|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 2, 2007 22:50:07 GMT -4
No, I quote two passages from two books both written by an author that identifies himself as Luke, compatriot and companion of Paul. The sooner you stop thinking of the Bible as a single work and realise that it is a entire library consisting of 66 distinct books written by 40 different authors, the sooner you'll start to understand.
No, the earliest fragments we have are fragments of the books and letters that would become the NT. The NT wasn't the NT until The Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Until then there was no NT, there were the scriptures, which were the Jewish law and the Prophets (what we call the OT) and there were a number of letters and gospels that had been passed about the Churches for the previous 200 odd years. The most commonly used letters and gospels were collected and the Council determined by historical accuracy and consistency which letters and books would be considered cannon. Those were bundled together into what we now call the NT, and both were put together to form the Bible. It might help if you actually bothered to learn a little about history, or are you going to dispute The Council of Carthage's existence as well since we can't prove who wrote that history either.
And yet you're the one dodging and weaving, refusing to be pinned down on subjects, moving the goal posts, and arbitrarily declaring that evidence isn't enough all while relying on a double standard. Who's really acting like the HB here?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 23:19:28 GMT -4
Now I'm convinced that it is all true. How could it not all be true with 40 different authors?
And being the historians and critical thinkers that they must have been, they undoubtedly put aside their passions and beliefs and included only those documents that could be proven to be accurate. Let's see, I guess we need a citation for that last bit. Can't seem to find it. Still looking.
Your personal attacks are not necessary. I'm going after the material. If you feel I have made a personal attack against you, then I apologize -- but I don't see where I have.
Oh, no. I have no doubt that a group of men many years later had much to do with shaping the form of the NT as we know it today.
Oh, the part where I refused to be pulled into a discussion of Alexander the Great? Right. You've so eloquently proven your point that there is no evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great. Where is that, again?
Where, again?
You mean where I required evidence to actually mean something? By not allowing the Bible to be evidence of its own accuracy? Or by not allowing wishful thinking as evidence? Yes, I have been so unfair.
Well, gosh. You've shamed me.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 2, 2007 23:52:03 GMT -4
PW - I think you've made a very good point. In the first century, the Gospels were treated as individual books. In the late second century, Christians began to collect all four Gospels as one book. Later, in the second and third centuries, other Christians began to combine the Acts and General Epistles in one volume. Scripture to the early Christians was the Old Testament, but they begin to think that several of the books of the NT were divinely inspired scripture. Some took longer to be accepted -Hebrews, James, 2 Peter and Jude, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. Only in the fourth century were the issues resolved and the present NT put together. So, the various writings of the NT represent different sources as evidence for Jesus depending on of course how evidence is defined on this thread. All the books in the NT are the earliest ones written, I think. Although I think that politics played a role in what books were chosen for the NT, for the most part the early church leaders weighed the evidence for a documents validity with great thought and were careful. As far as I know, none of the non-canonical gospels were written before 130 A.D., the Gospel of Thomas being the earliest (a quite interesting document for sure). There were good reasons most of these were not accepted into the NT. Most of them contain much more fanciful events, magical doings and mythical elements.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 3, 2007 0:30:04 GMT -4
The reason I pointed out it had 40 authors was not to say it's true but to get you to stop treating it as a single source. As to true. Can you call the Book of Psalms true? What exactly is the qaulifications on a book of poetry and song being true? How about Paul's first letter to Timothy? How do you determine if a letter is true?
If we get to the nitty gritty there are 5 history books by 4 people. Two of the books are written by an author who claims to be Luke, another claims to be written by a disciple and is written in the same style of the letters that state they were written by the Apostle John, so even if you don't accept the other two, we still have one book claiming that it was written using research and eyewittnesses which we have an individual who claims to have written it, and a second that is written by a person claiming to be an eyewittness. "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true" which were written as seperate books and not combined into one volume until many years later. Why should these be disqualified as historical evidence?
Wow, this coming from someone who then complains that my pointing out his lack of historical knowledge was a personal attack.... I'm gobsmacked. I guess Sir Issac Newton had the same lack of historical understanding and critical thinking you infer onto those of the Council, afterall he was very much into the church and theology as well (well that is if he even existed.)
Since you didn't appear to know when the NT came into being since you claimed that the earliest documents were the NT, how is telling you to learn the history a personal attack?
How about on any of the questions you have been asked? You won't even give a standard by which you'd accept a historical figure as having existed even though you have been repeatedly asked for it.
I think you are getting Jason and I confussed again.
Everytime you switched the discussion from evidence of Jesus' existance and demanded proof of Jesus being divine before accepting he existed.
You mean where I required evidence to actually mean something? By not allowing the Bible to be evidence of its own accuracy? Or by not allowing wishful thinking as evidence? Yes, I have been so unfair.
No I mean where you expect the evidence to be greater than for any other historical figure, and rule out the Biblical texts just because they were gathered together in a single book. Funnily enough you have already admited that we have copies of the Gospel from before 397 AD when the NT was determined, and yet you still seem to be unwilling to accept them as different sources. Why is this? Is it because then they'd have to be seen as complimenting each other rather then all being derived as one source?
Well, gosh. You've shamed me.
Unfortunately I doubt this is true, but if you actually stood back and looked at your postings here, you might actually be. There is a difference between being skeptical and refusing to accept anything as true. Your double standard has lead you into the second here.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2007 0:33:40 GMT -4
Well, again -- it seems to me that you are arguing that we can't be sure about anything in history. Not in any absolute sense, no. We can only be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that an event happened or a person existed. No, not really. The existence or nonexistence of Jesus is irrelevent to the point I was making in this last post, except that he is a historical figure. I am arguing that no one can absolutely prove any historical event, place, or person existed, and therefore to demand absolute proof of any one, such as Jesus or Alexander the Great, is unreasonable. Well if they did they would be out a career, wouldn't they? You have yet to demonstrate that there is a qualitative difference between the evidence we have available for Jesus' existence and that of any other historic figure, mostly because you refuse to discuss any other historical figure. And there are whole libraries of books outside of the New Testament that speak of Jesus and his mission. I think you meant to say "there are no contemporary accounts that mention of Jesus outside of the New Testament".
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2007 0:40:58 GMT -4
The most commonly used letters and gospels were collected and the Council determined by historical accuracy and consistency which letters and books would be considered cannon. Actually, Phantomwolf, I beleive they also considered doctrine when deciding which books to be considered canon. Those documents which didn't fit with the doctrines of the time were also rejected, so long as there wasn't a very strong case that one of the apostles actually wrote them.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 3, 2007 0:46:19 GMT -4
The most commonly used letters and gospels were collected and the Council determined by historical accuracy and consistency which letters and books would be considered cannon. Actually, Phantomwolf, I beleive they also considered doctrine when deciding which books to be considered canon. Those documents which didn't fit with the doctrines of the time were also rejected, so long as there wasn't a very strong case that one of the apostles actually wrote them. Yes certainly for the letters, there wasn't a lot of other ways to consider which to accept and which not to, other than a document didn't agree with the accepted doctrine as taught by the Aposotles. The history books were another matter as they don't really have doctrine in them, other then the words of Jesus. It was thus easier to eliminate the non-canon gospels on factual errors rather than by doctrine basis.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 3, 2007 12:03:30 GMT -4
I hate to break up the current mood of self-congratulation, but someone has to do it.
And when were these books written? Unknown. And who actually wrote them? Scholarship casts doubt that they were written by the men named as the supposed authors. And what do we really know about first century Christians and their access to the Gospels? There are many assumptions being made about what we know. "Everybody knows that Christians did those and so" is not an argument from logic. It is an argument from assumption.
Show me evidence that what is written in these "history books" is actually history and not just fantasy. How about some against it? Genealogy of Jesus -- Luke 3:23-24 (from the Holy Bible Papal Edition, 1968): Joseph, son of of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, Son of Melchi, Son of Janne and on and on. Genealogy of Jesus -- Matthew 1:14-16: Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar, son of Eliud, son of Achim and on and on.
So which one is correct? And don't give me the tired "Luke traced it through Mary" argument, unless you can prove it. Luke 1:27 says that "to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary." Christians claim that the true understanding of this passage is that Mary is of the lineage of David. The repetition of "virgin," however, does not seem to support this idea. This passage seems to be claiming that Joseph is of the house of David. Luke 2:4 states "And Joseph also went from Galilee out of the town of Nazareth into Judea to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem -- because he was of the house and family of David." Luke does not say "they" were of the house of David.
Regardless, Luke 3:23 clearly states a genealogy through Joseph and does not mention Mary.
You were pointing out my assumed lack of historical knowledge.
It's not that I'm unwilling to accept them as different sources, it's that I am unwilling to accept them as substantiated sources. Your argument is that they are all apparently reliable sources, but you do nothing to show that they are, in fact, reliable.
What? Where did I ask for proof that Jesus was divine?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2007 13:07:10 GMT -4
I hate to break up the current mood of self-congratulation, but someone has to do it. Self-congratulation? If I correct one of your posts will you think I'm congratulating you?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2007 13:59:50 GMT -4
And when were these books written? Unknown. And who actually wrote them? How do we know Plato wrote The Republic, or Homer The Odyssey, or Shakespeare the plays attributed to him? We don't "know" it - we accept Plato or Homer or Shakespeare as the author simply because a great many historians of the past accepted their claims of authorship. We have circumstantial evidence that they are ancient works because other writers we accept as ancient name them or quote from them. In the same way we have circumstantial evidence that the books of the New Testament are ancient because early Church Fathers name them and quote from them. And other scholarship accepts them. And any argument that early Christians did not have access to the Gospels or did so and so is an argument from ignorance. Actually the fact that they conflict is good evidence that the writers did not use the same source and did not collaborate, and good evidence that the copyists who preserved the texts after they became part of the same collection (the New Testament) were faithful to the text, as they did not correct the contradiction. I would also note that both genealogies are careful to state that Joseph was not Jesus' father. Matthew states that Joseph was the "husband of Mary", not "the father of Jesus" (meaning it does mention Mary, by the way). The beginning of the genealogy in Luke states "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph." The repetition of "virgin" in reference to Mary is to emphasize the virgin birth, not to distance Mary from the House of David. A few verses later Luke quotes Mary as saying "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" emphasizing that virgin is meant in the modern sense. An "if I ran the zoo" argument, similar to arguments that the exact date of Jesus' birth should be in the gospels. If you were a first century Christian Jew your argument that the gospels should have said Mary was of the House of David if she was, or given the exact date of Jesus' birth would carry more weight. As it is you are guessing what should and should not have been included based on your own perceptions, perceptions that are the product of a culture far removed from that which produced these writings, both geographically and temporally.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 3, 2007 14:38:30 GMT -4
Yes, and as the topic of this thread is "Is the Bible evidence of the existence of Jesus," we should be talking about the scholarship -- not using the Bible as proof that the Bible is true.
Any claim to know what Christians knew and when they knew it in the first century is born of a failure to think critically.
That's the best you can come up with? Conflicting genealogies of Jesus actually supply proof that the text is true? This is why we have so much trouble finding agreement on what constitutes evidence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2007 17:07:00 GMT -4
We have trouble finding agreement on what constitutes evidence because you refuse to provide any examples of what you consider evidence. Yes, the conflicting genealogies actually favor credibility in the New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 3, 2007 17:29:14 GMT -4
You were pointing out my assumed lack of historical knowledge. So are you now going to claim that you deliberately made a basic error in saying that the earilest fragments we have were the NT? Not the way historical documents are treated, if you have to prove that every document is from a substantiated source then we have no verifiable history. This is what I keep saying, you are applying a double standard. You accept history as read based ojn other unsubstantiated documents, but you refuse to accept the Gospel pruely because your reject what they are saying. You really want me to go back and quote your posts? Obviously a bad memory too. Here are some of the time you have interjected the requirement for Extraordinary proof because of Jesus' supposed divinity or made a point based on his claim of being the son of god rather than just if he actually existed as a person. I’m not the one making an extraordinary claim, here. Others claim that Jesus was the son of God. The burden of proof is not on me. I am not claiming evidence of a supernatural power. I have said a couple of times that my statement of purpose is that "because (Jesus) can't be proven to have existed, claims that he was definitely the son of God seem dubious." In response to that, I have fielded several claims that there actually is independent evidence that Jesus existed. I believe I have been fairly straightforward about this. I am not making the extraordinary claim, here. You are the one claiming evidence of a supernatural being. There is no burden on me at all. If you want to claim that the Bible is evidence, you have to do more than merely make the claim. However no-one here is discussing was he the son of god, or was he divine, we have been discussing Did he exist as a man. full stop. You are the one that keeps dragging in the rest as a way to sidestep arguments and demand extraordinary proof as a way to keep your double standard alive. Next thing we know you'll be demanding telescopic photos of God.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 3, 2007 17:41:19 GMT -4
I believe Jesus existed, but I believe he was just an ordinary man who was embellished greatly in the bible. I believe that a tomb discovered in Israel in 1980 could very well be Jesus', but since that would contradict several of the bible's stories the church will not likely admit it exists.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2007 18:10:47 GMT -4
We discussed that tomb a bit around page 10 of the "Jesus Myth" thread.
|
|