mark 16.19,20; Luke 24.50-53; Acts 1.3-8).
12) Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present and as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10).
So they claim. So?

PS: You may want to work on that list. The contradictions need to be hidden a tad better.

25th August 2009, 02:00 AM

this sound like this

http://www.amazon.com/Elvis-Dna-Proves-Hes-Alive/dp/0828320896

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:01 AM

Biblio, what branch of Christianity do you follow? Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

His citation of Josh McDowell implies one of the evangelical Protestant branches.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:03 AM

So they claim. So?

PS: You may want to work on that list. The contradictions need to be hidden a tad better.
What contradictions?

Looks like a good list sufficient to prove the case.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 02:04 AM

Good night. Will be out rafting tomorrow so won't be able to join in the continued festivities of this thread for a while.

pakeha

25th August 2009, 02:04 AM

Polycarp was a student of John. Clement of Rome knew Peter. What's the problem? And they reported the Neronian persecution Paul died in. Paul knew Peter and John.

No problem.
As far as I'm concerned, it's simply hearsay that "Paul" died in the Neronian persecution.

Now back to those 5000+ manuscripts you mention and have sourced to Josh McDowell.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 02:05 AM

His citation of Josh McDowell implies one of the evangelical Protestant branches.

Ah, well spotted. I was going on some of his bashed-around bible spam on the other thread, which was in a translation that referred to 'Jehovah God' a lot.

So what do you reckon? Baptist?

boloboffin

25th August 2009, 02:05 AM

What contradictions?

Looks like a good list sufficient to prove the case.

You know, Pilate would have been a better choice.

25th August 2009, 02:05 AM

What contradictions?

Looks like a good list sufficient to prove the case.

i can list far more people seeing UFO's or Elvis, soon i will sure have enough that see Michael Jackson still alove.

so you belive everything some people claim?

paximperium

25th August 2009, 02:06 AM

What contradictions? You may want to read your Bible a tad more closely and come tell me in what order and exactly who Jesus supposedly appeared.

Looks like a good list sufficient to prove the case.
Prove that a bunch of people claimed to have seen a guy come back from the dead? Sure, I'll even grant you that.

Night all.

paximperium

25th August 2009, 02:07 AM

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 02:09 AM

You may want to read your Bible a tad more closely and come tell me in what order and exactly who Jesus supposedly appeared.

You could also read the original version of Mark's Gospel, which is the earliest resurrection narrative we have. It ends at Chapter 16:8, with the text:

'And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.'

So you get the empty tomb, but nothing about why it was empty, let alone any resurrection appearances. The rest of the chapter is a later addition.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:09 AM

what is this evidence supposed to prove?
That dating is not a problem.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:13 AM

Not just someone, but many.

Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people:

1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18)

There is evidence that Mark 16:9-20 was added after the fact. The original manuscripts end with the women fleeing the tomb, but no report as to what they actually saw. The gospel attributed to John is believed to have been written by someone other than the disciple, as can be seen by the conclusion of that book. As such, it is simply hearsay.

Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5), Jesus' brother (insider skeptic) James (1 Cor. 15.7).

Hearsay, no direct testimony in the epistles attributed to them.

2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10).

Hearsay.

3) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13; Luke 24.13-34).
4) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.35-43; John 20.19-25).

Mark 16 being an addition, Luke being hearsay.

5) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5).
6) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14).

Hearsay. Hearsay.

7) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20).

Possibly the only account that could possibly be eyewitness testimony. Highly unlikely, given the known errors Matthew makes in an effort to tie his gospel in with the Old Testament, but better than anything else on this list.

8) A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6).
9) "Then to all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7) which includes the Twelve plus all the other apostles.
10) Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24.44-49).

Hearsay. Hearsay. Hearsay.

11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Mark 16.19,20; Luke 24.50-53; Acts 1.3-8).

Again, there is the problem with Mark 16 being a later addition and the Luke accounts are hearsay.

12) Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present and as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10).

Only Paul is reported to have "seen" anything, and that was a vision, not a claim of a real person. Temporal lobe epilepsy explains it well enough.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 02:14 AM

there is evidence that mark 16:9-20 was added after the fact. The original manuscripts end with the women fleeing the tomb, but no report as to what they actually saw.

<snip>

snap!

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:18 AM

Paul was told these things from the eyewitnesses he met such as James, Peter and John in Gal. 1 & 2.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:19 AM

Ah, well spotted. I was going on some of his bashed-around bible spam on the other thread, which was in a translation that referred to 'Jehovah God' a lot.

So what do you reckon? Baptist?

To be honest, I wouldn't know the full list, nor the differences between them. :o He had some Charismatic type posts in the other thread.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:20 AM

snap!

Hee hee! I saw your post after I had put together my list.

Paul was told these things from the eyewitnesses he met such as James, Peter and John in Gal. 1 & 2.

Which is what makes it hearsay.

PixyMisa

25th August 2009, 02:21 AM

Biblo, do you know what hearsay is?

Edit: Ninja'd!

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:22 AM

Which is what makes it hearsay.
Paul didn't hearsay it. He was told directly by them.

PixyMisa

25th August 2009, 02:22 AM

So you don't know what hearsay is.

25th August 2009, 02:23 AM

That dating is not a problem.

i dont need the bible to know that Dating isnt a problem. i had many dates.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:23 AM

So you don't know what hearsay is.
Why do you say that?

25th August 2009, 02:25 AM

Why do you say that?

because that is the only proven fact in this thread sofar.

you dont know what it is. and it has been proven by YOU.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:26 AM

Paul didn't hearsay it. He was told directly by them.

And then Paul told it to the reader.

Which is what makes it hearsay, indirect testimony, second-hand knowledge, or whatever else you want to call it.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:28 AM

It's not hearsay, because Paul is not telling you he heard from someone who heard it.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 02:29 AM

It's not hearsay, because Paul is not telling you he heard from someone who heard it.

*facepalm*

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:31 AM

It's not hearsay, because Paul is not telling you he heard from someone who heard it.

Good grief.

Hearsay - Law, Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Unverified information heard or received from another

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay

We are hearing through Paul (a report of another) rather than from the personal knowledge of the witness directly.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:32 AM

Not sure what you mean.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:34 AM

If the direct witness (James or Peter) had written their account of their encounters with a resurrected Jesus, that would be direct testimony. James telling Paul telling us is us hearing from someone who heard it from another.

As such, it is unverifiable and unreliable.

ETA: In other words, to Paul it isn't hearsay, to us it is.

25th August 2009, 02:35 AM

even if Jesus himslef would have claimed to be reseructed doesnt mean its true. nor when firsthand witnesses claim so.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:36 AM

even if Jesus himslef would have claimed to be reseructed doesnt mean its true. nor when firsthand witnesses claim so.

This is true, but it would be a heck of a lot more reliable than a bunch of hearsay.

Which is all we have.

Monketey Ghost

25th August 2009, 02:36 AM

Eleven of these twelve "facts" are premised on the actual existence of Jesus, which has not been reliably established.

Establish that Jesus existed first, and then you can ask about details of his life and death.

I'll stipulate that a guy named Jesus was the focus of a lot of Roman naily-attention around the accepted time period.

A lot of religions can't stand up to a demand for evidence. That's what faith is for...

...and why I have none. O well.

proudnonbbeliever

25th August 2009, 02:37 AM

what a surprise.

Does Biblo do anything but circular bible proves the bible reasoning deally?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:37 AM

25th August 2009, 02:40 AM

my Friend Djordji saw an UFO a few years ago.

i know him personally, he himself told me.

but still for YOU it is now hearsay.

enjoy it.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:42 AM

Paul telling us is not hearsay because he is not hearing from someone who heard it from someone else. He heard it from the person who saw just as Paul saw. This agrees with Peter's direct testimony in Peter and James in James, John in John and John's epistles and Revelation and Matthew in Matthew and Jude in Jude.

Please provide the chapter and verse in the various epistles that supports your assertion.

And it is widely believed that the person who wrote the gospel of John was not the disciple (see the last two verses of that book), and that John of Patmos (Revelation) is yet another person, unrelated to either of them.

ETA: And Paul telling us a story second-hand is the very definition of hearsay. Provide evidence demonstrating otherwise.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:45 AM

Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present and as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10).

For further consideration, observe these points:

Luke has no problem between Paul's appearance and those made to the disciples in Luke 24, Acts 1.1-11. Luke records both types of appearances of Jesus to the disciples and to Paul.
"Last of all he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. 15.8).
"Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1).
Others saw the light and heard the voice during Paul seeing Jesus bodily, however because Paul's experience was post-ascension, it may be slightly different.
Evolution of a resurrection theory actually devolved from the accounts of the 40 days with the disciples to when Paul saw Jesus (Gal. 1.15-16).
"To reveal His Son in me" (Gal. 1.16,18) took three years following the Damascus road experience. Don't mistake this portion as being the bodily appearance.
"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9.7). This presumes that Paul saw the Man.
Many years after Paul saw the vision on the Damascus road, he testified, "Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26.19).
Paul reports knowing some of the disciples personally who had seen Jesus resurrected including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this (Acts 9.26-30; 15.1-35). And Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.11 that whether "it was I or they, this is what we preach," referring to the resurrection of Jesus.
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1.18,19). Suffice it to say, they talked about more than just the weather.
"Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2,1-2,9,11) with James regarding the matter of circumcision.
"I said to Cephas before them all, If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Gal. 2.14) And they continued in long discourse.
Altogether, there is Paul's writings, oral traditions in creeds, hymns and sermon summaries in various NT books, and writings of the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Clement of Rome who personally knew the Apostles, John and Peter.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:46 AM

Altogether, there is Paul's writings, oral traditions in creeds, hymns and sermon summaries in various NT books, and writings of the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Clement of Rome who personally knew the Apostles, John and Peter.

Yay! More hearsay!

Biblo

25th August 2009, 02:46 AM

And it is widely believed that the person who wrote the gospel of John was not the disciple (see the last two verses of that book), and that John of Patmos (Revelation) is yet another person, unrelated to either of them.
Every indication is it is the same person because the same language is used and says Son of God.

proudnonbbeliever

25th August 2009, 02:49 AM

biblo is reeeeeeeeally good at cutting and pasting.:p

25th August 2009, 02:51 AM

how on earth can you call someone and outside skeptic when he belives in reseruction.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 02:52 AM

Every indication is it is the same person because the same language is used and says Son of God.

No.

With the advent of modern biblical criticism, many scholars, both secular and Christian, came to believe that John the Evangelist (who wrote the Gospel of John), and John of Patmos were two separate individuals. They point to several lines of evidence suggesting that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, not the Gospel of John or the epistles of John. For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John and the writer of the epistles of "John" never identify themselves by name.

In contrast to the author of the Gospel of John, John of Patmos speaks very much as a Jewish Christian, referring to Jesus as he who "holds the key of David" (3:7) and the "Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David." (5:5) He also condemns the careless attitude of some of the Pauline churches who permitted eating food which had been offered to idols (2:14, 2:20). Moreover, for John of Patmos, the "elect" saints are not Gentile Christians but "144,000 from all the tribes of Israel," with 12,000 coming from each specifically-named tribe (7:4-8). A great multitude of Gentiles "from every nation" are also included, but not among the 144,000 (7:9).

Also, while both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation liken Jesus to a lamb, they consistently use different words for lamb when referring to him—the Gospel uses amnos, Revelation uses arnion. Lastly, the Gospel of John is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author was not as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author.

These factors lead some critics to the opinion that of all the New Testament literature attributed to John the Apostle, the Book of Revelation is the most likely to have been actually written by him.

Source:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_of_Patmos

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:00 AM

The early church fathers had no problem this being the same John. Read Revelation 14.1-5 which refers to a second set of 144,000 which includes Gentiles. The second set of 144,000 is included in Rev. 7.9. Your other points are not substantive and so not worth addressing; just pettiness.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 03:05 AM

The early church fathers had no problem this being the same John.

It wasn't until the second century that the church fathers made this claim.

Read Revelation 14.1-5 which refers to a second set of 144,000 which includes Gentiles. The second set of 144,000 is included in Rev. 7.9. Your other points are not substantive and so not worth addressing; just pettiness.

Please explain the difference in language and gammar between the gospel and Revelation. This is something well-known in the scholarly community.

"Lastly, the Gospel is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

Oh, and I assume that if you want to be part of the 144,000, you are a virgin, yes? Rev. 14:4.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 03:06 AM

The early church fathers had no problem this being the same John.

So? The early church fathers ranged from decades to centuries after it was written, and they did not have the benefits of modern historical-critical scholarship. Also, they probably meant something different when they said 'Luke' or 'John' or whatever, because they had a different concept of authorship from us. They probably understood 'John' to mean something more like 'coming from the tradition of the followers of the apostle John'.

Read Revelation 14.1-5 which refers to a second set of 144,000 which includes Gentiles. The second set of 144,000 is included in Rev. 7.9. Your other points are not substantive and so not worth addressing; just pettiness.

Translation: 'ner ner I can't hear you and I've got my fingers in my ears'. How is linguistic criticism 'petty'?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:07 AM

The church fathers never taught otherwise from the earliest to the later ones. They would know since Polycarp was a student of John and you admitted John knew of Paul. Of course Paul met John as well in Gal. 2.

proudnonbbeliever

25th August 2009, 03:07 AM

Oh noes! Virgin? Iz dooooomed!

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:09 AM

I think the Christians win on this point also.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 03:12 AM

Oh noes! Virgin? Iz dooooomed!

Technically, the verse states those who aren't "defiled with women". I suppose you could read this as saying homosexual men are OK. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. :D)

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:13 AM

That's illogical since that would be a sin. They're virgin Christians.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 03:14 AM

That's illogical since that would be a sin. They're virgin Christians.

Ah, so women having to shut up is cultural, but not permanent, but homosexuality is a sin.

How do you justify this?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:15 AM

Women today can be Apostles, Elders, teachers.

Hokulele

25th August 2009, 03:16 AM

Women today can be Apostles, Elders, teachers.

Dodge noted.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:16 AM

No dodge. It was part of the culture back then; you don't want to buck the trend too much otherwise it won't work at all.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 03:17 AM

So why wasn't prejudice against homosexuality just 'part of the culture back then' too? After all, there are plenty of homosexual church leaders and other Christians today.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:18 AM

Because man and one are one flesh, not man and man.

You automatically know if someone preaches homosexuality they are going to Hell.

proudnonbbeliever

25th August 2009, 03:20 AM

Im dammed if i do or if i dont? :eek:

Lukraak_Sisser

25th August 2009, 03:21 AM

I, and I guess some of the other posters here, still don't really know what your point is.

Maybe some of the authors actually were who they claim to be in their stories. And I don't doubt at all that they themselves believed what they wrote down, which incidentally doesn't make something true.

However, this can (as mentioned before) also be said about the author of the Koran, the book of Mormon, Bahgwan and Scientology off the top of my head. In fact, for each of these individuals more evidence of their actual existence can be found than just their holy books. Does this make them more true than christianity?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:22 AM

Women can vote this past century. It's still not accepted homosexuality.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:23 AM

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 03:25 AM

Nope? Looks pretty accepted to me. In my country, gay people have all the civil rights of straight people. Gay marriage is coming even to America. When homosexuality is completely culturally accepted, does that mean that you'll accept that the bits of the bible that appear to criticize it (and you won't be aware of this, but there's a lot of debate as to what those few verses actually mean and whether they are at all applicable to modern concepts of homosexuality) are just as culture-bound as the verses about women speaking in church?

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:27 AM

God says it is a sin and that is that. Your choice.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 03:27 AM

Because man and one are one flesh, not man and man.

You automatically know if someone preaches homosexuality they are going to Hell.

And women are the gate of hell. Created later than men, they are responsible for the Fall, and God put them subordinate to their husbands.

There's actually a stronger biblical case for the subjugation of women and, incidentally, for racism, than there is for the inferiority of homosexuals.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 03:28 AM

God says it is a sin and that is that. Your choice.

And God says that women must be subjugated to their husbands, must cover their heads and must not speak in church. You're going to hell if you go against these clear instructions in the Bible.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:29 AM

Women created at the same time from the same dust that rib is made of. Man is the breadwinner for good reason, for women have a greater rule in spending time with the children. In those days women would have 10 to 20 kids. It's hard to be an Apostle then. But there was one female Apostle mentioned. Her name was Junias.

KingMerv00

25th August 2009, 03:31 AM

You agree the Church was born and grew. What was it founded on?

The fact that a church exists and grows is no sign of its veracity. If it were, every religion would be true.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:32 AM

Why did it grow into the largest today? Because of the central message of the cross.

Lukraak_Sisser

25th August 2009, 03:32 AM

The Koran fails because six centuries later it said Jesus didn't die on the cross. Mormons fail because it is illogical to have multiple uncreated beings. Scientology is the same thing as as gnosticism, but that is evil for God to allow an evil creator.

That just leaves our Creator and Saviour, Lord Jesus Christ. Christianity is based on multiple eyewitness corroborating testimony in various group settings/

And by that reasoning christianity fails because said eyewitness reports are only found in the bible, which is clearly written by people who have no interest in being honest, only in propagating their own belief, so who have every reason to embellish, lie and make up stories which they then write down as 'true'.
Which makes the bible as valid and illogical as every other religious text out there.
As far as I know there is not a single description of the life of christ outside of the bible that is written by a non-christian.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:33 AM

The Bible is actually the contemporary writings of the day in which it records some non-Christians seeing Jesus such as James and Paul and no doubt some of the 500 whom Paul said could have recanted what he said that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 03:33 AM

Rubbish. You're using the 'culture' get out and special pleading for the verses about the subjugation of women, while refusing to even consider anything similar for the (far less and far more ambiguous) verses about homosexuals.

Biblo

25th August 2009, 03:35 AM

Women had big families back then and in a court of law were usually not accepted. It was a cultural thing. Different than homosexuality, e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah.

Agatha

25th August 2009, 03:45 AM

Why did it grow into the largest today? Because of the central message of the cross. So when Islam becomes a larger religion than Christianity, as it is expected to do sometime this century, will Islam then be the true religion?

If not, then your argument from the size of the religion fails.

25th August 2009, 03:50 AM

Because man and one are one flesh, not man and man.

You automatically know if someone preaches homosexuality they are going to Hell.

Homosexuality could be send by God to solve the overpopulation of his much to small planet he "made"

Darat

25th August 2009, 03:55 AM

Women had big families back then and in a court of law were usually not accepted. It was a cultural thing. Different than homosexuality, e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis 19 does not mention homosexuality; that misinterpretation seems to stem from confusing the Hebrew word "anasim" (I think that is how it is spelt) to mean "men" rather than "people". The actual story says "two people come to Sodom" and "all of the people" of Sodom demanded that they get a chance to "know" the two, gender is not mentioned.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 04:02 AM

Plus the great sin seems to have been failing to be hospitable to strangers, in a time and place when lack of hospitality would have meant death in a waterless desert.

Plus, even if it were about homosexuality, the remedy apparently approved of is rape of virgin daughters, followed by incest.

jond

25th August 2009, 04:03 AM

Because man and one are one flesh, not man and man.

You automatically know if someone preaches homosexuality they are going to Hell.

Man and one? So masturbation is cool, but homosexuality is not? Is masturbation OK for women too?

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 04:04 AM

Oh, and the sex thing in the Sodom story is entirely based on the verb 'to know', which is very rarely used in the Bible to imply sex and much more frequently used to imply, well, getting to know.

Darat

25th August 2009, 04:10 AM

Oh, and the sex thing in the Sodom story is entirely based on the verb 'to know', which is very rarely used in the Bible to imply sex and much more frequently used to imply, well, getting to know.

I just grabbed my Friedman commentary to check the spelling of anasim (it's right but lacks all the fancy accents) and I've just read what he says again about the story. He is of the opinion that "to know" in this instance does mean sex, and he quotes the verse "Cain knew his wife, and she became pregnant" to support this and also mentions the parallel story in Judges 19.

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 04:10 AM

Anyway, the destruction wrought on humanity by womankind was of a far greater magnitude than that which befell Sodom and Gomorrah. That was only the destruction by fire of two cities; the woman who ate the apple condemned humankind to original sin and had us thrown out of the Garden of Eden! No wonder God told her that women would forever be subjugated to their husbands.

pakeha

25th August 2009, 04:14 AM

No problem.
As far as I'm concerned, it's simply hearsay that "Paul" died in the Neronian persecution.

Now back to those 5000+ manuscripts you mention and have sourced to Josh McDowell.

Counting Greek copies alone, the texts are preserved in 5,366 partial and complete manuscripts hand copied from the second through the fifteenth century. A few New Testament fragments are very early, dating from the second century. At least 362 New Testament manuscripts and 245 lectionaries (collections of Scripture texts grouped together for reading in public worship services) date from the second through the tenth centuries, constituting nearly 11% of all New Testament and lectionary manuscripts. Such early manuscripts are valuable in establishing the original text of the New Testament. The other 89% of manuscripts are minuscule, dating between the ninth and fifteenth centuries.[2]

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

This 5000+ figure gets whittled down, doesn't it.
89% is from the 9th century and later.
Almost 11% is from the second to through the Xth centuries.
How many fragments are actually pertinent to the disscussion?

sleepy_lioness

25th August 2009, 04:19 AM

A small selection of the more misogynistic bits of the bible follows:

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. … If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days..." Leviticus 15:19-32.

“Man born of woman…Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!” Job 14:1-4

“…If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

Robin

25th August 2009, 04:21 AM

God says it is a sin and that is that. Your choice.
No, some book says that God says it is a sin. The same book advocates the murder of disobedent children and genocide against people who worship the wrong God.

CriticalSock

25th August 2009, 05:47 AM

Mashuna

25th August 2009, 06:23 AM

On the homosexuality issue, isn't it only Paul that specifically bangs on about it in the NT?

So to speak. . .

PixyMisa

25th August 2009, 06:37 AM

Women created at the same time from the same dust that rib is made of.
What?

Man is the breadwinner for good reason, for women have a greater rule in spending time with the children. In those days women would have 10 to 20 kids.
What? Women mice? Women rabbits?

Darat

25th August 2009, 06:41 AM

What?

...snip...

I think he is talking about the McRib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McRib), whilst it's not the most flavoursome meal I've ever tasted I wouldn't say it was made from dust.

~enigma~

25th August 2009, 06:49 AM

An interesting post.
It would be more interesting yet if a source and link were provided for these figures.
And even more interesting yet if Biblo could explain what the words '5600 original manuscripts' means in the context of the NT.
I'm looking forward to seeing where Biblo sourced this information.
Why bother? Apparently he read and swallowed Josh McDowell's book Evidence That Demands A Verdict instead of engaging his brain. Oddly enough as most christians believe his brain is a gift from god so why they slap god in the face by refusing to use their brain is beyond all sense.

~enigma~

25th August 2009, 06:54 AM

You mean the people with Paul, that Paul CLAIMED were with him?
On the road the "Paul" claims he was on to go persecute people outside Judea...

Pure Argent

25th August 2009, 07:06 AM

Because man and one are one flesh, not man and man.

You automatically know if someone preaches homosexuality they are going to Hell.

Bare assertion.

Women can vote this past century. It's still not accepted homosexuality.

So what society accepts as "sin" or "not sin" decides what actually is sin?

The Koran fails because six centuries later it said Jesus didn't die on the cross. Mormons fail because it is illogical to have multiple uncreated beings. Scientology is the same thing as as gnosticism, but that is evil for God to allow an evil creator.

Why is it illogical to have uncreated beings? God, apparently, wasn't created.

That just leaves our Creator and Saviour, Lord Jesus Christ. Christianity is based on multiple eyewitness corroborating testimony in various group settings/

Eyewitness testimony isn't all it's cracked up to be. Memory can be influenced by outside forces, and group memory is even worse. Have you ever read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria)?

God says it is a sin and that is that. Your choice.

This assumes that God exists. It is an illogical argument. Therefore, no response is possible.

Women created at the same time from the same dust that rib is made of. Man is the breadwinner for good reason, for women have a greater rule in spending time with the children. In those days women would have 10 to 20 kids. It's hard to be an Apostle then. But there was one female Apostle mentioned. Her name was Junias.

So you're a "Get in the kitchen, womun" type guy?

The Bible is actually the contemporary writings of the day in which it records some non-Christians seeing Jesus such as James and Paul and no doubt some of the 500 whom Paul said could have recanted what he said that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.

See previous link.

Women had big families back then and in a court of law were usually not accepted. It was a cultural thing. Different than homosexuality, e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah.

See previous comment on society deciding what was sin.