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.

Good. That helps a lot. Although now I have even less of an idea what penatis' entire point was on this thread. You have made a great fuss over the most insignificant differences between varying MMS NT texts, and never once explained why this is somehow an important point that Christians need to address. Thank you for at least dropping it now.

Many of your posts appeared to indicate that Christians should somehow be distressed by minor errors, ommissions and redactions to the Canonical texts (or even the formation of the Canon itself), and for the life of me I have never figured out why you were making a big deal out of this. I even speculated taht you were a disillussioned ex-fundamentalist, but you have told me that you are not. So, like I said before, you appear to have created a lot of smoke and heat, but not much light.

Cool. See how much progress we can make if we have enough time and patience? I just hope you don't make us run around the same circle this many times in the future over such trivial stuff.

Ummm... you think that spelling errors and translational variations equate to whimsy? Now you see why I came to think you were an ex-fundamentalist.

The context is pretty straightforward. You gave us Metzger's opinion several times. Each time I asked you to see if you knew or understood the actual evidence that stood behind his opinions. You have yet to do this, and I have tried several times. If you do not know, you do not know, but that would be a bit embarrassing from your point of view. After all, if you do not understand the evidence, how can you hope to understand the opinions that a scholar forms around that evidence?

Once again you have failed to produce any of the evidence that Metzger uses. I do not know the reasoning behind your evasiveness. I am, however, attempting to retain my patience, so I will ask again.

Do you know what evidence Metzger uses to support his opinions? Do you understand why these opinions should be important to Christians? Do you understand the counter arguments to Metzger's reasoning so that you can draw a rational conclusion as to the worth of those opinions?

This does not answer my question. Again:

Should we discount the opinion of an individual because the evidence leads them to become a believer?

Or if the evidence leads them to become a non-believer?

Yes, but must the observer remain permanently neutral in order to remain credible in your view? Or are they permitted to actually draw conclusions based on the evidence that leads them to become believers?

You brought it up. I wanted to know why you thought it was important. Now I see that you do not think that it was important. I just wish you had said that at the beginning and saved us a lot of time.

Okay, based on this narrow definition of anonymity, I can live with that. I thought you were trying to base an argument of some sort on this fact. Since you are not, we can drop this one as well.

Your answer is somewhat ambiguous here, but I will take your word for it. Besides, accepting the definition of anonymous as simply meaning unsigned, and nothing more, that is pretty simple. I appreciate that you are not trying to make a major case out of this minor detail.

So since the Holocaust is disputed, we can say that we do not know that it happened? Or that Oswald shot Kennedy, we cannot know if he did it?

When you resort to such reductionist tactics, almost any form of knowledge is going to be tossed out of the window. I refer to such an attitude as hyper-scepticism, and while it is a position one can take, it does seem rather extreme.

Penatis needs to define the term "knows". If he is saying "knows with 100% ironclad certainty", then I concede the point. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can prove anything on such a limited definition (except maybe Socrates' famous admission that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing.)

Nope, this is not what I mean. So try again please.

On the other hand (and I am assuming you do not mean NDE's here), if technology allows us to actually do this someday, you will believe it is possible?

I won't quibble with your right to disbelieve in the resurrection(s). That was not my question in any event. I only want to know if you believe in the absurd, even when you personally cannot understand what the person telling you about it is saying.

Actually, since Metzger's book, we now know that it actually was in use in the First Century AD.

Thanks.

The reason this is important is that until fairly recently, it was commonly accepted that Christians invented the codex in the second to third centuries AD, and that prior to that any MSS from the NT that was on a codex had to come from no later than this period in time. With the new evidence that the codex came into existence much earlier than this, many of the previous dates assigned to NT MSS texts will have to be re-evaluated and dates pushed back to reflect this new understanding.

Just some food for thought when we get to a much deeper discussion on dating the Gospels.

Thank you for your answers penatis.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 11, 2001).][/B][/QUOTE]

Ish: Penatis, you say there are no extant MSS dating before 350 A.D. What is your source for this?

I have never said this. I believe you have taken something I have said out of context.

Ish: Personally, I don't really care whether Matt. 27:52-53 are original or not. I just don't see that it makes a great difference.

You are entitled to your opinion. In my view, it does make a difference.

Ish: That aside, would you provide your source that lists the evidence earlier than 350 A.D. that *does not* contain Matt. 27:52-53 please?

Go to www.Google.com and search "Complete List of Greek NT Papyri." Once you get the list, look for Matt. 27:52-53. It is not there. The earliest extant attestation, to my knowledge, is in a complete codex, Codex Sinaiticus. This codex dates to ca. 350 CE.

I thought that MSS before this date were quite fragmentary.

To a large extent, they are.

Are there MSS of this particular section of Matt. that do not contain these verses?

Take a look at the website I suggested. Make up your own mind.

Ish: I believe Bruce Metzger to be an excellent authority and I have not been able to find any mention of this textual problem in his works. It's not mentioned in The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. It's not mentioned in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. And finally, it's not mentioned in the UBS 4th Ed. Greek New Testament.

To my knowledge, neither Metzger, nor anyone else, mentions the fact that Matt. 27:52-53 is not attested anywhere before 350 CE.

Metzger doesn't tend to go soft on the NT either. I realize I'm kinda stuck on good 'ol Bruce, so if you know of some other reputable sources, please let me know.

Bruce Metzger is an expert;however, he does seem to believe he is speaking to a Christian readership in his books. He sometimes relegates "difficulties" to the small footnotes or appendices.

Ish:By the way, Penatis, you speak with a lot of authority and knowledge.

Thanks. I sincerely mean that.

Ish: What is your educational background and why did you spend so much time learning this stuff just to refute the Bible?

I am an average person who has an average education. I have a slightly higher than average IQ. With respect to why I have spent time learning about the JC Bible and the Christian religion, I can only say that I find them fascinating. (BTW, I have spent time studying the Zend Avesta and the Book of Mormon, as well as other religious texts.) You are mistaken if you believe that I (or anyone else for that matter) intentionally have studied the JC Bible or Christian beliefs to refute others. On the other hand, for instance, I certainly do not believe you have studied the JC Bible to refute those who disagree with you. (I tend not to jump to conclusions about why someone does something.)

Ish: P.S. - Using the Pyramid Texts as an example of ancient literature that has survived is not a very good one.

It is an excellent example of original sacred texts that have survived for thousands of years; however, you certainly have a right to your opinion as to their worth.

Ish: I suppose that if the NT had been carved out of solid stone inside of a pyramid that went undisturbed for millenia, then we would also still have the originals...

I agree!

Ish: Why weren't they written in stone if they were *so* important? I'm going to get slapped, but to me, no absolute proof of the existence of God = Freedom of choice.

The simple fact is this: They were important to those who wrote and used them. They were unimportant to everyone else. Historical evidence indicates that the books of the NT, like all religious (and non-religious) works, have been written, inspired, collected, and preserved by human beings. It is a matter of "faith" to think otherwise.

Ron

Sorry. I meant "...no extant MSS containing Matt. 27:52-53 dating before 350 A.D." I believe your source for this is below.

Thanks. Actually, I've seen this website before, but didn't think about looking there. I originally got there via www.entmp.org. The list's layout resembles the sigla to my Greek NT although I'm not sure if mine gives the actual verses contained on the MSSs, only their approximate dates. This website gives both the verses on the MSS and their *approximate* dates (III - 3rd century, IV - 4th cent, etc), cool.

I looked at the list. You are correct. Ther are *no* Papyri on that list that contain Matt. 27:52-53.

Now, my opinion is that even though these verses do not appear in any of these early fragmentary Papyri, that does not give conclusive evidence that they did not exist (perhaps not even plausible evidence). Otherwise, there would be many more verses than that in question.

I would take this to mean that these reputable scholars came to the same conclusion that I did. These verses must have been original despite their lack of attestation in a quite fragmentary list of Papyri.

This seems unfair characterization of his scholarship. Metzger was(?) considered very highly by many (Christian and not). He seems to me to boldly take on difficulties within the main body of text. He may relegate other difficulties to footnotes/appendices, however this is relatively common practice in books of this scholarly magnitude.

I apologize for jumping to this conclusion. Sometimes we type things we probably shouldn't.

I appreciate your knowledge and challenge to look at the evidence for ourselves.

I couldn't tell you what Zend Avesta is, but I've also spent some time studying the BOM. My interesting find when studying Mormanism was the Book of Abraham which Joseph Smith "translated" from a real, ancient Egyptian papyus. Heard of it?

I guess I'm unsure as to how you are using this to the advantage of your argument? The Pyramid texts are not a good example because they don't really parallel the NT. A closer parallel would be other holy texts from the same time period. The NT has more MSS than any other text written in perishable materials that I know of. Bruce Metzger makes this point with an example of Homer's works among others. Regardless, the Pyramid texts may have survived, but without the endless commentaries that the NT has come down with. We can much more easily understand the NT because of them than we can the Pyramid texts.

I love learning. Thanks for the challenge.

Respectfully,
Ish

Bede

penatis,

No i'm not going to dig all those references up again. They all referred to the resurrection of the saints at the time of the passion which is the contenious point in that bit of Matthew.

Anyway, I doubt very much that the pyramid texts autograph is carved into rock. 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. That you compare it to things written of fragile papyrus suggests point scoring more than sensible debate...

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reaosn

Bede: No i'm not going to dig all those references up again. They all referred to the resurrection of the saints at the time of the passion which is the contenious point in that bit of Matthew.

No, Bede, "all those references" DID NOT refer to "the resurrection of the saints" mentioned in Matt. 27:52-53. I pointed this out and documented it. I am surprised that you don't acknowledge this fact. If you can refute my documentation, do so, otherwise, you are blowing smoke.

Bede: Anyway, I doubt very much that the pyramid texts autograph is carved into rock.

According to R. O. Faulkner, "The Pyramid Texts of Ancient Egypt were carved on the walls of the pyramids of King Wenis of the end of the Fifth Dynasty and of the rulers of the Sixth Dynasty, and constitute the oldest corpus of Egyptian religious and funerary literature now extant." See The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Preface.

Bede: 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.

As you said, you are "just guessing."


Bede: That you compare it to things written of fragile papyrus suggests point scoring more than sensible debate...

1. Sensible debate means putting forth all the pertinent, available data possible, and using that data to support an argument. I have attempted to do just that. Have you?

2. I don't need to "score" points around here or anywhere else.

Ron

I am still trying to understand what you want here penatis. You actually think that the NT writers made some kind of important mistake in not carving their writings on rocks? Or you are faulting the early Christians for not finding some means to preserve a piece of original Scripture written on papyrus?

Like Bede and Ish, I still don't get what your point is.

Nomad

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:

Are there MSS of this particular section of Matt. that do not contain these verses?
Take a look at the website I suggested. Make up your own mind.



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

I looked at the list. You are correct. Ther are *no* Papyri on that list that contain Matt. 27:52-53.

Now, my opinion is that even though these verses do not appear in any of these early fragmentary Papyri, that does not give conclusive evidence that they did not exist (perhaps not even plausible evidence).

I agree with your opinion;however, the fact remains that there is no attestation of Matt. 27:52-53 before the middle of the fourth century. This fact may not be a problem for you, but it is for ME. Think about it: Three to four centuries separate the claimed event from the earliest surviving MS. Remember, also, that "Matthew" most certainly used "Mark" as his source for the account of what happened at Jesus' execution. Over the course of three hundred years, how difficult would it have been for a scribe to add, at some point, a sentence (Matt. 27:52-53) to what was a verbatim copy of what "Mark" had originally written? The numerous variant readings in the extant MSS also suggests that an addition COULD have been made. And, then, we have the fact that "Matthew" is the only person in the history of humankind who wrote of the resurrection of the saints and their subsequent appearance in Jerusalem. This is odd, indeed. It just makes sense to ME that someone added 27:52-53 to "Matthew" sometime during that three to four century period I alluded to earlier.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:

Ish: I believe Bruce Metzger to be an excellent authority and I have not been able to find any mention of this textual problem in his works. It's not mentioned in The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. It's not mentioned in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. And finally, it's not mentioned in the UBS 4th Ed. Greek New Testament.

penatis: To my knowledge, neither Metzger, nor anyone else, mentions the fact that Matt. 27:52-53 is not attested anywhere before 350 CE.



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

Ish: I would take this to mean that these reputable scholars came to the same conclusion that I did. These verses must have been original despite their lack of attestation in a quite fragmentary list of Papyri.

What you suggest is possible;however, we don't have the originals to check and three to four hundred years separate the claimed event from the earliest attestation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:

Metzger doesn't tend to go soft on the NT either. I realize I'm kinda stuck on good 'ol Bruce, so if you know of some other reputable sources, please let me know.

penatis: Bruce Metzger is an expert;however, he does seem to believe he is speaking to a Christian readership in his books. He sometimes relegates "difficulties" to the small footnotes or appendices.



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

Ish: This seems unfair characterization of his scholarship. Metzger was(?) considered very highly by many (Christian and not). He seems to me to boldly take on difficulties within the main body of text. He may relegate other difficulties to footnotes/appendices, however this is relatively common practice in books of this scholarly magnitude.

Lest anyone have any doubt about Bruce Metzger's Christian bias, please read the following:
"Though the concern throughout the book is with questions involving who, where, when, and what, the underlying presupposition of the author [Metzger] is that what is called the New Testament is not just a collection of interesting documents from antiquity, but something much more profound--that it is in very truth the New Covenant. The title 'New Covenant' implies that the books contained in the collection witness to the belief that there now exists a new period of dispensation in the dealings of God with men. This new state has been brought about by God's decisive work in the life, death, resurrection, and lordship of Jesus Christ. Understanding the New Testament, therefore, involves far more than studying the several books as pieces of ancient literature; it involves also an appreciation of the testimony of those who experienced and recorded what God had accomplished in man's behalf in and through his only Son, Jesus Christ." The New Testament, its Background, Growth, and Content, Preface.

Bruce Metzger writes as a Christian for a Christian readership. He is not an impartial textual critic.


Ish: I couldn't tell you what Zend Avesta is, but I've also spent some time studying the BOM. My interesting find when studying Mormanism was the Book of Abraham which Joseph Smith "translated" from a real, ancient Egyptian papyus. Heard of it?

I have several books that expose Joseph Smith for what he actually was. I am familiar with the "Book of Abraham" and how Smith "translated" it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:

Ish: P.S. - Using the Pyramid Texts as an example of ancient literature that has survived is not a very good one.

penatis: It is an excellent example of original sacred texts that have survived for thousands of years; however, you certainly have a right to your opinion as to their worth.



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

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

I believe your bias is showing.

Ish: A closer parallel would be other holy texts from the same time period. The NT has more MSS than any other text written in perishable materials that I know of.

The Pyramid Texts ARE originals that are over four thousand years old. The Christians could have written on non-perishible materials, so you have no argument here.

Bruce Metzger makes this point with an example of Homer's works among others.

I believe we are comparing the Pyramid Texts to the NT, not comparing Homer to the NT.

Regardless, the Pyramid texts may have survived, but without the endless commentaries that the NT has come down with.

Have you ever considered the possibility that, for the people who utilized them, the Pyramid Texts didn't need commentaries ?

We can much more easily understand the NT because of them than we can the Pyramid texts.

Are you suggesting that the thousands of commentaries, both old and new, somehow agree as to the interpretation and value of any passage in any book of the NT? I believe you will find as many opinions as you will commentaries.

Ron

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
According to R. O. Faulkner, "The Pyramid Texts of Ancient Egypt were carved on the walls of the pyramids of King Wenis of the end of the Fifth Dynasty and of the rulers of the Sixth Dynasty, and constitute the oldest corpus of Egyptian religious and funerary literature now extant." See The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Preface.


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

Nomad: I am still trying to understand what you want here penatis.

I don't want anything at all.

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.

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.

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.


[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 12, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
penatis: Nomad needs to define what a "theological contradiction" is.


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

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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 2) Please explain to us why you think Christians should require the Bible to be treated the way the Qur'an is by Muslims.
I don't require any such thing. Christians can use the JC Bible any way they wish; however, their use of it in no way makes it better or worse than any other religious work.


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

Good. That helps a lot.

Nomad could have stopped here. But no...

Nomad: Although now I have even less of an idea what penatis' entire point was on this thread. You have made a great fuss over the most insignificant differences between varying MMS NT texts, and never once explained why this is somehow an important point that Christians need to address. Thank you for at least dropping it now.

I have never attempted to persuade Christians to think any particular way or do any particular thing. Nor have I attempted to get Christians to address any specific point. (I believe the vast majority of Christians have made up their minds and nothing will change them.) I have offered my perspective on the JC Bible, other religious works, etc.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: After all, they DO believe that the Qur'an is perfect in every respect (at least in its original Arabic) and even put a sentence of death on Muslim that says otherwise.
Maybe Nomad has a point here, but only he knows precisely what it is.


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

Nomad: Many of your posts appeared to indicate that Christians should somehow be distressed by minor errors, ommissions and redactions to the Canonical texts (or even the formation of the Canon itself), and for the life of me I have never figured out why you were making a big deal out of this.

No big deal. Never was; never will be.

Nomad: I even speculated taht you were a disillussioned ex-fundamentalist, but you have told me that you are not. So, like I said before, you appear to have created a lot of smoke and heat, but not much light.

Nomad does a great deal of speculating.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Christians (except for the most radical of fundamentalists) have NEVER made this error. Why should we put our faith in a mere book written by men?
I agree! People should not put their faith in a book.


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

Nomad: Cool. See how much progress we can make if we have enough time and patience?

Nomad could have stopped here. But no...

Nomad: I just hope you don't make us run around the same circle this many times in the future over such trivial stuff.

To my knowledge, Nomad is the only one running around in circles.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 3) Finish the following sentence please:
The fact that we do not have a complete set of the Canons (as opposed to complete books of both the OT and NT) that is reliably dated to before the 4th Century is important because...
it points to the fact that ALL canons are subject to the whims of arbitrary individuals or groups, not divine inspiration. The whims change over time, i.e., the early canons are not identical to the later ones.


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

Nomad: Ummm... you think that spelling errors and translational variations equate to whimsy?

I have indicated very clearly, and on numerous occasions, why I consider the NT to be the product of humans. Anyone seriously interested can look back through this thread.

Nomad: Now you see why I came to think you were an ex-fundamentalist.

No. I only see a person who jumps to conclusions based on nothing more than his own fertile imagination.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 4) Nomad: See what I (and Metzger) mean? It really is an embarrassment of riches, but most non-scholars (at least the sceptical ones) don't seem to appreciate this fact for some reason.
penatis: It is not "an embarrassment of riches." It is a vast amount of MSS that were preserved centuries after the autographs were written.

Nomad: If you want to disagree with Metzger, why did you quote so extensively from him?

Nomad needs to reproduce my complete argument, in context, otherwise I am going to ignore this question. I will say this, though, I disagree with Metzger on some points and agree with him on other points.


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

The context is pretty straightforward. You gave us Metzger's opinion several times.

Yes, I did. And he is a Christian!


Each time I asked you to see if you knew or understood the actual evidence that stood behind his opinions.

All Nomad needs to do is present my WHOLE argument, in context.

You have yet to do this, and I have tried several times. If you do not know, you do not know, but that would be a bit embarrassing from your point of view.

Actually, what is embarrassing is the fact that I am typing this to someone I have no respect for.

Nomad: After all, if you do not understand the evidence, how can you hope to understand the opinions that a scholar forms around that evidence?

1. I have presented clear, concise arguments supported by evidence and expert opinion. 2. With respect to what I understand or what I don't understand, I don't have to prove anything to Nomad.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 5) penatis: Metzger uses the words "empirical evidence." Empirical evidence is not opinion. Take a look at his book.
Nomad: Since you have read it, tell us what empirical evidence you find most convincing.

Again, Nomad needs to reproduce my WHOLE argument, in context. My point was this: empirical evidence is not the same as opinion. BTW, this is not a question; it is an imperative statement.


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

Once again you have failed to produce any of the evidence that Metzger uses. I do not know the reasoning behind your evasiveness. I am, however, attempting to retain my patience, so I will ask again.

Let's see now. When Nomad loses his patience, he generally throws a little temper tantrum and calls people names.

Do you know what evidence Metzger uses to support his opinions? Do you understand why these opinions should be important to Christians? Do you understand the counter arguments to Metzger's reasoning so that you can draw a rational conclusion as to the worth of those opinions?

I have gone through all this before. Anyone who is interested can look back through this thread.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 6) penatis: I don't believe Nomad understands that to a neutral observer, all religious works and their respective associated dogmas have equal value.
Nomad: If a neutral observer looks at the evidence and becomes a believer, then we are to discount his conclusions? Is the reverse also true? Or must one remain neutral forever to be considered "reliable"?

1. Any person has a right to examine any evidence available and come to any conclusions he/she wishes.


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

This does not answer my question. Again:

Should we discount the opinion of an individual because the evidence leads them to become a believer?

I try not to "discount" anything without seriously considering it; however, I don't find words in ancient MSS or people's stories particularly convincing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Nomad needs to explain what the "reverse" of his first statement is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or if the evidence leads them to become a non-believer?

I try not to "discount" anything without seriously considering it; however, I don't find words in ancient MSS or people's stories particularly convincing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. a) A neutral observer is one who approaches history with the goal of attempting to ascertain precisely what actually happened. b) A neutral observer approaches all works, religious or otherwise, with no preconceptions. c) A neutral observer makes every attempt to be as objective as possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but must the observer remain permanently neutral in order to remain credible in your view?

I see nothing wrong with approaching religion and science from a neutral perspective.

Or are they permitted to actually draw conclusions based on the evidence that leads them to become believers?

I believe people should be permitted to do whatever they wish as long as they don't hurt others.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 7) Do you think all, most, or only some of the New Testament is anonymous?
As I have stated numerous times, the gospels are anonymously written. Some of the other NT works are possibly anonymously written, but that was never pertinent to this discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought it up.

No, Nomad brought up the question of whether or not books OTHER than the gospels were anonymously written. While I do feel it is important to find out the truth of the matter, it was not pertinent to our discussion of "Matthew" and its relationship to the other gospels.

Nomad: I wanted to know why you thought it was important. Now I see that you do not think that it was important. I just wish you had said that at the beginning and saved us a lot of time.

Nomad said it is not important; I said it is not pertinent to our discussion. Big difference.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: What is the hard evidence you use to support your belief?
As I have pointed out numerous times, the gospels were not signed and not one of them indicates by name in its text who wrote it. By definition, all the gospels are anonymous.


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

Okay, based on this narrow definition of anonymity, I can live with that. I thought you were trying to base an argument of some sort on this fact. Since you are not, we can drop this one as well.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Do you understand the difference between anonymous ancient texts, and unknowable authorship?
Yes, I do. One must wonder if Nomad knows what "anonymous" means.


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

Your answer is somewhat ambiguous here, but I will take your word for it. Besides, accepting the definition of anonymous as simply meaning unsigned, and nothing more, that is pretty simple. I appreciate that you are not trying to make a major case out of this minor detail.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 8) Why do you claim that we do not know who the author of John's gospel happens to be?
I don't claim anything. No one knows who wrote the anonymous work attributed to a person named "John." If the author were known, the authorship would not be disputed and no scholar would say it is anonymous.


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

So since the Holocaust is disputed, we can say that we do not know that it happened? Or that Oswald shot Kennedy, we cannot know if he did it?

This is a false analogy. The Holocaust and the Kennedy assassination occurred during modern times. We have film and pictures PLUS the eyewitness testimony of thousands with respect to the Holocaust, and scores with respect to the Kennedy assassination. Even with all the available evidence, some maintain that there was no holocaust (I believe there was) and that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter (I believe he was). Do we have film of the writer of "John?" No. Do we have pictures of the writer? No. Do we have scores of eyewitnesses who will testify to who actually wrote the fourth gospel? No. What we do have is an anonymous MS and people who enjoy speculating about who wrote it.

When you resort to such reductionist tactics, almost any form of knowledge is going to be tossed out of the window.

(Nomad is a man of labels. If someone isn't stupid, then he is dense. If he isn't dense, then he is daft. If he isn't daft, then he is a rookie. If he isn't a rookie, then he is a bigot, or a reductionist, or a fundamentalist, or a this or a that.) I don't "toss" anything "out the window." Nomad is fond of creating strawmen and then attacking them.

Nomad: I refer to such an attitude as hyper-scepticism, and while it is a position one can take, it does seem rather extreme.

Here we have another label. I have noticed that these labels are attached only to people who disagree with Nomad.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who CLAIMS to KNOW who wrote the fourth gospel, is blowing smoke. Of course, many SPECULATE about who the author MIGHT be, but no one knows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Penatis needs to define the term "knows". If he is saying "knows with 100% ironclad certainty", then I concede the point.

No. I don't ask for "100% ironclad certainty," but I do ask for evidence that would convince a neutral person.

Nomad: On the other hand, I don't think anyone can prove anything on such a limited definition (except maybe Socrates' famous admission that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing.)

Nomad created his own definition and then attacked it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 9) Do you uniformly reject all claims and beliefs you consider to be absurd?
If by "absurd" Nomad is referring to claims and beliefs that dead people have come back to life and appeared to live people, then, yes, I do reject those claims and beliefs.


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

Nope, this is not what I mean. So try again please.

Nomad needs to define "absurd."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason I reject those claims is because there is no evidence that dead people CAN come back to life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand (and I am assuming you do not mean NDE's here), if technology allows us to actually do this someday, you will believe it is possible?

First of all, let me say this about NDEs. A person is not dead until rigor mortis sets in. If Nomad KNOWS of anyone coming back to life after rigor mortis has set in, then he needs to let the scientific community in on his little secret. Those who have said they have experienced a NDE have not actually died. Second, if, at any time, science demonstrates that a dead person has come back to life, I will accept the reality of it. What I wonder is this: Why would anyone consider it a possibility?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Or do you admit that there are things that you simply do not understand, forcing you to rely upon the evidence offered by others (including evidence you do not understand as well due to a lack of expertise on your part)?
I "simply do not understand" why people believe in absurd things without the slightest bit of evidence. It doesn't take an "expert" to know that dead people don't come back to life.


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

Nomad: I won't quibble with your right to disbelieve in the resurrection(s).

This is tantamount to my saying, "I won't quibble with your right to disbelieve in the resurrection of Heracles and His ascension to the Heavenly Father, Zeus, the One Living God."

Nomad: That was not my question in any event. I only want to know if you believe in the absurd, even when you personally cannot understand what the person telling you about it is saying.

If Nomad is asking me if I believe in that which is "meaningless," then, no, I do not believe in it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: 10) Which century do most experts believe the codex was first used? Why is this an important question?
...I will offer this quote from the best "expert" available to me: "Early in the second century (or perhaps even at the close of the first century) the codex, or leaf-form of book, began to come into extensive use in the Church." Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, P. 6.


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

Actually, since Metzger's book, we now know that it actually was in use in the First Century AD.

Oh, really? Where is Nomad's evidence?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to why this question is important to Nomad, I haven't the slightest idea. Perhaps he knows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: The reason this is important is that until fairly recently, it was commonly accepted that Christians invented the codex in the second to third centuries AD, and that prior to that any MSS from the NT that was on a codex had to come from no later than this period in time. With the new evidence that the codex came into existence much earlier than this, many of the previous dates assigned to NT MSS texts will have to be re-evaluated and dates pushed back to reflect this new understanding.

Where is this mysterious "new evidence" that Nomad speaks of?

I didn’t read all of the source material that Bede listed because the sources were too scant in what was offered up. Penatis evidently re-read what material Bede must have had in mind. I only thought I would make a go of it with Iraeneus, by re-reading everything from Iraeneus AH 28th chapter, in books I, II, IV and V. No 28th chapter in Book III.

I’m not even sure if the word “resurrection” even gets mentioned once in any of these chapters, let along anything about Matthew 27:52-53 or any “resurrection of the saints.“ I’ve re-read it twice. It’s only about 15 minutes to read all four chapters in question. Book I was short enough, so it‘s definitely not there. Bede do you think you might be mistaken. If you don’t want to go back and try to find it, no problem, I understand about time constraints, and I don’t care to read all five books in their entirety myself either, so if you recollect that it was another chapter or other works altogether, I would appreciate it.

Here is the Catholic sight that I used to read from Iraeneus:

www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

John