|
Post by gillianren on Aug 26, 2007 14:21:37 GMT -4
Gllian, I hope your depression passes quickly and that you're exploring alternative treatments. If you have situational depression, any medication that messes with your serotonin will probably make you worse. Been there. No processed foods and hard exercise, if you're able, can make a big difference. I'm bipolar; I've been this way my whole life. "Alternative treatments" don't work. Heck, so far, the meds don't work, but there's a chance that they might.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 26, 2007 14:24:44 GMT -4
Since we can't be sure the evidence existed or did not, claiming that it did not is just as invalid as claiming it did. Therefore the view that Jesus definitely did not exist is just as scientifically unsupportable as claiming he did.
And it's very convenient to say "I have good reasons for thinking someone isn't credible, but I won't mention them," isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 26, 2007 14:48:15 GMT -4
I never claimed that Jesus definitely did not exist (sorry, unavoidable double negative). I did say that because he can't be proven to have existed, claims that he was definitely the son of God seem dubious.
I don't want this to become a thread about whether or not Joseph Smith is a credible witness. You suggest that I have nothing to offer about him, but that is not the case. Much has been written about Joseph Smith's life and works. If I say anything about it, we'll spend the next twenty responses debating the Book of Mormon. I don't believe that is the purpose of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 26, 2007 17:12:15 GMT -4
though we do have a pretty good idea that they were written after 70 CE.
Actually this is incorrect, modern day scholars put the dates pre-70AD, most likely in 50-65AD. This is bourne out by the fact that none of the Gospel discuss the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, something that certainly would have been mentioned in the context that Jesus predicted it. Also one of the Authors identifies himself rather well, that being Luke, the writting style and structuire mirroring Acts, the events in that book the Author claiming to have paticipated in. Again the Gospel of John contains the same language and style of the Author of the Letters of John and Revelation, in which the Author identifies himself all 4 times. John did indeed know Jesus having been there at the time. Two of the other letters, James and Jude , were penned by Jesus' brothers!
As to the others, sell I could make the same arguments for ever other ancient text. Can you prove that Julius Ceaser actually wrote the texts attributed to him? How about that Homer actually wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey? With the NT books, we have copies that were handwritten in the early 100's, just 50-70 years after they were first penned. No other historical document has a surviving copy that is so close to the originals. Secondly we litterally have 10's of thousands of hand-written, ancient copies of the New Testements books allowing us to compare them and see what is likely to have been changed, either deliberately or not, throughout the history of the texts. We can't do that with most of the others since we have so few of each copy. Even Homer's work or the letters of Ceaser are just a few copies compared to the numbers of the New Testement books. Add to that that the four gospels were four seperate texts until they were gathered together, and that many other gospel also existed (note that some have even been found) though they were not used as cannonal texts.
If you want to argue the authenticity of the text, then you open a big can of worms, because you'll have to apply ther exact same reasoning and demands to every other historical text, and as such, how can you prove any of history?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 26, 2007 19:58:05 GMT -4
I don't want this to become a thread about whether or not Joseph Smith is a credible witness. Agreed. It's best saved for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 26, 2007 20:18:42 GMT -4
So many things to discuss. Dating the Gospels exactly is impossible. However, to date them before 70 CE because they don't mention the destruction of the Temple is to simplify the issue. Mark and Luke both make reference to a prophecy that the temple will be destroyed. So if you believe it was a prophecy, then you can date it earlier. If you don't believe in prophecies and you believe this was an attempt to create a prophecy after the fact, then 70 CE is a good date. Either way, even if we accept 50 CE as the date, that's 20 years -- which is a long time later for the authors to start writing down exact quotes.
The earliest known existing fragment of the New Testament is called p52 and is a very small piece of John that dates to around 120-150 CE. And it is in Greek, which unless you think Jesus spoke Greek, is a translation. No fragment exists in Aramaic or Hebrew. So either all copies are translations or the Gospels started out in Greek. Given that the earliest actual fragment is from nearly a century after the supposed time of Jesus, it is reasonable to question the accuracy of the works.
As to the writings of Julius Caesar or Homer, we do not have to judge them solely on the basis those writings. Other evidence exists. And, to the point of this discussion, we are not being asked to worship them.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 26, 2007 22:49:42 GMT -4
Why can't you beleive Jesus made a prophecy that the temple would be destroyed without actually believing in prophecy? Simply because it came true? What if he just got lucky? Or, if you're a cyinic, what if the prophecies about the temple being destroyed were the prophecies that were preserved, with prophecies speaking about it standing forever having been excised when it was destroyed?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 27, 2007 10:39:57 GMT -4
It has been claimed elsewhere on this thread that atheists (or for my purposes, non-believers in Christianity) are roughly the same as Apollo hoax believers. I'd say the exact opposite is true. It is Christians who are making extraordinary claims based on shoddy or completely missing evidence. Jesus might have said something about the destruction of the temple, but we only have the words written down many years later. If we see that the chain of evidence can not take us back to a copy of the works in question that is even in the language of the supposed writer, then the burden of proof is on the one or ones making the claim.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2007 10:46:50 GMT -4
But a lack of evidence is only unnusual if we would have expected evidence to have survived.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 27, 2007 11:24:49 GMT -4
Is a stunning lack of evidence unusual? Should we not expect that some evidence would survive? The birth of Jesus was apparently a bit of an event, but nobody bothered to write down the date. His death was apparently quite an event, too -- but when did that happen? The Gospels record exact quotes, but not exactly when Jesus died? Now, if my arguments were on the level of the average moon HB, I'd say "why aren't there any photographs?"
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 27, 2007 11:41:08 GMT -4
Now, if my arguments were on the level of the average moon HB, I'd say "why aren't there any photographs?" Now I could answer that question.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 27, 2007 12:12:17 GMT -4
Long work week starts now. Please don't declare victory in my absence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2007 12:15:59 GMT -4
The birth of Jesus was apparently a bit of an event, but nobody bothered to write down the date. His death was apparently quite an event, too -- but when did that happen? The Gospels record exact quotes, but not exactly when Jesus died? Begging the question, should we expect to see exact dates? Were the followers of Jesus' church, who wrote the Gospels, more interested in the exact dates Jesus' birth and death occured, something they probably all knew already (especially when his death coincided with the Passover), or were they more interested in his teachings and stated mission?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 27, 2007 13:21:28 GMT -4
It's not an unreasonable expectation: "When did this happen?" is hardly an unlikely reaction for someone hearing about this for the first time.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2007 13:44:11 GMT -4
But the Gospels weren't written to answer questions of exact dates.
|
|