Penatis, you agreed with my opinion that even though Matthew 27:52-53 does not appear in the earliest fragmentary Papyri(or before 350 A.D.), this does not give conclusive evidence that they did not exist (perhaps not even plausible evidence).

You state that this is a problem for you because three to four centuries separate the claimed event from the earliest surviving MSSs and that Matthew could have added these verses to Mark's account.

This cannot be discounted.

However, I still maintain that the silence of scholars on this issue says that these verses must have been original despite their lack of attestation in a list of quite fragmentary Papyri. There are *some* verses of Matthew in these mostly small Papyrus fragments. The fact that two verses from the book of Matthew do not show up is not necessarily surprising.

We have stated our beliefs on the matter and I really don't think the subject can be pushed further without reiteration. Those around us will form their own opinions.

As to your comments on Bruce Metzger, I do not deny he has his own set of beliefs as we all do. Your comment was that you thought he seemed to be "speaking to a Christian readership in his books." This is what I find to be somewhat unfair.

Metzger's quote that you posted seems to me to be a scholarly admission of the presuppositions he brings to his work. So, yes you could say he was biased. Since everyone brings their own set of presuppositions to their work, it is a good idea to lay them on the table.

The fact that Metzger laid his beliefs on the table for all to see hasn't stopped some of the best liberal scholars from using his works. He is one of the many sources used for instance by John Dominic Crossan in The Birth of Christianity.

My personal opinion is that Bruce Metzger was about as honest and impartial as anyone can be.

On to other things...

Later, I said "I guess I'm unsure as to how you are using this [the Pyramid texts] to the advantage of your argument? The Pyramid texts are not a good example because they don't really parallel the NT."

You replied: "I believe your bias is showing."

I say "Huh?"

Then, you said: "The Pyramid Texts ARE originals that are over four thousand years old."

This statement reminds me of your discussion with Bede.

He said this about the Pyramid texts: "Just guessing but I expect the stone masons were carving in something that had been around for a good while. It might have been commissioned especially for the pyramids but I doubt it."

You replied: "As you said, you are "just guessing."

I'd like to concur with Bede and lend something extra to support his educated "guess".

The Museum of Ancient Cultures, Macquarie University of Sydney, Australia has this to say about the Pyramid Texts: "It is clear from the content of the inscriptions that many of the utterances had been in existence for centuries. Spell 662 tells the dead king to cast the sand from his face, which seems to allude to burial in the desert sand as practiced in the Predynastic period. Spell 355 says that the bricks have been removed from the tomb, and must refer to the mudbrick mastabas of the Archaic Period."

Reference Site:
www.museum.mq.edu.au/eegypt2/ptexts.html

Who knows what the traditions were behind the Pyramid Texts as they were inscribed?

Since I really don't see that the Pyramid Texts tell us much about the transmission of the New Testament, let me provide what I think are a few better examples.

Julius Caesar's De bello Gallico
composed: between 50-58 A.D.
extant MSSs: several, but 9-10 of good quality
earliest MSS: ~850-900 A.D.

Tacitus' Histories
composed: ~100 A.D.
extant MSSs: 4-1/2
earliest MSS: 9th century

Tacitus' Annals
composed: ~100 A.D.
extant MSSs: 10 full / 2 partial
earliest MSS: 9th century

Thucydide's History (Pelop. War)
composed: ~460-400 B.C.
extant MSSs: 8 from ~900 A.D.
earliest MSS: a few 1st century fragments

Herodotus' History
composed: ~488-428 B.C.
extant MSSs: 8 from ~900 A.D.
earliest MSS: a few 1st century fragments

(Taken from p.233 of The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible by Paul D. Wegner - 1999)

In Metzger's The Text of the New Testament that we've mentioned before he provides this information:
---
Homer's Illiad (the "Bible" of the ancient Greeks) is preserved in:
457 papyri
2 uncial MSS
188 miniscule MSS

Euripides' works are preserved in:
54 papyri
276 parchment MSS
(almost all dating from the Byzantine period)
---

At these levels of attestations, the works mentioned above are used as a backdrop for history as we know it.

Now, Metzger presents the statistics for the NT as follows:
---
81 Greek Papyri
266 uncial MSS
2,754 miniscule MSS
2,135 lectionaries
25 ostraca containing short portions of 6 NT books
"numerous" talismans w/ Greek text of NT
---

Man! To me that blows the other stuff out of the water!

Metzger thinks so too in his quote which is all to familiar to readers of these posts:
"...the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material" (an "embarrassment of riches" as I saw it put).

Penatis, you may still be unconvinced, but I think both sides have been presented. Either you have cast a shadow of doubt or not. For me, not...

Respectfully,
Ish

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Penatis, you agreed with my opinion that even though Matthew 27:52-53 does not appear in the earliest fragmentary Papyri(or before 350 A.D.), this does not give conclusive evidence that they did not exist (perhaps not even plausible evidence).

You state that this is a problem for you because three to four centuries separate the claimed event from the earliest surviving MSSs and that Matthew could have added these verses to Mark's account.

This cannot be discounted.

Agreed.

Ish: However, I still maintain that the silence of scholars on this issue says that these verses must have been original despite their lack of attestation in a list of quite fragmentary Papyri.

According to some, this is an argument from silence. On the other hand, some arguments from silence are totally justified.

But, let's look at the facts:
1. Some scholars are not as concerned about the general lack of attestation of much of the NT before the fourth century as others. For obvious reasons, conservative Christian scholars would not be openly as concerned as more critical scholars, Christian or otherwise. (It is most unfortunate that virtually ALL textual critics of the NT are Christians. I personally would like to see what neutral scholars would have to say.)
2. The fact that many scholars have not openly commented on the lack of attestation cannot be construed to mean that they believe the codices (and fragmentary papyri) dating from the fourth century and later must attest to the originals.
3. Bart Ehrman, Robert Funk, and others have voiced concerns about the numerous errors, additions, omissions, obscurities, and variant readings, contained in ALL NT MSS, whether they be fragmentary or complete codices.
4. As to the specific passage contained in Matt. 27:52-53, absolutely no scholar on earth knows if it is in the original or not. But, as I have pointed out, there are good reasons to doubt that it is.

Ish: There are *some* verses of Matthew in these mostly small Papyrus fragments. The fact that two verses from the book of Matthew do not show up is not necessarily surprising.

It is surprising to ME, and I think it would be surprising to other neutral observers.

Ish: We have stated our beliefs on the matter and I really don't think the subject can be pushed further without reiteration.

I disagree here. There is a great deal of evidence that has not been presented. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity for interested parties to do just that.

Ish: Those around us will form their own opinions.

Yes! And that is the beauty of a free and open forum.

Ish: As to your comments on Bruce Metzger, I do not deny he has his own set of beliefs as we all do. Your comment was that you thought he seemed to be "speaking to a Christian readership in his books." This is what I find to be somewhat unfair.

Since you are a Christian, this is precisely what one would expect you to say. What would a neutral observer say?

Ish: Metzger's quote that you posted seems to me to be a scholarly admission of the presuppositions he brings to his work. So, yes you could say he was biased. Since everyone brings their own set of presuppositions to their work, it is a good idea to lay them on the table.

Metzger's statement of his Christian bias speaks only to his honesty in stating his Christian bias.

Ish: The fact that Metzger laid his beliefs on the table for all to see hasn't stopped some of the best liberal scholars from using his works. He is one of the many sources used for instance by John Dominic Crossan in The Birth of Christianity.

Yes, and I have quoted from him as well. (Sometimes there is only one game in town.) Remember this, though, Crossan is a Christian himself.

Ish: My personal opinion is that Bruce Metzger was about as honest and impartial as anyone can be.

My personal opinion is that Bruce Metzger is an expert textual critic who speaks to Christians as a Christian.

Ron



[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 13, 2001).]

Don't be disengenous. And I'm not even complaining that you do want something. That's cool.

Actually, I'm not really interested in what others think, only what you think, and why. Your willingness to not want to believe something because they offended your sensabilities (here I am talking about the NT authors) and used paper instead of rocks as material is pretty bizarre. I do not encounter this kind of objection very often.

But you are basing your life's decisions on strange things, and the fact that you do not even see this is quite interesting to me.

I think Bede might admit this, but you will have to ask him. Since he does admit it, and remains a Christian, that may prove interesting for you. I do not know Ish well (only first met him on this thread in fact, HI ISH!).

As for me, I agree with the experts. I don't see why inspiration and perfection need to go together. Only you can answer that question, and perhaps you don't have one. Again, I don't really know how you went from "the NT manuscripts are not perfect, and are written on papyrus instead of rocks" to "the Bible is therefore not inspired."

Perhaps you can tell us why you think this.

Nomad

Tell us anything in the Bible that contradicts any of the theological documents I have listed above. (My apologies, I thought that you knew what these things were already).


Sadly, that's what I'm left with when you remain evasive in answering my questions, and take irrational positions based on a limited understanding of textual criticism. No worries though, I believe I am coming to understand you better, it is just taking more time than I would have preferred.

Ya, I know I have. And if you had been more clear and direct in your points, I wouldn't have had to do this. Try to tighten things up in the future please.

But this isn't news, nor does anyone dispute this fact so far as I am aware, and this is why we haven't been able to figure out what you have been on about through most of this thread.

Thank you. I do like to think that I have an imagination. But your trivial objections to MSS inconsistancies is a common characteristic of ex-fundamentalists, so my conclusion based on the only evidence you would give me was quite reasonable. It was wrong, but wrong and reasonable often go together, so no biggie.

No. Nomad does not need to do any such thing. I have read through your arguments, and quite plainly you have failed to grasp Metzger's key points, and drawn erroneous conclusions based on your incomprehension. My efforts to help you look more deeply into his methodology, research, and conclusions have failed, so I will let it go now.

The horror!

I've done that, numerous times, and trying to say you made sense "in context" is really special pleading. I'm telling you that you did not, you do not like being told that, c'est la vie.

Now, you see why I think you are pretty new at this? I won't call you a rookie, but you are clearly still learning what evidence really is, as opposed to expert opinion.

Of course you don't, and to be honest, I'm not going to pursue this any longer in any event. Just as you form your opinions about Hitler based on limited comprehension, and what you can pick up on the internet, you do the same thing with textual criticism. It took me several days to find that out, and that pisses me off, but that is really as much my own fault as anything else, so I will not blame you for it.

Well, it's not really a tantrum, but it does reflect exasperation, and probably an underdeveloped sense of patience. Again, these are things that I need to work on. On the other hand, I realize now that my error was more one of degree than actual conclusions.

Sadly, you actually believe this. And I believe you too. So I will drop it. I know a dead horse when I see it, and this one is quite dead.

I know you don't. Considering how much research you have begun to do on the question, perhaps that is simply a function of your newness to the topic. If that is the case, then that is cool. Learning takes a long time.

Yes, we all begin from a position of not knowing, and therefore should be neutral. As we gain knowledge, we are more able to draw conclusions. This is the pattern of all learning. My question has been, and remains, are we to remain neutral forever in order to remain credible to others? You have skated around this question long enough, and I would have appreciated a direct answer. I understand now that you cannot or will not give me one. Again, I can live with that.

Hmmm... and in 2000 years when all of this evidence for these things will have vanished, you will feel people will be justified in not believing in the Holocaust or Kennedy's assisination by a lone gunman?

Do you see how you draw false conclusions by setting up an impossible standard for your definition of "acceptable evidence"?

Nope, nor do we have such evidence for any of antiquity. Yet you discount the fact that we have way more evidence (Metzger's famously quoted "embarrassment of riches) on the NT events than we do anything else before the invention of modern recording methods like film. You are unimpressed by this, such is your right.

Yes we do, sadly they died 2000 years ago, so you want to discount them.

Are all NT scholars mere speculators then? Or are your conclusions not speculations for some reason? Is it even possible that your amateur status on these questions has given you a false sense of pride in your abilities and knowledge?

Actually, it is entirely possible for a person to be some, or even all of these things at the same time.

Of course you toss them out. You create impossible standards, measure the available evidence by those standards, then throw them out the window on the basis of your false a priori requirements. Too bad you don't realize that you do this, but that kind of failing is quite common really.

Not really. When they agree with me the most common label I apply to such people is "genius", "brilliant", "profound" and the like.

The really cool thing is that this evidence has convinced neutral people. Where do you think converts come from?

The absurd can be anything that contradicts a known set of rules of science, like quantum mechanics conflicting with the theory of relativity for example.

See how it helps to give us your definition of dead (as opposed to the medicical definition of dead)?

Why not? Science keeps seeming to do what was considered to be the impossible in the past. Why shouldn't they continue to perform such amazing feats?

Not really, we have evidence for the resurrection that manages to convince determined sceptics. So far as I am aware, we don't have any such evidence for your other examples, even from the people that claim to believe in them.

I wasn't asking this either. But just to let you know, I don't believe in meaningless things either. Let's stick with the definition of absurd that I offered above, and basically that means the scientifically incoherent or contradictory, or even seemingly impossible things.

I'm going to get to this in a new thread. I hope you will join it.

Nomad

Penatis, you made what I think are some pretty bold assumptions in your response.

The first is:
"It is most unfortunate that virtually ALL textual critics of the NT are Christians."

And what I find interesting is that you later attempt to prove this by appealing to Crossan's claim of being a Christian.

I simply disagree with the first statement, especially in light of the most prominent textual critics of today (Jesus Seminar, J. Crossan, B. Mack, etc.).

Second, I want to point out that there is a great difference in Metzger's professed Christianity as opposed to Crossan's. I can see how Metzger's viewpoints might be construed by you as biased. However, Crossan is a Christian only in name. I think you might find that he is "biased" more in your line of thinking and really doesn't have the type of Christian viewpoints that I, Metzger, Nomad, or Bede share.

Here are some of Crossan's quotes:

"Miracles for me are changes in the social world, no the physical world....I don't believe God entered daily life in the first century and turned physics upside down and then stopped. In fact, I'd find it incredible and obscene to say that now and then God does intervene to do this or that little thing." From Chicago Tribune Magazine, July 17, 1994.

Here's the obvious point of contention:

"While Jesus may have been a carpenter....he did not preach salvation from sin....he probably never delivered the sermon on the mount....he never cured any diseases. As for the other miracles? No loaves and fishes, no water into wine, no raising of Lazarus. AND CERTAINLY NO RESURRECTION." From Time, January 10, 1994 (emphasis added by me).

Here is what the Bible says:

1 Corinthians 15:17
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

Crossan calls himself a Christian because he suscribes to what he has determined to be Christ's actual historical purpose on earth stripped of any divinity. To Crossan Jesus message was simply about "a way of life" or a philosophy. "It must be the embodied life that remains powerfully efficacious in this world." (Crossan from the Prologue of The Birth of Christianity)

I think it is obvious that Crossan comes with a bias of his own and *not* toward Christianity as Bede, Nomad, I, and most Christians know it from the Bible.

"I personally would like to see what neutral scholars would have to say."

There simply are no neutral scholars. Everyone brings his own "bias" to his work. This was recognized by Albert Schweitzer in The Quest for the Historical Jesus. In this book he convincingly demonstrated that people who try to "discover" a historical Jesus wind up creating a Jesus in their own image.

Burton Mack, another prominent scholar also on the Jesus Seminar has this to say about Christianity:
"What if the notion of a single, miraculous, point of origin [for Christianity] was acknowledged for what it was, not a category of critical scholarship at all, but a article of fatih derived from Christian mythology." (From A Myth of Innocence, 1988)

These scholars have their "bias" as does Metzger. The Jesus Seminar which they are apart of is also making a *huge* effort to get their viewpoints out to the public.

"The precise method of voting [colored beads] was deliberately calculated to catch media attention since part of the seminar's purpose is to close the gap between scholarly discussion and popular awareness." (Crossan from the Boston Globe, July 26, 1992)

They neglect the viewpoints of those not in the Jesus Seminar when they "push" their ideas onto to public. These particular scholars are on many T.V. shows and their books are easily found in many well-known bookstores.

No, penatis, I think views along your lines of thought are quite well represented.

In other matters, I honestly cannot understand why the non-appearance of two verses from Matthew in the early Papyri surprises you, or anyone else for that matter. Remember that of the ~90 Papyrus fragments that have even been found, only 64 of those date before 400 A.D. They are **fragmentary** which means that they only pieces of the books they once were. None of the contain Matthew 27:52-53. However, let me make sure you realize that does not mean there is a Papyrus with that complete chapter of Matthew that does not conatin those two verses. The gospels' content should be given at least as much credibility as the other historical works I mentioned in my earlier post.

Perhaps like you said, other people can add information to what we've given. I don't see how we can get any further without reiterating *our ideas* and "biases" on these themes.

Ish

Hi Nomad. I've seen many of your posts. I don't post often because I don't have the time. However, I read a lot.

Your Brother in Christ,
Ish

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: You actually think that the NT writers made some kind of important mistake in not carving their writings on rocks?
I am merely pointing out the FACT that there are ORIGINAL sacred texts that date to about 2500 BCE. There are NO original NT texts. With respect to the implications of these two facts, each reader can make up his/her own mind.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Actually, I'm not really interested in what others think, only what you think, and why.

I think the Pyramid Texts and the NT are the product of human writers, inspired by nothing more than the human mind. This is a conclusion I have come to after having read both of them. I think the same of the Zend Avesta, the Book of Mormon, the Rig Veda, the Dhamma, the Qur'an, the I Ching, the Tanakh, etc. I don't pretend to understand the theological teachings of every book I have read or read from, but I have no doubt that every book was written by human beings for human beings.
Furthermore, not every religion is founded on a belief in a supreme being or the supernatural. Since there is no evidence of a supreme being or the supernatural, I tend to place a higher value on those religious works which speak to human needs and desires, without requiring a "faith" in the absurd. For example, an experienced, non-theistic, Buddhist monk, in a state of deep meditation, may be the happiest person on the earth. On the other hand, an enlightened skeptic may be.

Nomad: Your willingness to not want to believe something because they offended your sensabilities (here I am talking about the NT authors) and used paper instead of rocks as material is pretty bizarre.

I have never indicated, implicitly or explicitly, that the writers of the NT have "offended my sensibilities." I have merely pointed out certain facts:
1. The NT is a collection of writings authored by religious propagandists. Every single writer wrote for a select community of believers and not writer ever considered the possibility that his writing would become part of a collection. To ME, this is neither good nor bad.
2. There are no originals, so we cannot be certain what the authors wrote. It is an unfortunate fact that the writers wrote on fragile papyrus material, and no one preserved the originals. To ME, this is neither good nor bad, just curious.
3. The oldest extant attestation of any NT book is P52, a papyrus fragment dating to about 130 CE. I do not find arguments for earlier attestation (7Q5, for example) to be convincing. To me, this is neither good nor bad.
4. There is no complete codex of the NT that dates earlier than the fourth century and all MSS that date earlier are fragmentary; the fragments range in size from postage stamp to virtually complete books. Every NT MSS contains errors, omissions, additions, variant readings, and obscurities. To ME, this is problematic. This conclusively demonstrates the fact that Christians had no qualms about altering the earliest texts.
5. No official canon of books was officially established until the fourth century. ALL canons are determined by the arbitrary decisions of human beings.
6. Except for a portion of the 108 extant papyrus fragments catalogued, ALL MS attestation of the books of the NT IS FROM AFTER THE FOURTH CENTURY, WITH MANY COMING FROM THE FIFTH TO THE EIGHTH CENTURIES. When someone speaks of the "wealth of material" available to the textual critic, he is alluding to the MSS that date from AFTER Christianity became an official state religion and Christian works were produced in much larger quantities than ever before. These particular MSS only attest to the accuracy/inaccuracy of works produced after the fourth century, not to the originals.

Nomad: I do not encounter this kind of objection very often.

The ancients used papyrus, vellum, stone, clay, and other materials on which to produce their literature, legal texts, religious works, etc. It was an unfortunate quirk of fate that the Egyptians wrote on a material that has preserved their writings, while the Christians wrote on a perishible material. To ME, problems arise when some Christians proclaim their writings to be somehow "superior" to the religious writings of others because there are more extant MSS of the NT than there are of other works. Some even claim that the large number of extant NT MSS proves their divine nature. It proves nothing of the sort. It merely demonstrates their ancient popularity in countries where Christianity was declared the state religion.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or you are faulting the early Christians for not finding some means to preserve a piece of original Scripture written on papyrus?
Why must Nomad think that anyone who disagrees with him is attempting to "fault" someone? I fault no one for anything.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: But you are basing your life's decisions on strange things, and the fact that you do not even see this is quite interesting to me.

Nomad is going to have to explain himself here. How is it "strange" to be neutral with respect to religious works? Personally, I find it strange that people believe in something as absurd as dead people coming back to life.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Bede and Ish, I still don't get what your point is.
If Nomad, Bede, and Ish will admit that the NT is as much the product of human inspiration as the Pyramid Texts, I will fully explain my point.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I think Bede might admit this, but you will have to ask him. Since he does admit it, and remains a Christian, that may prove interesting for you. I do not know Ish well (only first met him on this thread in fact, HI ISH!).

As for me, I agree with the experts. I don't see why inspiration and perfection need to go together. Only you can answer that question, and perhaps you don't have one.

1. What "experts?"
2. I would like to know what criteria Nomad uses to determine what "divine inspiration" is. (Let's hope his criteria are not somehow related to personal experience, feelings, or ancient MSS.)
3. I would like to know how Nomad defines "perfection."

[b]Nomad: Again, I don't really know how you went from "the NT manuscripts are not perfect, and are written on papyrus instead of rocks" to "the Bible is therefore not inspired."

Nomad is NOT quoting me here, even though someone might think so based on the quotation marks.
I have given several reasons why I believe all religious works are the products of humans minds, whether they be written on stone, clay, metal, papyrus, vellum, or any other material.
Further, I am under no obligation to prove any religious work is divinely or not divinely inspired. (Logically, it is the believer who bears the burden of demonstating the existence of divine inspiration in his/her respective sacred texts.)






[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 13, 2001).]

Penatis, I just wanted to say thanks. Your scholarship has been very enlightening and informative. I appreciate it greatly.

I'm definitely biased, but personally, I think Nomad stopped rebutting your work and started attacking you personally somewhere around the middle of page 3. Remember that by definition there is no evidence whatsoever that will convince Nomad to change his mind, and since Nomad already knew the exact truth before he started his historical investigation, he's going to uncritically accept any fact that supports his view of the truth and reinterpret any fact that contradicts it.

Nomad, like any other pseudoscientist, christian or not, loves to sound like he's doing scientific investigation, but really has no clue whatsoever as to how the technique works.

[This message has been edited by SingleDad (edited January 13, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
Nomad: Start with the Nicene Creed, if that doesn't help, try the Apostle's Creed. If you can't find one there, move to the Catholic Catechism. If that doesn't work, then simply admit that the Bible contains no significant theological contradictions and we can move on.

As I stated ealier, Nomad needs to define what a "theological contradiction" is. So far he has not.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Tell us anything in the Bible that contradicts any of the theological documents I have listed above. (My apologies, I thought that you knew what these things were already).

(Nomad has taken up the habit of speaking as if he were more than one person,e.g., "us." Does he presume to speak for ALL Christians, SOME Christians, A FEW Christians, the people in his neighborhood, or whom?)

Here is an example of a popular (this is just one of many) Christian creed:
1. Jesus was born of a virgin.
2. Jesus died on the cross as a blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world.
3. Jesus physically rose from the tomb (after being dead about 35 hours.)
4. Jesus appeared to his disciples after coming back to life.
5. Jesus ascended to the sky.
6. Jesus will return to judge ALL humanity.

Since the book attributed to "Mark" is considered to be the earliest written narrative depicting the life of Jesus, I will compare/contrast it with the creed above. (For anyone who claims that the whole NT should be used, I will say only that whoever wrote "Mark" considered it to be the whole NT at the time of its writing. That is good enough for me.)

1. The writer mentions nothing of a virgin birth. (In my view, the writer knew nothing of this myth.) As a matter of fact, in "Mark," Jesus has a mother, brothers, and sisters. No mention is made of a father.
2. Jesus dies on the cross in "Mark" as a troublemaker. The writer includes the following in his narrative: Jesus and his disciples are eating their last meal together; he broke bread and gave it to them, saying, "Take; this is my body." Next, Jesus took a glass and shared the contents with those at the meal. He said to each of them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Does this mean that Jesus died on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the sins of humanity? In my view, no. Do the words of Jesus indicate the group were involved in a ritual that smacks of ancient magical practices? Yes.
3. "Mark" ends at 16:8. There are no appearances of Jesus after his execution. The last scene in the narrative is of three women, two Marys and Salome, who go to the tomb and find a young man dressed in white. This strange man tells the women that Jesus has "risen" and that they, Peter, and his disciples will see him in Galilee. They run away "astonished" and "afraid." End of story. No resurrection, just a stranger and an empty tomb.
4. Jesus DOES NOT appear to anyone after his execution.
5. Jesus DOES NOT ascend to the sky.
6. There is no indication that Jesus is going to return from death and judge humanity. Earlier in the narrative, Jesus does say that the high priest will "see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven," an apparent allusion to the imminent End Jesus expected. Unfortunately for early believers, Jesus was mistaken. The high priest died and no "Son of man" has appeared to this day.

Christian apologists cannot (or will not) see these contradictions. I believe the neutral observer can.




[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 14, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SingleDad:
Penatis, I just wanted to say thanks. Your scholarship has been very enlightening and informative. I appreciate it greatly.

Thank you, SingleDad. I sincerely appreciate your kind words.

SingleDad: I'm definitely biased, but personally, I think Nomad stopped rebutting your work and started attacking you personally somewhere around the middle of page 3.

I agree with your assessment. It is sad that Nomad resorts to such tactics, but I have come to the conclusion he sometimes cannot help himself. Pompous Bastard has seen a better side of Nomad and it is my hope that what he has seen is closer to the "real" person. For me, I would prefer to debate with Doctor Henry Jekyll, but, unfortunately, at least part of the time, I have had to deal with Mr. Edward Hyde.

SingleDad: Remember that by definition there is no evidence whatsoever that will convince Nomad to change his mind, and since Nomad already knew the exact truth before he started his historical investigation, he's going to uncritically accept any fact that supports his view of the truth and reinterpret any fact that contradicts it.

I totally agree with your eloquent statement. I believe the Secular Web readership can see this as well. I am not here to change Nomad's mind. As you said, that is impossible. What I can do is present evidence that refutes/contradicts his various claims and arguments.


SingleDad: Nomad, like any other pseudoscientist, christian or not, loves to sound like he's doing scientific investigation, but really has no clue whatsoever as to how the technique works.

Again, I have to agree. BTW, I am (obviously) not a scientist, but believe science is a great tool; in my view, it is probably the best one available to humans.