Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thentian · 08-09-2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

An interesting defense has developed by Chrisitans on this site: God was a bad writer/ inspirerer/ editor/ author of the Bible, but He was inerrant as to factual content--there are (it is alleged) no contradictions if you wrack your brains hard enough to reconcile different narratives of an overall unitary work.
A work that was created by a great author/ editor who was striving to be clear would not cause readers to wrack their brains over apparent narrative inconsistencies. I can understand abstruse doctrines about the meaning of it all being hard to grasp--but simple narrative consistency?-->nah, that shouldn't be a problem. As several of us on this thread have shown, a few simple changes in narrative portions of the scriptures would have made the narratives of the Resurrecution (and of Judas' death) clearly jibe in the way that Christian apologists say they do if you make enough allowances and imaginative additions. In other words, we atheists on this thread are better editors of narrative than your "ominipotent" God.

I am glad you were not consulted then on the writing of the gospels. matters of importance would be lost in the thousands of pages of technical manuals on who ate what, who said what, and who went to the bathroom when.

~steve

Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

wow, you make false assumptions about modern day writings as well. none of these were frantically written right after the event. the story of the 20th hijacker is long after.

So the gospels are like newspaper commentaries on specific aspects of the story, then?

jab · 08-09-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

An interesting defense has developed by Chrisitans on this site: God was a bad writer/ inspirerer/ editor/ author of the Bible, but He was inerrant as to factual content--there are (it is alleged) no contradictions if you wrack your brains hard enough to reconcile different narratives of an overall unitary work.
A work that was created by a great author/ editor who was striving to be clear would not cause readers to wrack their brains over apparent narrative inconsistencies. I can understand abstruse doctrines about the meaning of it all being hard to grasp--but simple narrative consistency?-->nah, that shouldn't be a problem. As several of us on this thread have shown, a few simple changes in narrative portions of the scriptures would have made the narratives of the Resurrecution (and of Judas' death) clearly jibe in the way that Christian apologists say they do if you make enough allowances and imaginative additions. In other words, we atheists on this thread are better editors of narrative than your "ominipotent" God.

I am glad you were not consulted then on the writing of the gospels. matters of importance would be lost in the thousands of pages of technical manuals on who ate what, who said what, and who went to the bathroom when.

~steve

No, dozens of words added to the NT; not thousands of pages.
In the case of Judas' death, for example, one account or the other could be shortened to conform with the other. One could simply say, "In the days following the cruxifixion, Judas hanged himself" and the other make mention of the field purchase by whomever, the hanging, the subsequent splitting open from the fall (from the presently alleged tree), the renaming of the field.
In this case the longer account amplifies the first account without appearing to contradict it, and fewer words altogether are spent.

sschlichter · 08-09-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Matthew was written to a Jewish audience.
~Steve

This is erroneous and mis-leading information.

You don't know who wrote gMatthew, when it was written, the original language in which it was written, when it was first circulated and when Jews first saw the gMatthew.

Philo and Josephus made no mention of any author named Matthew who wrote anything for the Jewish audience and Justin Martyr never recorded that some-one called Matthew wrote a gospel.

Not that it matters, but Papias , Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen are the reasons that the church beleive Matthew wrote the book.

Internally, the book is plainly Jewish in its content and argument regardless of whom you beleive wrote it - and this is what is relevant to the discussion at hand, so don't bother with your blanket refutation of all apologetic sources.

~Steve

sschlichter · 08-09-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I am glad you were not consulted then on the writing of the gospels. matters of importance would be lost in the thousands of pages of technical manuals on who ate what, who said what, and who went to the bathroom when.

~steve

No, dozens of words added to the NT; not thousands of pages.
In the case of Judas' death, for example, one account or the other could be shortened to conform with the other. One could simply say, "In the days following the cruxifixion, Judas hanged himself" and the other make mention of the field purchase by whomever, the hanging, the subsequent splitting open from the fall (from the presently alleged tree), the renaming of the field.
In this case the longer account amplifies the first account without appearing to contradict it, and fewer words altogether are spent.

really? this is the only detail that you find deficient? I find that hard to beleive. You do not know how tall Judas was, his favorite color, what he liked to eat. Only Matthew says he betrayed Christ with a kiss. Only Luke says that he stole money as the treasurer. Suppose Matthew and Luke got together on the details of his death. Why are these other "differences" not just as un-satisfactory to you?

What less than a 3 year running video recording of Jesus public life would be adequate?

aa5874 · 08-09-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is erroneous and mis-leading information.

You don't know who wrote gMatthew, when it was written, the original language in which it was written, when it was first circulated and when Jews first saw the gMatthew.

Philo and Josephus made no mention of any author named Matthew who wrote anything for the Jewish audience and Justin Martyr never recorded that some-one called Matthew wrote a gospel.

Not that it matters, but Papias , Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen are the reasons that the church beleive Matthew wrote the book.

Internally, the book is plainly Jewish in its content and argument regardless of whom you beleive wrote it - and this is what is relevant to the discussion at hand, so don't bother with your blanket refutation of all apologetic sources.

~Steve

Tell me what is Jewish about the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus.

Biblical scholars claim gMatthew is likely to have been written after gMark and probably very late in the 1st century or beyond.

And Superman was born on Krypton, based on your logics, then Superman was written for a Kryptonite audience.

aChristian · 08-09-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Not that it matters, but Papias , Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen are the reasons that the church beleive Matthew wrote the book.

Internally, the book is plainly Jewish in its content and argument regardless of whom you beleive wrote it - and this is what is relevant to the discussion at hand, so don't bother with your blanket refutation of all apologetic sources.

~Steve

Tell me what is Jewish about the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus.
]

Isaiah was Jewish and he knew about it 700 years before Jesus was born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[
Biblical scholars claim gMatthew is likely to have been written after gMark and probably very late in the 1st century or beyond.
]

Biblical scholars claim (and the evidence points to it) that Matthew was written first probably from 35 AD to 60 AD.

aa5874 · 08-09-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Tell me what is Jewish about the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus.
]

Isaiah was Jewish and he knew about it 700 years before Jesus was born.

Jesus was born? You mean there was really an offspring of the Holy Ghostt 700 years after Isaiah?

Tell me who SAW him? Philo and Josephus did not write about the offspring of the Holy thing called Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[
Biblical scholars claim gMatthew is likely to have been written after gMark and probably very late in the 1st century or beyond.
]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Biblical scholars claim (and the evidence points to it) that Matthew was written first probably from 35 AD to 60 AD.

Perhaps those biblical scholars still think that Eusebius can be trusted. Read Church History and you will see that he is not credible.

alya73 · 08-10-2008, 04:05 AM

That you're arguing over only cannonized gospels is quite interesting. No one mentions any non cannonized gospels because of authentification issues.(the very same issues the cannoized ones have.) Yet these same apologists are most likely NOT Catholic and therefore likely hold very anti-catholic views. The catholics are the ones that cannonized the bible, you're all going by they're work, yet they're evil evil evil.

If said apologists are catholic...my bad.

sschlichter · 08-10-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Not that it matters, but Papias , Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen are the reasons that the church beleive Matthew wrote the book.

Internally, the book is plainly Jewish in its content and argument regardless of whom you beleive wrote it - and this is what is relevant to the discussion at hand, so don't bother with your blanket refutation of all apologetic sources.

~Steve

Tell me what is Jewish about the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus.

Biblical scholars claim gMatthew is likely to have been written after gMark and probably very late in the 1st century or beyond.

And Superman was born on Krypton, based on your logics, then Superman was written for a Kryptonite audience.

This is why I passed on having this discussion (or any) with you. some things are so basic to understanding - one, is understanding as much as you can about the author and the audience. Regardless of when it was written, liberal and conservative scholars alike believe it was written by a Jew in a Jewish context. I am not making any claims about the person who wrote it or when. Only about the likely context because it is germaine to the point I am making.

Here, I pulled this quote off of www.earlychristianwritings.com. Hardly the last bastion of fundamentalism.

The author is an anonymous Jewish-Christian. Eduard Schweizer writes (The Good News according to Matthew, p. 16):

The Jewish background is plain. Jewish customs are familiar to everyone (see the discussion of 15:5), the debate about the law is a central question (see the discussion of 5:17-20), and the Sabbath is still observed (see the discussion of 24:20). The dispute with the Pharisees serves primarily as a warning to the community (see the introduction to chapters 24-25); but a reference to leading representatives of the Synagogue is not far below the surface. Above all, the method of learned interpretation of the Law, which "looses" and "binds," was still central for Matthew and his community (see the discussion of 16:19; 18:18). Preservation of sayings, such as 23:2-3, which support the continued authority of Pharisaic teaching, and above all the special emphasis placed on the requirement not to offend those who still think in legalistic terms (see the discussion of 17:24-27), shows that dialogue with the Jewish Synagogue had not broken off. On the other hand, a saying like 27:25 shows that the Christian community had conclusively split with the Synagogues, even though hope for the conversion of Jews was not yet totally dead.

Do we need to also discuss the fact that the author of Luke was not Jewish? or are you of the beleif that Darth Eusebius got in his time machine and wrote both of them in the 1st century?

~steve

sschlichter · 08-10-2008, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alya73

That you're arguing over only cannonized gospels is quite interesting. No one mentions any non cannonized gospels because of authentification issues.(the very same issues the cannoized ones have.) Yet these same apologists are most likely NOT Catholic and therefore likely hold very anti-catholic views. The catholics are the ones that cannonized the bible, you're all going by they're work, yet they're evil evil evil.

If said apologists are catholic...my bad.

aa is the only person who is arguing canonization issues. I get the impression he is not Catholic.

canonization was long before any of this. Protestants were contesting medieval catholic practices not disassociating themselves from early church fathers. All Christians share the same heritage prior to this.

I am protestant but I love Catholics and learn much from them and do not beleive they are any more evil than I am.

~steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2008, 04:05 AM	#888
alya73 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: west Posts: 57	That you're arguing over only cannonized gospels is quite interesting. No one mentions any non cannonized gospels because of authentification issues.(the very same issues the cannoized ones have.) Yet these same apologists are most likely NOT Catholic and therefore likely hold very anti-catholic views. The catholics are the ones that cannonized the bible, you're all going by they're work, yet they're evil evil evil. If said apologists are catholic...my bad.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.