FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-26-2001, 01:52 PM   #11
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Thumbs up

Boy are you guys generous! Nomad has said nothing at all. In fact, his answer is (paraphrased) "My standard of evidence is whatever I determine to be evidence whenever I determine it to be evidence." In other words, no standard at all!

Bravo, sir, bravo! If it weren't for the fact that your deliberate, lawyerly evasions like this one serve only to conclusively prove (in total) that your agenda is nothing more than pro-cult propaganda at all costs and you will always and forever negate the whole point of argumentation and debate, I'd salute you. You are without a doubt the most calculated one-note thumper your cult has ever produced, IMHO.

That was priceless and puts you into the cult spin doctor hall of fame! You and I should team up and become political consultants immediately, just so long as we promise never to discuss politics!
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 07-27-2001, 06:09 AM   #12
Cute Little Baby
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: no comment
Posts: 27
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Nomad:
In another example, the Bible is clearly evidence of something, and it is easily the best attested evidence available to us today as to what Jesus thought, did, preached and taught. I am open to any challenges anyone wishes to make to these texts, but would like to see their reasoning for rejecting certain books and passages.
You've been repeatedly presented with such reasoning, you just ignore it. And since the burden of proof is on YOU to justify belief in your extraordinary claim, I'd like to see you tell us why the Bible's portrayal of Jesus is accurate when compared with other alleged 'miraculous' phenomenon, even that which has better evidence supporting it (such as the deification of the Moai Statues) than the Gospel's claims.
Cute Little Baby is offline  
Old 07-27-2001, 08:45 AM   #13
Le pede
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Providence,RI
Posts: 21
Question

Quote:
As to your view on the DSS constituting evidence, I would definitely agree with you, subject to the qualification offered by Bede. The Essene community cannot, prima facie be considered more reliable in their presentation of the Hebrew Bible just because they offer us older texts. We must consider their theological motivations as well. Nor can we discount the value of the Greek Septuagint, dating from the same period of time.
Nomad, you just qualified your acceptance of the DSS by saying theological considerations had to be considered. Shouldn't theological considerations be made for the NT and OT in their recording of events? In Paul's interpretation of the Jerusalem Council? In Acts' interpretation of the same event?
Le pede is offline  
Old 07-27-2001, 01:19 PM   #14
sighhswolf
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Charlotte,NC USA
Posts: 379
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by sentinel00:
<STRONG>

Well, then he certainly must disregard all of Paul's personal and non-expert opinions for what god wants us to do!

In fact, if the NT stories are true, the only one who would technically qualify as an expert in what god wants is god himself! Therefore, only Jesus's "words" are to be taken as evidence for anything, and anything outside of his commandments should be disregarded as personal opinion.</STRONG>
I honestly dont see how anyone could take Paul seriously.
A mentally challanged, admitted liar!
Why would anyone take the word of someone who says he has engaged in deception and misinformation in order to promote his mission.

Also, the pious "Jesus Seminars" has said that fully 85% of all the sayings attributed
to Jesus and relayed through the NT are fabrications, Jesus never said it.

sighhswolf is offline  
Old 07-27-2001, 09:50 PM   #15
Nomad
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally posted by Le pede:

Nomad, you just qualified your acceptance of the DSS by saying theological considerations had to be considered. Shouldn't theological considerations be made for the NT and OT in their recording of events? In Paul's interpretation of the Jerusalem Council? In Acts' interpretation of the same event?
Hi le pede

Good questions, and the answer, of course, is yes, we should consider the theological motivations and interpretations of those that are giving evidence. That is why I said that this becomes the follow up to the presentation of the evidence itself.

I would not exempt the NT Canons from the same standards that would be applied to any other documentary or witness evidence being offered.

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 07-29-2001, 10:17 AM   #16
BobDobbs
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 26
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Nomad:
<STRONG>

Hi le pede

Good questions, and the answer, of course, is yes, we should consider the theological motivations and interpretations of those that are giving evidence. That is why I said that this becomes the follow up to the presentation of the evidence itself.

I would not exempt the NT Canons from the same standards that would be applied to any other documentary or witness evidence being offered.

Nomad</STRONG>

bump...

Nomad please answer the excelent question of how you can consider Paul's personal and non-expert opinion in the bible to have any value as evidence.

Thanks!

Bob
BobDobbs is offline  
Old 07-29-2001, 10:33 AM   #17
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by sighhswolf:
<STRONG>

I have a quick question. Who says that eyewitness accounts constitute evidence?
Eyewitness accounts from whom? How many retellings? In many courtrooms across this nation, Judges throw out eyewitness accounts daily, as being unreliable, and in fact if you only have eyewitness accounts as evidence in some cases, you will never get to court.

How can someone use the Bible as evidence to validate Biblical questions?
Time lines, archeology, geneologies, and direct quotes are all intertwined in a real investigation, along with the historical writers of the time period.

You certainly cannot use a "Myth" to validate
a "Myth". You cannot use questionable evidence to uphold questionable evidence.

Arguments from authority are in many cases all that are available to many of us who are not privy to the actual written records, who cannot read Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and must depend on what has been written by others.

And by the way, since there are no copies of the original manuscripts of the Gospels, what in the world makes you think that anything that is written by man, is not subject to conjecture, embellishment, misquotations, mistranslations, and just plain untruths? All these have been found in many of the gospel records.

These forums are not "the Jesus Seminars"
filled with the elite of the academic world.

We can prove absolutely nothing here in these forums, why? because we do not have the capability to examine the same material at the same time, in the same area.
So the debates rage on, but proof will always escape us here, and evidence is always questionable.

I think it is rather presumptuous to think that anyone can "present indisputable evidence" of anything that has not been personally dug from ancient sites, discovered from ancient texts, or gained through any method that was not obtained by the individual presenting the argument.


It doesnt matter what method you use, or what evidence you present, that evidence is and will always be derived through someone elses work and therefore cannot be anything BUT an argument from authority.

I still say you cant use a myth, to validate a myth.</STRONG>
Impressive post. I am absorbing information from it, and I want to second it.
Ion is offline  
Old 08-01-2001, 10:58 AM   #18
EatMeRaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: High Sierra Mountains
Posts: 33
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Nomad:
<STRONG>

Hi le pede

Good questions, and the answer, of course, is yes, we should consider the theological motivations and interpretations of those that are giving evidence. That is why I said that this becomes the follow up to the presentation of the evidence itself.

I would not exempt the NT Canons from the same standards that would be applied to any other documentary or witness evidence being offered.

Nomad</STRONG>
Since you believe that the bible can be used as evidence, I shall like to question the correctness and precision of the evidence itself.

Where was Jesus first seen after his resurrection? Galileo(Luke) or Jerusalem(Matthew)?
EatMeRaw is offline  
Old 08-01-2001, 11:15 AM   #19
hezekiah jones
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally posted by EatMeRaw:
Galileo
What a cool Freudian slip!
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 08-01-2001, 11:33 AM   #20
EatMeRaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: High Sierra Mountains
Posts: 33
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
<STRONG>

What a cool Freudian slip!</STRONG>
oops!! sorry.. its

Galilee.. heee
EatMeRaw is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:16 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.