quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Meta: The Gospels were produced by communities, people living togther or near each other and working together and sharing their faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rodahi: True enough. That does not mean that the stories they shared were necessarily historical nor were they necessarily meant to be taken as such. They could have been totally theological.

Meta: They were written for their sermonic value for the community. That in no way means that they neither had historical validity, nor were not told with that in mind. Just because the purpose of writing wasn't to make an historical chronical does not mean that the authors were not mindful of the facts. In fact we know they prized eye witness accounts and they were mindful of the history. We know this form the things they say, Papias and Clement, and the others.

How do you KNOW the writers were concerned more with FACTS than THEOLOGY? How do you KNOW they "prized eyewitness" testimony? The so-called church fathers were Christian apologists/propagandists, not historians. Also, you keep mentioning Papias. Would you please quote him from an extant MS of his work. If you cannnot, then you are repeating hearsay testimony.

rodahi

rodahi: Why should anyone take his word for anything? He admitted being a liar, when the need arose: "But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" (Rom. 3:7) His listeners thought he lied: "But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by guile." (2 Cor. 12:16) Paul even admitted he stole from others: "I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you." (2 Cor. 11:8)

Meta: hahahaahahahahaahahhaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahhahahahaahahahahah!!!!

I am beginning to think this is the best you can do, Meta.

Meta: The old atheist inability to read a text! So funny how you guys just stead fastly refuse to read anything with any kind of literary acumen.

I read as well as you do and so can any other person of average intelligence. I read what the text SAYS. Obviously, you do not. BTW, I am one person. Where did you get the idea that I am "you guys?"

Meta: obviously he's responding to charges agaisnt him!

Sure he is! How do you KNOW the charges are not legitimate?

Meta: Is he really going to brag to his flock that he's good at lying?

According to the text he did. Now, if you wish to argue he meant something other than what he said, then you have a problem. ALL WE HAVE IS WHAT HE WROTE!

Meta: that makes no sense at all.

Whoever said Paul made sense in what he said?

Meta: But clearly he's speaking sarcastically. The things he says assume the charges for the purposes of mocking them!

Whether he is "mocking them" or not, SOMEONE considered him a liar and he admits it!

Meta: This is the natural common sense reading anyone would give it long before deciding that he's bragging to people if your theory was right, he should be trying to fool rather than impress with his abilities as a con man!!

Give evidence demonstrating he WAS NOT a con man!

rodahi

"Also, you keep mentioning Papias. Would you please quote him from an extant MS of his work. If you cannnot, then you are repeating hearsay testimony."

Buddy, I have news for your. ALL of history is hearsay. "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Fed.R.Evid. 801.

The concern is not that something is lost when a statement is made to another, but the inability to cross-examnine the witness. "The [hearsay] rule that no assertion offered as testimoy can be received unless it is or has been open to test by cross-examination." Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.

History is a completely different realm of inquiry. Historians must rely on so-called "hearsay" because all participants are dead and few bothered to leave behind deposition testimony.

Given the scholarly consensus that the Papias traditions are genuine, what reasons do you offer to doubt that Eusebius referenced him correctly? Especially because so many of the other accounts that Eusebius referred to are extant and were accurately used? Do you speculate that Eusebius somehow knew which manuscripts would survive and which wouldn't? And then used this knowledge to ONLY invent accounts for those manuscripts that he somehow knew would not survive?

Ditto for Iraneous' references to Papias' works.

"Give evidence demonstrating he WAS NOT a con man!"

Well, he gave up his position and influence to join a new sect of Judaism that he had previously been persecuting. He himself was personally persecuted because of his conversion. And he was ultimately martyred for his faith.

rodahi: Also, you keep mentioning Papias. Would you please quote him from an extant MS of his work. If you cannnot, then you are repeating hearsay testimony.


Layman: Buddy, I have news for your.

I'm NOT your "Buddy." I have heard your "news" before, so it isn't news anymore.


Layman: ALL of history is hearsay.

Great! Thanks for admitting it. Now we can dispense with the "gospels are reliable" bullshit.

Layman: History is a completely different realm of inquiry. Historians must rely on so-called "hearsay" because all participants are dead and few bothered to leave behind deposition testimony.

That is precisely my point! NOBODY KNOWS what happened in the ancient past!

Layman: Given the scholarly consensus that the Papias traditions are genuine, what reasons do you offer to doubt that Eusebius referenced him correctly?

You have no idea what "scholarly consensus" means. If you do, then prove your claim.

Layman: Especially because so many of the other accounts that Eusebius referred to are extant and were accurately used?

So, now you KNOW that everything Eusebias wrote is accurate? Prove it.

Layman: Do you speculate that Eusebius somehow knew which manuscripts would survive and which wouldn't?

YOU are the "speculator," not I.

Layman: And then used this knowledge to ONLY invent accounts for those manuscripts that he somehow knew would not survive?

Are you "speculating" again?

Layman: Ditto for Iraneous' references to Papias' works.

Irenaeus was a Christian propagandist just like Eusebius.

rodahi

You don't KNOW what Saul of Tarsus did beyond what is claimed in ancient MSS. You are very gullible if you believe everything you read, especially the writings of ancient, ignorant, superstitious religious zealots.

rodahi

Rodahi,

So your argument is that the gospels are unreliable because all of history is unreliable?

And, as you very well know, I never said that everything Eusebius wrote was accurate. What I said was that he accurately used earlier sources that are independently preserved and extant. The point, as you very well know, is that there is no reason to believe that Eusebius invented the Papias reference, and very good reasons to believe that he did not.

I say you once again forsake any discussion of history and resort to anti-religious bigotry.

And, as you well know, I never said I believe everything I read.

Is this the best you skeptics have to offer? Given your focus on reason and knowledge you spend much more time ignoring the historical evidence than you do evaluating the historical evidence.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
Rodahi,

So your argument is that the gospels are unreliable because all of history is unreliable?

I think the narratives were never meant to be taken as history. They are propaganda pieces. I don't KNOW how much of ancient history is reliable, nor does anyone else.

Layman: And, as you very well know, I never said that everything Eusebius wrote was accurate.

I know it now.

Layman: What I said was that he accurately used earlier sources that are independently preserved and extant.

Give a few examples. Then we can argue this point.

Layman: The point, as you very well know, is that there is no reason to believe that Eusebius invented the Papias reference, and very good reasons to believe that he did not.

I don't know whether the "Papias reference" is reliable and neither do you.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
I say you once again forsake any discussion of history and resort to anti-religious bigotry.

Prove anything I said is inaccurate or anti-religious bigotry. You just don't like hearing the truth.

Layman: And, as you well know, I never said I believe everything I read.

You certainly seem to believe a great deal.

Layman: Is this the best you skeptics have to offer?

You can't handle the truth, can you? (By the way, I am not "you skeptics." I speak for myself and no one else. You will not hear me use the pronoun "we.")

Layman: Given your focus on reason and knowledge you spend much more time ignoring the historical evidence than you do evaluating the historical evidence.

Here is a challenge: Give "historical evidence" to support your belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 27, 2001).]