|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 16:32:57 GMT -4
Paul knew nothing of the virgin birth and he is the only one who we reliably believe to have been writing near the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. Mark and John say nothing of the virgin birth. Only Matthew and Luke say anything about it. The writers of the gospels are unknown and are generally not believed to be the persons whose names are attached to the gospels. We don't know when they were writing or what their sources were (no matter who they were, they certainly were not in attendance at the birth of Jesus).
The shepherds of Luke 2:8 are pretty thin evidence of anything. There is good reason to believe the stories of Jesus' birth are fabrications. Trying to determine Jesus' birthday based on gospel stories will never be anything but guesswork.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 16:50:31 GMT -4
Didn't we already have a thread about this?
Not saying anything in the few writings preserved to the present day doesn't mean a particular writer knew nothing of an incident in Jesus' life, merely that he didn't chose to write of it in anything that has been perserved.
The identity of the writers is open to question, but they could also be exactly who they said they were. We don't know exactly when they wrote the writings we have today, no, but we do have a good idea of when they first became known to other early church members, and the gospels and Paul's writings were all known within the first century.
That Matthew and Luke were not attendant at Jesus' birth is not beyond dispute (they don't claim to have been, but it's remotely possible). Even if they weren't, however, as Jesus' close followers they were in a position to know and interview those who were present - Mary being the prime witness we know was still alive after Jesus' death.
When trying to determine the probable date of Jesus' birth one has to deal with the available sources. That is the gospels. To someone who denies the entire story yes, the shepherds are thin evidence, since they've already made up their minds that it's all mythology from untrustworthy soruces anyway. To someone who is willing to accept the gospel account at face value then the fact that shepherds were with their flocks at night becomes a clue to the season of the year. Circumstantial evidence, absolutely, but there is little else to go on.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 17:14:57 GMT -4
Rubbish, at least as it pertains to the gospels. Show evidence for this position.
Anything could be possible. That, however, is not an argument that holds any authority without some kind of evidence to back it up. If they were really the persons whose names are attached, would they not have mention being present - in the first person? Oh, right - everyone knew the story, so they didn't need to go into detail. If that is the case, show me that everyone knew the story.
One should also try to determine if the gospels even begin to fill the requirements of reliable evidence. They do not. We do not know who wrote them and we do not know when. You can argue the point, but you will do no better than has anyone else.
You are the one who has fixed your opinion. You can't begin to provide evidence that these stories are true. You choose to accept them without knowing details of the authors or when they were writing. Don't confuse your position with a position taken using the powers of reason - your position is entirely one taken because you choose to believe it - not because evidence is on your side.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 17:21:11 GMT -4
Look, if we're trying to determine when Jesus was born then the Gospels are the source. If we don't beleive that Jesus had any special significance or was a fictional character then no, the Gospel's don't matter. There's no reason for an unbeliever to care about when Jesus was born, so there's no reason for them to examine the Gospels. I have no reason to try to defend the Gospels because your mind is already made up. I can't convince you, no matter what evidence I might present, so why should I bother trying?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 17:36:33 GMT -4
Have you offered any evidence? You say "no matter what evidence I might present," as if I am notoriously dismissing evidence, but that is not the case. You've provided nothing.
If I had a book that claimed to show evidence of a supernatural being and I was asked to accept a bunch of beliefs based on that book (such as, say, homosexuals are bad people or that sex is a sin), I'd want to know for sure that the book in question had some historical basis. Otherwise, how would I know that my belief about homosexuality and sexuality had any basis?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 17:46:04 GMT -4
You won't attempt the test I've proposed, so we have no common ground on this subject to discuss further.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 17:56:57 GMT -4
No, I'm not going to give Mormonism a try. Your test is not a rational test and is therefore useless in a debate.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 18:28:26 GMT -4
It's certainly useless to you as long as you refuse to have anything to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 18:33:34 GMT -4
Your "test" is nothing but an appeal to faith. It would do nothing to show whether I was more capable than you in distinguishing the acts of a god from occurrences of random chance.
So you admit you have nothing in the way of a rational argument in defense of your belief?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 18:46:19 GMT -4
My premise is that some acts of God are distinguishable from random acts, and that this particular test I propose is a proven method of prompting God to act. I know this through personal experience and through watching others derive the same result.
I can no more prove this premise to you without some effort on your part than I could prove that salt tastes differently than sugar when you refuse to ever try salt.
As long as you refuse to budge on what I see as the most important issue with Jesus - his divine nature and mission, why should I bother discussing trivia like when he may have been born?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 19:20:40 GMT -4
If it is a proven method, I should not have to try it. You should be able to show me the proof.
There is good evidence that humans have the ability to taste. There is no evidence that prayer works. Your analogy is faulty.
I have more than budged on this issue. I once believed. Now that I see there is no reason to believe, I don't.
Because when one looks at all the "trivia," one finds that none of it can be taken seriously.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 19:26:27 GMT -4
What is a "rational" test for proving that salt tastes differently from sugar?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 19:29:03 GMT -4
100 people with taste buds.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 26, 2007 19:33:52 GMT -4
Oh no, not this again...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 19:35:34 GMT -4
100 people with taste buds. In other words you do have to taste it.
|
|