Nomad,

Tempers seem to be running fairly high in here, so I don’t know if it’s a good idea to open my mouth, but what the hell. I guess I indirectly started this mess...

In general, I find you to be an intelligent, respectful person, but you have a habit of rapidly becoming condescending when discussing Christian scripture. I realize that penatis has taken a fairly confrontational tone, but still, I think nearly all his points are valid and there’s no reason for you to resort to arrogance. I’m sorry if I’m offending either of you, but I think this discussion could be much more productive if the tempers calmed down a bit...

Having said that, let’s get on with the nitpicking:

Nomad: On point 2, I already showed in the other thread that it was a lunar eclipse, not a solar eclipse that took place on the day Jesus died.

Penatis: Nomad showed nothing of the kind. He alluded to an article written by Christian apologists, not scientists.

Nomad: LOL! Go to the site again. The article is written by scientists, and the FACT of the lunar eclipse is not in dispute. If you keep arguing from groundless assertions this will be a very short discussion. Here's what you can do: offer a scientific proof that the lunar eclipse could not have taken place on the date in question. For my part I will trust the article writer to not be a liar until he is proven otherwise.

Nomad, the article you posted had nothing to do with the period of darkness mentioned in Mark. The only reference to a lunar eclipse in the referenced article dealt with the assumption that a statement in Acts to the effect that “the moon turned to blood” refers to a lunar eclipse on the day of the crucifixion, and an attempt to date that event by using known lunar eclipses. Further, this does not prove that a lunar eclipse took place on the day Jesus died. The only evidence for that comes from a number of statements in the Bible itself. Science only enters the picture after we accept the assumption that a lunar eclipse occurred on the same day as the crucifixion and we wish to use the one to date the other. I thought we discussed this and agreed that it was irrelevant on the other thread.

The author of that article made no mention of the three hour period of daytime darkness except to note that it could not have been caused by an eclipse and to speculate that it may have been caused by a dust storm. I thought we agreed that an omnipotent deity could produce darkness without relying on eclipses.

penatis: Besides, as Pompous Bastard pointed out, the anonymous writer said darkness occurred during daylight hours, not at night.

Nomad: Of course it occurred in daylight. So did the crucifixion, and that is what we are talking about here.

Let me repeat what I said in the other thread: Lunar eclipses do not occur at noon, nor do they last three hours. A lunar eclipse occurs when the earth is directly between the sun and the moon, thereby blocking the sun’s light from the moon. When the earth is between the sun and moon, it is noon on the side of the planet away from the moon. Therefore, it is impossible to witness a lunar eclipse at noon.

I really wish you’d drop this point. You’re making yourself look foolish.

Nomad: The Jews had NO CONCEPT of a non-physical resurrection, and still don't to this day. It simply would not have occured to Paul or any other Jew (like the disciples and ALL of the first Christians).

…unlike the Jews, the Greeks had NO CONCEPT of a physical resurrection).

For someone who is fond of pointing out the unsupported assertions of others, you came up with a couple of winners here. Care to provide some evidence?

I’d say that the extreme lengths that the gospel writers went to in order to show that the post-resurrection appearances were physical and not ghostly demonstrates that they had grasped the concept of a non-physical resurrection.

Similarly, I seem to remember from Greek mythology that the inhabitants of Hades possessed physical bodies, so I don’t see how you can say that they had no concept of a physical resurrection. Specifically, Orpheus’ wife, whose name escapes me, followed him bodily almost all the way out of Hades before being pulled back in and the individuals with whom Odysseus conversed were physical enough to crave sustenance.

Check the thread called The Theoretical Foundations of Christianity on the Existence of God Board. Earl and I went a number of rounds on this, and quite frankly I am not going to do so again on this thread. If you want to hash it again, start a new thread.

Couldn’t agree more. It’s a good read.

Many of the people who are listed in the Gospels were still alive at this point, as were those that knew them. So the community contained the witnesses themselves. This made certain that significant changes in the story were not going to be made by the Gospel writers themselves (unless of course, you want to fall back on the conspiracy theory now. Were they all liars?).

Listen carefully: Matthew said that there were witnesses to the resurrections. Paul said that there were 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection as well. The fact that specific names are not given does not mean that there are none, only that the names are not given. Since those first reading these Gospels and epistles were witnesses themselves, they would have known who these people were.

So what you are saying here is that he peppers his story with the names of real live people that would still be alive when he wrote the story to spice it up? I really do wonder where you come up with your beliefs penatis.

I pulled these paragraphs together from different posts of yours to illustrate a large problem that I have with your outlook. You seem to take the position that everything a human being says is either true or a lie. You ignore the possibility that someone may be simply mistaken, or may even want to believe in something. I typically bring up the example of modern urban legends and you typically wave your hands at it and claim, without evidence, that people were not as credulous 2,000 odd years ago. Yes, Matthew says there were witnesses. Yes, there were really members of the community that could have falsified any claims the gospel writers made. This doesn’t seem to hamper the spread of rumor and legend now, why should it have then?

For example, there is a fictitious computer virus called WOBBLER that does (or doesn’t do, I guess...) all sorts of horrible things to any PC that becomes infected with it. (Apparently, judging by the wording of the alerts I get, it can actually disintegrate my PC somehow...) The author of the fictitious virus warning cites several reliable witnesses, including Microsoft, Compaq, AOL, and “the controller of my company,” as stating that this virus is very dangerous. There exist a number of sources (“members of the community,” to use your words) that can falsify the WOBBLER story, including CERT, Symantec, McAfee, and even me, the lowly local programmer. Yet, I get at least two or three copies of this nonsense forwarded to me each month, two years or so after the damned thing first appeared. Apparently, all the people forwarding these (to whom I always send a document I typed up last year with suggestions regarding how to recognize a virus hoax) are liars, or else they are in on some conspiracy...

And every singular event in history never happened again ever. So they must never have happened right? See what I mean about circular reasoning? Your argument simply tells us that we must remain agnostic about all of history unless it happens exactly the same way again today.

You either miss the point or you are being deliberately dense. I don’t need to see Caesar enter Rome to believe that he has done so. I simply need to see entities of the same class as Caesar (“people”) enter entities of the same class as Rome (“cities”) to know that such a thing is possible. As soon as I see an entity of the same class as Joshua return from death, I’ll grant a much higher plausibility to the resurrection story.

And as for the concern about Matthew being the only one to write about a specific event, Homer was the only one to write about the Trojan War. Did it happen? If all you have is arguments from silence and prior prejudice just admit as much, and we can save a ton of time here.

Yes, it happened. We have archaeological evidence that indicates as much. Did the Olympian gods meddle in it as Homer says? Does the inclusion of some historical fact in a narrative guarantee that the whole thign is historical?

I feel like I have to define argument from silence to you every time I respond to your posts penatis.

I feel the same way sometimes when responding to you. I have refuted your arguments from silence only to have you accuse me of the same. An AFS is only a fallacy in cases where silence is to be expected. For example, you used the AFS on the other thread, saying, in effect, that we should believe Mark on the dead saints walking around because no one wrote anything contradictory. This is a fallacy because, as was also pointed out on that thread, we would not expect anyone to have written letters home informing mom and dad that all the dead were still dead. It is perfectly valid to use the AFS to say the reverse: Mark’s allegations are more likely than not fabrication, because we would expect any literate inhabitants of Jerusalem to report such an event and none did.

I apologoze for my tone, but I feel that this thread has quickly turned into a mud-slinging contest.

-Pompous Bastard

Nomad: Many of the people who are listed in the Gospels were still alive at this point, as were those that knew them. So the community contained the witnesses themselves. This made certain that significant changes in the story were not going to be made by the Gospel writers themselves (unless of course, you want to fall back on the conspiracy theory now. Were they all liars?

I don’t know if anyone lied or not, nor does Nomad. It is certainly probable that the ancient, superstitious followers of Jesus embellished stories about him.

quote:

Nomad: The fact that these four accounts agree on every single important detail is astonishing to the point of being unprecedented.
penatis: The fact is, the four anonymous writers disagree on numerous occasions.

Nomad: Note that I said significant differences penatis. You still haven't offered any except arguments from silence, and those won't do.

Only one anonymous human being wrote of an earthquake and resurrection of dead bodies at the time of Jesus’ execution. Nomad can dress it up any way he wishes, but he cannot change this obvious fact. Reasonable people who use common sense believe that the writer added, for theological reasons, an earthquake and resurrection to an older story.

quote:

penatis:“Mark” (according to scholarly opinion)created his narrative from anecdotal evidence.

Name your scholars penatis. I'm here to tell you that many of the most respected scholars in the field (i.e. Raymond Brown, Robin-Griffith Jones, Craig Blomberg, Robin Lane Fox, ect.) agree that the evidence was from witnesses to the events. Since that is pretty much the ONLY way we can reconstruct most historical events this is standard fair in historical research. And in the case of ancient history, the Gospels are the ONLY accounts we have written at the time that witnesses were still alive and could verify the factual claims. This really is quite extraordinary, and if you took the time to be a little more objective you would know this.

(Apparently, Nomad is here to tell us a great number of things. It should be left up to the reader to determine the accuracy of what he says.)

Nomad asked for scholars, so here are the words of a few:

Werner Georg Kummel: “We cannot go beyond the statement that probably no extensive written sources underlie Mark; rather, the evangelist combined small collections of separate traditions and single units of tradition into a more or less connected presentation...That the composer of Mark was not merely a ‘collector, a transmitter of tradition, or editor’...but an author who consciously shaped the tradition, can be recognized in some literary peculiarities of his composition. For although Mark writes in simple folk style and does not exclude insignificant features of the tradition..., he does not always simply place the individual traditions next to one another. Rather, he repeatedly makes use of the literary device of inserting pericopes into one another in order to fill up a space of time.” Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 63-64.

Morton Enslin: “The careful and studied arrangement of materials--some of them legendary--the unconcern for chronological sequence, the use of doublets, the indication of a comparatively late date...all this renders any of [“Mark”] to the Galilean fisherman [Peter] unthinkable...it is very clear that the author, whatever his name was, did not achieve this result through compiling, under dictation or otherwise, the reminiscence of any one man, the authority of whose name would of necessity have laid cramping restrictions through making the thought of deviation or alteration presumptuous. Our author was not writing under the shadow of any one; on every page he betokens his full and conscious freedom to gather his material whence he could and to arrange it as seemed to him best...Those who have delved at all deeply into history will, however, not need to be reminded that traditions, in every age, are remarkably hardy and fast-growing plants and often, though starting from a seed tiny as the mustard‘s, achieve a rapid and luxurient foliage in which many strange birds can lodge.” Christian Beginnings, P. 385.

Charles Guignebert: “...today all liberal critics admit that our Mark is a composite work. In the words of J. Weiss, ‘It is not a source, but a basin into which several sources flow, ‘ and Conybeare aptly compares it to the stars which seem to the naked eye seem to be one, but which the telescope separates into two or three. Subjected to the same critical tests as Matthew and Luke, it reveals similar traits. It has it doublets, inexplicable save on the theory of the utilization of two sources giving the substance of the same account in two different forms; it has its interpolations and dislocations which exhibit the unskilful combination of different elements; it has editorial additions which reveal obvious modifications of the main tradition.” Jesus, pp. 36-37.

Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare: “In ancient documents compiled from earlier sources we regularly meet with what critics called textual doublets--that is, parallel narratives of the same incident, which have been copied out one after the other. That the same event, or group of events, should happen twice over is, anyhow improbable; and, if the two narratives are to any extent in verbal agreement, we can be quite sure that we have got before us, not two distinct stories, but two textual variants of one and the same story, naively copied out, one after the other, by one who failed to see that his sources overlapped. Mark’s Gospel contains several such doublets; we are sure, therefore, that he was a compiler, who used up pre-existing documents which he had somehow come across...Mark, the main source of the first and third evangelists, is himself no original writer, but a compiler, who pieces together and edits earlier documents in which his predecessors had written down popular traditions of the miracles and passion of Jesus. Their interest had lain more in the wonders worked by Jesus than in his teaching, of which Mark preserves but little.” The Origins of Christianity, pp. 51; 58-59.

Howard Clark Kee: “The intensive examination of the synoptic gospels eventually led to a question opening the door to a new epoch in gospel studies. It was actually certain startling conclusions with respect to the character of the Gospel of Mark which prompted the new departure. On the basis of a close scrutiny of the connective narrative in Mark’s gospel, attention was called to the generally vague notices of time [Kee offers numerous examples here]. These investigations led to a conclusion that was to find general acceptance among critical scholars: generally speaking, the chronological and topographical narrative framework of Mark’s gospel was the creation of the author. This literary analysis was supported by the further argument that the selection and arrangement of materials bore the marks of the author’s religious insights and purposes...If the author of Mark himself supplied the general chronological and topographical framework, then obviously the traditions which he incorporated into his Gospel, with few exceptions, came to him devoid of any framework. This conclusion shattered a long accepted tradition that Mark had preserved in his gospel a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, dependable in its general chronological sequence and place setting for the events in Jesus’ life.” Understanding the New Testament, P. 82.

E.P. Sanders: “When Mark wrote his gospel, he had before him a lot of individual pericopes, and he put them together in a narrative form...it is important to see that, in reading the first chapters of Mark, we are not reading a first-hand diary of ‘life with Jesus in Galilee,’ but an edited collection of individual events that may originally have had another context.” The Historical Figure of Jesus, pp. 130-131.

E.P. Sanders: “(1) The earliest Christians did not write a narrative of Jesus’ life, but rather made use of, and thus preserved, individual units--short passages about his words and deeds. These units were later moved and arranged by editors and authors. This means that we can never be sure of the immediate context of Jesus’ sayings and actions. (2) Some material has been revised and some created by early Christians. (3) The gospels were written anonymously. (4) The Gospel of John is quite different from the other three gospels, and it is primarily in the latter that we must seek information about Jesus. (5) The gospels lack many characteristics of biography, and we should especially distinguish them from modern biographies.” Ibid. pp. 57-58.

quote:

The other writers used his narrative as a guide, sometimes copying him verbatim. At times the other writers altered what “Mark” wrote, depending on their respective sources/theologies.

Nomad: This is conjecture on the part of your unnamed scholars. Try this: if two writers are using the same witnesses to the same event, what is the likelyhood that they would record them in a similar (or even verbatum) fashion?
quote:

penatis: Scholarly opinion holds that much of what is attributed to Jesus in “John” actually came from the mind of the writer. None if this is “astonishing” or “unprededented.”

Nomad: Of course it is. John was there. That makes it pretty astonishing. And if you do not stop with this anonymous appeal to authority our discussion will be very short lived.

Nomad says “John was there.” Whose authority is he appealing to? The writer never identifies himself. Morton Enslin writes, “Who the author was will probably always remain veiled in mists...we surely will not err in regarding these speeches [of Jesus] as entirely the compositions of the evangelist himself, who uses them to make Jesus speak the way he wants him to speak. In a word, they evidence all the characteristics of the speeches found in ancient writers.” Christian Beginnings, P. 444.
BTW, Nomad can end the “discussion” anytime he wishes. My goal is simply to point out that Nomad is incorrect in many of his assertions. The unwary reader might presume his commentary to be fact-based and accurate when, in reality, it is sometimes not. I leave it to the reader to decide how accurate my commentary is.

penatis,

(I am beginning to understand why no one takes Nomad seriously. Apparently, he does not take himself or his ideas seriously.)

I take Nomad seriously. Maybe I don’t always take his ideas seriously, but I respect his presentation of them, when he doesn’t resort to condescension and fallacy, as he largely has in this thread.

Nomad,

I am not talking about miraculous events here. It doesn't matter if you believe in the one's listed in the Gospels or not so far as I am concerned. All I want to know is do you believe that the tomb was probably empty (a very obviously natural and non-miraculous claim)? If you do not, I would like to know why not.

You asked SingleDad this question, but I’m going to jump in a give you my take.

The problem is that the story of the empty tomb appears in the middle of a narrative that is largely in doubt. Were it not for my doubts concerning the reliability of the source as a whole, I would readily accept an empty tomb, although I would not explain it in supernatural terms until I had exhausted all natural possibilities. As it is, I find the empty tomb story to be a convenient literary embellishment in support of the main theme of resurrection.

Why do I doubt the sources? Because they are propaganda. Simply put, I would never trust the unconfirmed testimony of four individuals who have a stake in the message they present, whether it be monetary or otheriwse (for example, winning converts). Say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are four men who own a failing business (I am not comparing Christianity to a failing business, I am just trying to give an example of witnesses who have a stake in the object of their witnessing). When the business burns to the ground, all four of them stand to receive insurance money and all four of them claim that a mysterious stranger left the scene shortly before the fire was discovered. This stranger cannot be found and, when pressed, they submit that, although they did not personally see the mysterious stranger, there were a lot of people who did, although none are available for comment. Should we take their word for it that these unnamed witnesses are reliable? Do you see what I’m getting at?

-Pompous Bastard

I neither agree nor disagree about the empty tomb. I've seen no reason to treat the gospels as anything except fiction; for any one of them to include an item of versimilitude is not itself evidence of that event.

I have read very detailed and carefully constructed works of historical fiction. All of them make use of detailed factual understanding of the time and place in which they were set. In "Gone With the Wind", Tara is described in great detail. It is entirely plausible: Such platial dwellings are proven to exist in actual fact. However it is inescapably true that Tara itself did not exist, regardless of the plausibility.

Now, a thousand or ten thousand years from now, scholars might find a copy of GWTW, or more likely many derivative works, and be unable to determine the historical fact of Tara. But there will be clues that despite the presence of the derivative works, Tara did not exist in actual fact.

They will be able to deduce that the derivative sources are actually derivative of a written story: They will extensively quote the source (and possibly one another), rather than referring to the same event from subtly or grossly different points of view. There will be no reference to Tara from contemporary unrelated sources, such as tax records, newspapers, etc.

I'm not a biblical scholar, so I'm not going to agressively defend the proposition. But I have seen persuasive analyses that the synoptic gospels explicity quote from one another or from a common source, rendering them non-independent. I have seen obvious embellishments (such as the addition of the earthquake and the eclipse). It has been persuasively argued that no references to the events described in the gospels occur outside the gospels themselves. They are explicity the work of people not documenting history, but forwarding a particular religion.

I have reasonably concluded that the gospels are fictional. They describe fictional events, some plausible, some not. I have no idea (nor do I much care) what possible historical value they might have. That does not make me close-minded, it just means that I have examined the evidenced and come to a conclusion. If I see dramatic new evidence, I will reconsider my conclusions.

If you want to hold a negative opinion of me for my conclusions, you are free to do so.

I want to address this point directly. Am I losing my temper here? No. Am I losing my patience? Definitely.

When I speak with sceptics about the Bible I quickly find myself arguing not so much WITH them as PAST them, and that is very often because they begin with a set of prejudices rooted at least as deeply as any fundamentalist Christian one could ever meet. Quite frankly, I usually find out that these people are one and the same, since the bull headed atheist turns out to be a former fundamentalist himself (as appears to be the case with penatis). This drives me NUTS WITH A CAPITAL "T"!!!

Arguing Creationism or the with a fundamentalist becomes as productive as arguing Biblical interpretation with a dogmatic atheist, and quite frankly, I find the discussions pretty much pointless. I do try to see if the person is serious about discussing the issue, and if they are willing to at least listen, ask reasonable questions, and offer genuine evidence in support of their views, that is cool. If all they want to do is hurl their beliefs at me (or those of supporting scholars), I typically bid them a not-very-fond adieu. These threads take too much time as it is for me to waste it arguing with such people.

In his most recent posts penatis has started to offer some scholarly opinions, but he has yet to actually answer my questions. Again, this is very frustrating for me, and although I am aware that I have a tendancy to let my lack of patience show, I am not going to apologize for that. I really don't care if 500 scholars believe something is true unless and until I see WHY they believe it is true. That is what I want to see, not beliefs. If all I wanted to do was swap dogmas, then I would simply parrot the Church and consider the argument settled. To me, that is not how debate is done, and if penatis will not provide concrete examples of his concerns, nor explanations of why he thinks they are even remotely important, then I will move on. I've done it in the past (tons of times), and will no doubt do it again in the future. And if he wants to call it a victory, then such is life.

The second example of my frustration comes from exchanges like those I am currently having with SingleDad on this thread. I asked a simple question. Does he believe the tomb was empty? Thus far I have not received a straight answer to this queery, and yes, that drives me crazy. Again, I think I will simply drop the discussion with him as well.

I really don't see what other options are available to me.

Now, having gotten that out of the way, let's consider your nits.

Pompous, you have completely missed my point in refuting penatis here. He said that I claimed that there was a solar eclipse in my post. I did no such thing. I said it was a lunar eclipse, and it serves as evidence that the dating of the crucifixion can be set at 33AD. PERIOD. That's it, that is all that I am saying. I make no claims about it being responsible for the darkness, or anything else, but it certainly would have made an impression on the ancients of the time, since such an event would have easily have been seen as a sign from God.

I hope that clears up this bloody point once and for all.


Ask any Jew if they believe in a physical or non-physical resurrection. Go to Judaism 101. Perhaps I assumed that people knew this as common knowledge and I was mistaken. I apologize, but the Jews have never believed that a non-physical resurrection was possible. I didn't pursue this argument further because I need to know if that is what this thread is all about first, or I will be covering 6 or 7 topics in a single thread and I do not like doing that.

As for the Greeks not believing in a physical resurrection, again, I have assumed that this was common knowledge. My books are at home, if you want to talk about it, I will post on it tomorrow. Maybe we need a thread on the topic.

No, they went to these lengths to show that Jesus was not a ghost. Ghosts are NOT the resurrection. That takes place at the time of the Messiah's final coming, the Jewish equivalent of Judgement Day.

Didn't know you had read it. I figured everyone would have packed their bags and gone home once the posts got to be novel length.

Okay, this is a good question that I do not have time to get into right now. I will again tonight. I am still trying to find out the main bone of contention for the thread, and if this is it, then let's have at 'er as they say.

Take a look at SingleDad's post. He remains sceptical of the empty tomb, as does penatis apparently. This is when I am ready to blow my stack. If we can't accept simple naturalist events, then how can we even get to the miraculous ones? So far as I am concerned, the fact that the authors believed in the miracles is not even close to sufficient evidence for them to be believed, but that is a separate issue. Right now, all I see is sceptics who reject virtually every claim made in the Bible and for no other reason apparently than that it is in the Bible. There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of room for discussion in such a situation now is there?

Does the inclusion of miraculous claims in the Bible invalidate all of the claims made in the Bible? Can we really know NOTHING about what the Bible actually said based on penatis' say so and assertions thus far? Is any of this even remotely important yet? I don't see how. I realize the sceptics here cannot see any problems with their own set of assumptions and prejudices here, but that will not make me stop pointing them out.

Actually, you stop posting to that thread, so I figured we were done. Mark made a claim. NO ONE has made a counter claim. The ONLY reason you can say that it didn't happen is because you can't find co-oberating evidence. I told you that we have virtually no first century personal letters because no one would have been interested in preserving them. So what does that mean? Not much. There was lots of arguments put forward by anti-Christians, and none of them argued against the mass resurrection.

So what we are left with is a claim made by Matthew, and nothing from anyone else, yet you want to deny his testimony based on this silence? And then you call that an argument from silence from me?

Please explain.

And then, while you are at it, perhaps tell me why this is important. As I asked penatis, even if Matthew was using embellishment in this case, why should this be an important question?

All I want is for the sceptics to offer more than beliefs and assumptions and arguments from authority and silence. Thus far I haven't seen much. Perhaps I missed it. Did you actually offer any evidence that someone from the first century did not write about the event outside of the Gospel. My response remains so what? Do better. IF you somehow think that makes my argument one from silence, then please show me how.

Nomad

Nomad, I don't know if the so-called "Jesus tomb" from which the New Testament says Jesus resurrected, was empty or not. What is reported on it in the New Testament doesn't stand a today's police investigation to claim it a fact.
The possible witnesses of the so-called Jesus death on the cross, Romans, Jews, cared somewhat about it, -if it happened at all: the testimonies are contradictory-, not enough to be considered reliable documented witnesses by today's standards; the tomb's place at that time, was not important to establish, the events in that tomb were not important to establish, they grew important within Christianity after they happened, -if they happened, the testimonies are shaky by today's standards-.

quote:

Originally posted by penatis:
penatis: Were all the saints buried close to where criminals were executed? Where did they go after they were seen in Jerusalem?
Who knows? Matthew never tells us. Maybe they went bowling.
(I am beginning to understand why no one takes Nomad seriously. Apparently, he does not take himself or his ideas seriously.) I believe the reason “Matthew” never mentions where the saints went is because he was unconcerned with logic.

Nomad: Listen rookie, I am trying to remain patient with you, but if all you are going to tell me is what you believe and not bother to offer any supporting evidence, then our conversation will be very short indeed.
(BTW, don't worry yourself over what others think of me hear, since it is not your concern, but mine.)

Nomad pretends to have superior knowledge and sources, when in fact he has neither. As I have stated earlier, I am not having a “conversation” with Nomad. I am merely pointing out some of his false assertions. I am not a “rookie” by any stretch of the imagination, but if it makes Nomad feel better, then he can think and say whatever he wishes. This is an open forum. (Many times, it is the insecure who grow impatient and resort to name-calling.)


quote:

penatis: The reality is, there were no resurrected saints. He merely embellished “Mark” for theological reasons.

Nomad: To establish a reality, you need to back it up rookie. Go for it.

The reality is, resurrections do not take place. If Nomad knows of such, he should present evidence. The burden of proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the believer.


quote:

penatis: If it was physically possible for corpses to come back to life back then, why don’t they come back to life, at least on occasion, now?
Ummm... huh? Is this an argument of some sort?
It is a serious question asked of someone who pretends to believe in the impossible. Please notice that Nomad gives no answer.

Nomad: You did not ask a question rookie. You made a statement using a rhetorical question as a device.

I asked a question of Nomad and he apparently has no answer. Perhaps if I ask it again, he will come up with something: If it was physically possible for corpses to come back to life back then, why don’t they come back to life, at least on occasion, now?


Nomad: You have given us no reason to wonder why a singular historical event (the death of God on the cross followed by the resurrection of some of His followers) should be repeated today. So save your close minded prejudices
and make serious arguments please.

The fact is, I don’t have to give a reason why the patently absurd did not happen. It actually is the obligation of the person who believes in the patently absurd to demonstrate it did occur. Of course, the apologist can say that black is white, and up is down, and A equals not A, (and that dead people can come back to life.) He can even challenge people to give reasons why they do not believe him. If a person tells him that his assertions defy logic (and common sense), he can say the person is prejudiced. The apologist does not have to make sense because his beliefs are far removed from that which we know as the real world.


quote:

penatis: There are other problematic facts that relate to the above passage. Not only is the writer anonymous, but the passage itself is not attested to in any extant MS until the fourth century.

Nomad: So?

penatis: A rational, thinking person would question the reliability of an anonymous writer, especially one whose work dates from hundreds of years after the events he writes about.

Nomad: Time to prove how you know the author wasn't known. You have said "anonymous writer" enough times to make me want to puke, and thus far have told us nothing about why this is important, or why you believe he is anonymous.

I have said the writer of “Mark” is anonymous because he is anonymous. According to the introduction to “Mark” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, “the Gospel is anonymous”. Perhaps Nomad THINKS he KNOWS precisely who wrote the book attributed to a man named Mark. If Nomad KNOWS who wrote the book, then it must be common knowledge and not a matter of dispute. For, if it is disputed, then no one can possibly KNOW who wrote it.


quote:
penatis: This is all the more amazing when we consider that literally hundreds of non-Christian MSS can be dated to the first and second century.

Check again penatis. There are virtually no surviving original ancient texts from the first century that are not Christian (the Dead Sea Scrolls being a very notable exception).

penatis: Nomad is incorrect (again!). According to Peter Van Minnen, “We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period [100 to 300 CE] and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting.” (See Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts online.) I decided to confirm, for myself, Van Minnen’s statement. My research was fruitful; I found that there are literally thousands of Greek non-Christian texts that date from 300 BCE to 500CE. I personally read (or read from) scores of translated Greek texts from the first century of our era. Many have the day, month, and year of composition.

Nomad: First question, do you know how these documents are actually dated?

I will use as an example Item No. P. Mich.inv.1262, a Greek MSS dated 35-36 CE. In the English translation, the first sentence is as follows: “The twenty-second year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus.”


Second question, do you know how many NT papyrus fragments we actually have, and how close they are in dating to the originals?

Yes, around 97. The earliest is P52. It is the size of a credit card. It dates to about 130 CE. No one knows when the earliest narratives were written, so it is impossible to say how close the papyrus fragments are to said narratives.

Third question, do you understand the science of papyrology?

I would suggest that my understanding of the science of papyrology is on par with that of Nomad’s. If he has a better understanding than I, he has not demonstrated it. (Actually, why is he asking me questions?) If any reader is interested in papyrology, as it relates to the NT, I recommend The Text of The New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger.


quote:

penatis: For example, I read a fairly lengthy contract that can be dated precisely to April 4, 33 CE. If a reader is interested, just go to "http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/" or "http://www.hum.ku.dk/cni/papcoll/."

Nomad: Umm... you know that at the sites you have listed, many of the papyri they have in stock are from the Bible right?

How many of them are dated?


[b]Nomad: From "http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm":
No ancient literature has survived in its original form; everything we have is derived from copies of the originals. The NT is no exception. However, in comparison with any other ancient literature, the NT is without a peer—both in terms of the chronological proximity and the surviving number. Several ancient authorities are preserved in only a handful of manuscripts. Not so with the NT. There are approximately 5,500 Greek witnesses, ranging in date from the second century AD into the middle ages. Besides the Greek evidence, there are nearly 30,000 versional copies (e.g., Latin, Coptic, and Syriac), and over 1,000,000 quotations from the NT in the church Fathers. NT textual criticism has always had an embarrassment of riches unparalleled in any other field.

No other work of antiquity has so much hard copy papyrus evidence standing behind it. None is even close.[b]

Still, there is no fragmentary evidence extant that dates earlier than about 130 CE. Virtually all papyrus fragments date to the third century or later. No complete NT matching the one presented in modern bibles dates earlier than the seventh century.

quote:

Nomad: In fact, most sceptics spend their time telling me that this is because Christians destroyed it all in some kind of grand scroll burning conspiracy. On the other hand, maybe papyrus just doesn't hold up very well unless extraordinary measures are taken to preserve them, and the ancients preferred to copy things rather than keep the originals. That does seem to be the more reasonable and simpler explanation don't you think?

There is evidence that early Christians destroyed numerous MSS, but they did not destroy the thousands that are extant in the University of Michigan Papyrus Collection or the Carlsberg Papyrus Collection.

Nomad: Present your evidence rookie. I am tired of your assertions without support.

I suggest that Nomad go to the websites I listed.


quote:

penatis: (Ironically, without the non-Christian writings, it would be virtually impossible to determine when the Christian writings were produced. For, the non-Christian MSS are sometimes dated, the Christian ones are not.

Nomad: Just out of curiosity, where do you get these curious beliefs? The reason we know the dates on the Christian documents is the same way we know the dates on most ancient documents. The copiest tells us.


Again, I quote Peter Van Minnen: “We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period [100 to 300 CE] and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting. These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. As a rule New Testament manuscripts written on papyrus are not.”

Nomad: And he tells you exactly how these are dated again? I am trying to make my point as clearly as I can here penatis. Tell me what you know about dating methodology in papyrology, then we can look at how the evidence for ancient non-Canonical texts compares to what we know about Canonical dating. I assure you, NT and OT texts are among the best and most accurate available to us today.

As I have stated earlier, many of the ancient non-Christian Greek MSS are dated by the writers themselves. I wonder how Nomad KNOWS the “NT and OT texts are among the best and most accurate available to us today.”? His statement contradicts the commentary of experts in the field. See above.
quote:

penatis: Experts compare the style of writing from dated MSS to those which are not dated and determine, approximately, when the undated MSS were produced.)

Nomad: Not always. Please offer some sources for your beliefs. Very often the copyist made sure to include the date of the text he was copying, and thus we can see how old it was. Carbon dating comes into play sometimes as well.

See Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts by Peter Van Minnen.

[b]Nomad: And? Is this the only expert you know of? How about Carsten Thiede, Colin Roberts, Herbert Hunger, Jose O'Callaghan?). I'm sure that you are aware that accurate dating methodology is revolutionizing what we know about NT papyri dates. Here's a question for you, what century do your sources say that the codex first came into use? This will give you a very good insight into how current your sources really are (hint, it's the First Century).

I mentioned Peter Van Minnen, Bruce M. Metzger, and Bart D. Ehrman. They are all alive and publishing. Perhaps Nomad can tell us how the opinions of the men he mentioned differ from those I offered.

Since Nomad answered his own question about the codex, I will not address it.

Nomad,

When I speak with sceptics about the Bible I quickly find myself arguing not so much WITH them as PAST them, and that is very often because they begin with a set of prejudices rooted at least as deeply as any fundamentalist Christian one could ever meet. Quite frankly, I usually find out that these people are one and the same, since the bull headed atheist turns out to be a former fundamentalist himself (as appears to be the case with penatis). This drives me NUTS WITH A CAPITAL "T"!!!

This may not be the place to ask this, but what do you see as the essential differences between your own position and that of fundamentalist Christianity? As far as I can see, you both begin with the assumption of an inerrant Bible, you just allow that some of the innerrant truth may be contained in metaphor.

The second example of my frustration comes from exchanges like those I am currently having with SingleDad on this thread. I asked a simple question. Does he believe the tomb was empty? Thus far I have not received a straight answer to this queery, and yes, that drives me crazy. Again, I think I will simply drop the discussion with him as well.

I see how his answers could be frustrating, but I have to agree with his refusal to answer the “simple” question. It’s not a simple question at all, it’s a loaded question. For starters, it contains the implied question, “Do you believe there was a tomb at all?” which I am not qualified to answer. I have seen arguments both ways.

As I said in my other post, I have reason to doubt the empty tomb simply because my only four sources for it are suspect for other reasons. No one seems able to report an empty tomb without embellishing the story (in different ways!) to rule out the possibility that natural means were responsible for the tomb’s emptiness. The same people reporting this empty tomb are also reporting magical darkness, walking dead, and earthquakes that no one else seems to notice. I consider much of the story to be literary embellishment, but I am unsure how to judge which elements are then historical. In short, the evangelists cry “wolf!” a few too many times to be taken on their word for even mundane details.

Pompous, you have completely missed my point in refuting penatis here. He said that I claimed that there was a solar eclipse in my post. I did no such thing. I said it was a lunar eclipse, and it serves as evidence that the dating of the crucifixion can be set at 33AD. PERIOD. That's it, that is all that I am saying. I make no claims about it being responsible for the darkness, or anything else, but it certainly would have made an impression on the ancients of the time, since such an event would have easily have been seen as a sign from God.

I hope that clears up this bloody point once and for all.

So do I. It took me forever to find penatis’ original mention of the eclipse. I originally read the exchange starting with your rebuttal. To be fair, you did originally seem to be claiming that a solar eclipse occurred, which I countered way back when, which was why I was surprised to see this topic pop up again.

Ask any Jew if they believe in a physical or non-physical resurrection.

Howard! What sort of resurrection do you believe in?

No, they went to these lengths to show that Jesus was not a ghost. Ghosts are NOT the resurrection. That takes place at the time of the Messiah's final coming, the Jewish equivalent of Judgement Day.

OK, there’s the disagreement, then. I am using a broad definition of resurrection that includes any return to life and you are using the specialized Jewish theological definition, which I was unaware of. I still don’t think it’s fair to say that the very idea of a spiritual resurrection would have been incomprehensible to any Jew. They had the concept “spirit” or “ghost” and the concept “resurrection.” People synthesize ideas all the time. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that they could have synthesized a new resurrection concept. Hey, they were already creating a new religion on the spot. I don’t know what prevailing religious concepts the Romans had at the time, but wasn’t Paul raised at least partially Roman? I am not claming that Paul taught a spiritual resurrection, by the way. I am not a Biblical scholar and I have seen convincing arguments going both ways. I am merely taking exception to your statement that the Jews had no concept of a spiritual resurrection and could not have invented the idea.

Okay, this is a good question that I do not have time to get into right now. I will again tonight. I am still trying to find out the main bone of contention for the thread, and if this is it, then let's have at 'er as they say.

I don’t know if it’s the main contention for this thread, but it has repeatedly been a point of contention between you and I.

Right now, all I see is sceptics who reject virtually every claim made in the Bible and for no other reason apparently than that it is in the Bible. There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of room for discussion in such a situation now is there?

As I said above, I personally would more readily accept the Bible as evidence for mundane occurrences if it did not regularly claim the preposterous.

Does the inclusion of miraculous claims in the Bible invalidate all of the claims made in the Bible?

No, but it makes us more wary of accepting the other claims, particularly those that serve as dressing for the more extraordinary claims. For example, I have no problem accepting that this Joshua person was born during the reign of Herod Antipas, as claimed in the Bible. It’s a mundane detail, it fits with what we know about the region and the times from other sources, and there is no agenda-related reason for the evangelist to have invented it. The empty tomb is also a mundane detail, but we have no means of falsification and there is every reason for the evangelist to have invented it, as it lends credence to the central resurrection theme and, therefore, fits into the evangelist’s agenda.

Can we really know NOTHING about what the Bible actually said based on penatis' say so and assertions thus far? Is any of this even remotely important yet? I don't see how. I realize the sceptics here cannot see any problems with their own set of assumptions and prejudices here, but that will not make me stop pointing them out.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know penatis’ central thesis in this thread is. I really only jumped in to point out that the eclipse thing had already been resolved and to repeat what I have said previously about the spread of rumor and legend.

Really, you stop posting to that thread, so I figured we were done.

I was done. Like I said over there, I was mostly interested in a falsification method. I got my answers from you, with the caveat that the metaphysical methodology is contained in Augustine, and my purpose was complete. I really wish that some other theists would have jumped in, because I wanted several different views. Metacrock started to contribute, but then vanished.

Mark made a claim. NO ONE has made a counter claim. The ONLY reason you can say that it didn't happen is because you can't find co-oberating evidence. I told you that we have virtually no first century personal letters because no one would have been interested in preserving them. So what does that mean? Not much. There was lots of arguments put forward by anti-Christians, and none of them argued against the mass resurrection.

Personal letters were an example I borrowed from another poster whose tone I found humorous. (“Guess what? He’s still dead!”) I can’t believe that there were dead men walking around a city the size of Jerusalem and no one bothered to make some official note of it.

As far as no counter arguments to the mass resurrection, what does this tell us? Nothing. Like I keep saying, this is an example of a fallacious use of the AFS. I can think of several reasons off the top of my head why we would not expect a refutation of Mark’s silly claim:

1) Perhaps it was widely recognized at the time as literary embellishment, along with the earthquake, the darkness, etc. It was recognized, and properly, as mythological code-language for “Hey, everyone sit up and pay attention, something really important just happened!” Things like this crop up in mythology to mark significant events all the time.

2) Mark wasn’t written down until at least several decades after the fact. How do you falsify events from a decade ago if nothing was written down?

3) Perhaps it was considered too ludicrous to refute. How much time do you waste, and how much ink do you spill, refuting the people who claim to have seen Elvis in a gas station?

4) The skeptics had bigger fish to fry. The rest of the NT, for example…

5) Perhaps it was refuted, and the documents have not survived.

I am not arguing for any of these possibilities, but I find each of them more plausible than the alternative, that the laws of nature were broken in conspicuous ways and no one bothered to comment except a lone evangelist.

So what we are left with is a claim made by Matthew, and nothing from anyone else, yet you want to deny his testimony based on this silence? And then you call that an argument from silence from me?

Please explain.

And you want to confirm his testimony based on this silence?

As I said, the real question is, “Would we expect silence in this case?” My answer is a resounding “NO!” If the dead were wandering around Jerusalem, we would expect, at the very least, the Roman authorities would have been notified and that they would have made official note of the occurrence. We would expect endless midrashic exposition on what the occurrence signified. We have nothing.

Conversely, would we expect silence if no mass resurrection had occurred? Yes! Since we have silence, the evidence is in favor of this interpretation.

And then, while you are at it, perhaps tell me why this is important. As I asked penatis, even if Matthew was using embellishment in this case, why should this be an important question?

I thought I covered this in the other thread. Once we accept that story A, as recounted in the Bible, is embellishment, what grounds do we have on which to assert that story B, just as fantastic, is not?

All I want is for the sceptics to offer more than beliefs and assumptions and arguments from authority and silence. Thus far I haven't seen much. Perhaps I missed it. Did you actually offer any evidence that someone from the first century did not write about the event outside of the Gospel.

No, but I don’t have to...burden of proof and all that. Mark makes the extraordinary claim, it is up to Mark, or his supporters, to provide the evidence. Since there is no evidence, the claim is dead until such evidence surfaces, at which time it can be resurrected ( ) and reconsidered. This is how falsification works, as we discussed in the other thread. We don’t simply accept all knowledge claims as true, we attempt to falsify them. In this case, supposed violation of the laws of nature is sufficient falsification, and puts the ball in Mark’s court to provide evidence that the laws were indeed violated.

-Pompous Bastard

The use of the word "rookie" by Nomad when addressing penatis, is not intelligent given penatis' knowledge of topics.

Well, I just want to commend penatis on his tireless commitment to pointing out Nomad's factual errors (regardless of their interpretive differences.) The more indignant Nomad becomes, the less seriously he is taken. I love the fact that Nomad refers to penatis as a "Rookie." Having no real vested interest in this discussion myself, I can say that to an outside observer, Nomad is the one who looks especially "green" while penatis, regardless of personal views, certainly seems to be a bit more "seasoned."

Thanks for your efforts, penatis -- they are not unnoticed or unappreciated.

Andrew