Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-20-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

I'm not saying either. I am saying that number one he didn't have to know about it

Well he should have known about it if he talked to witnesses.

Quote:

and number two that not listing it is not an error.

It's not an error, it's a contradiction.

Quote:

Who knows? Point is there is not a contradiction just because there is more information in one than the other.

One account does not contain MORE information, it contains CONTRADICTORY information.

Quote:

Which event specifically? Of course I have never tried to say that any event happened twice so I am confused.

The first appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion.

Quote:

How can you make such bold definite proclaimations about who met who? With that kind of certainty YOU would have to be an eye witness to the writing of the autographs of the gospels. I don't think you are claiming that so I find your certainty curious.

What is it with all the strawmen in this thread? You can find my argument against the Gospels containing eyewitness accounts in this thread. The possibility that the authors had access to witnesses can be disproven by the texts themselves.

Quote:

It is your opinion that the authors of the bible are not the ones traditionally attached to each book. You cannot objectively prove a thing.

Sure I can. See the link above.

Quote:

I disagree. If you don't like the harmonization explanations then that is your choice and that means exactly zero to the rest of us.(or at least it should)

Whether I "like" the apolgetics is beside the point. The attempt to harmonize them at all is still ad hoc since there is no reason to do so unless you have a problem with contradictions.

Patriot7 · 04-20-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjs3

Check it out. Even the movie reviewers on CNN.Com seem to agree with the opinion here.

You're kidding me right? You mean a movie reviewer that works for CNN thinks the Gospels aren't really historical documents? Well goossshhhdannngg gommer!! Thatnks fur unlernin' me of all that nunsense!

Clearly, you're right. I mean you must be. People don't rise from the dead. It's impossible. Paul Clinton's view of the events of Christ's life as seen through his place in history are way more reliable then the authors of the NT.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-20-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.[/b] (Ref: Luke 1)

I think Luke is very clear about what he is saying. What's so hard to understand about that?

You're not going to get procrustean on me again are you? The text says what it says. The KJV uses the word "beginning" instead of "first". You've got more red herrings then a fish market on good friday.

[sigh] Luke is only saying that he researched written sources that he believed (wrongly) came from witnesses. We know this because we know what sources he copied from. Anyone who had access to primary witnesses would not have relied so heavily on secondary sources from non-witnesses. We also know that Luke-Acts was not written until the 90's-100's when all the alleged witnesses would have been dead. We also know that he got some historical facts wrong. His Nativity cannot be historical. He uses the Empty Tomb fiction from Mark. There is nothing in Luke's Gospel which cannot be shown to either to have derived from a secondary source or to be demonstrable fiction.

And you still don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction between primary and secondary accounts. You also don't appear to know what a red herring is.

Quote:

3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,
Do you really think Luke believes he didn't really mean the "beginning", beginning maybe he just meant something else, but wrote the word "beginning". Is that it?

He meant that he researched written sources. Nothing more. I can say that I 've researched the Crimean War from beginning to end. That wouldn't mean I was claiming to be a witness to any of it.

Quote:

Oh brother...here we go again, with you and your army of scholars that agree with you.

An appeal to authority is not an argument! How about I get my scholars together and you get your scholars together and we'll sit down over some red herrings and crow in my scarecrow field and play rock paper scissors until Christ returns?

This whole tack is a waste of time. We've already established that scholarly consensus is not on your side. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a factual observation. Whatever conclusion you draw from it is up to you.

Quote:

Come on bud. I want to see if I can do your theory justice. As a qualifier, if I'm not defending your view well you can buttress my arguments. What do you say? I won't ask again.

I have no idea what "theory" you're referring to.

Patriot7 · 04-20-2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

We've already established that scholarly consensus is not on your side.

If you say so my friend. :wave:

Odemus · 04-20-2006, 11:48 AM

I am really confounded that people are so willing to believe the spectacular claims of ancient texts. The Bible must be true because the people who wrote it tell us it is true and even claim to have witnessed miracles or know others who witnessed them, therefore it must all be true.:huh:

Garrett · 04-20-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Sven
I'm not aware of any other way to define a claim as true.

There is the coherence theory of truth.

I think the coherence theory describes how we actually determine truth in practice. Science, in effect, uses the coherence theory, not the correspondence theory.

We now return to our regularly scheduled wrestling match.

Patriot7 · 04-20-2006, 11:55 AM

I am really confounded that people are so willing to believe the spectacular claims of CNN movie reviewers, biblical scholars cited without reference, and opinions of internet discussion board posters with regards to reliable historical documents, that have been critiqued for hundreds of years. The Bible can't be true because the people who wrote it tell us about miracles and supernatural events, which are clearly works of Greek fiction. Therefore, all I have to do is entrench myself with a few key words and phrases like "consensus of scholars", twist the clear meaning of the texts and *poof* it all makes sense. :huh:

Odemus · 04-20-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

I am really confounded that people are so willing to believe the spectacular claims of CNN movie reviewers, biblical scholars cited without reference, and opinions of internet discussion board posters with regards to reliable historical documents, that have been critiqued for hundreds of years. The Bible can't be true because the people who wrote it tell us about miracles and supernatural events, which are clearly works of Greek fiction. Therefore, all I have to do is entrench myself with a few key words and phrases like "consensus of scholars", twist the clear meaning of the texts and *poof* it all makes sense. :huh:

Or you could choose not to suspend your critical faculties and join the ranks of rational thinkers.

Carl Sagan was absolutely right. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lots of religions claim miracles and attribute them to their own particular god. Why should I believe in yours? What evidence apart from the scribblings of ancient texts demonstrate that you have the correct take on reality?

RGD · 04-20-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

I am really confounded that people are so willing to believe the spectacular claims of CNN movie reviewers, biblical scholars cited without reference, and opinions of internet discussion board posters with regards to reliable historical documents, that have been critiqued for hundreds of years. The Bible can't be true because the people who wrote it tell us about miracles and supernatural events, which are clearly works of Greek fiction. Therefore, all I have to do is entrench myself with a few key words and phrases like "consensus of scholars", twist the clear meaning of the texts and *poof* it all makes sense. :huh:

As I recall, you were the one who railed against red herrings and strawmen.

And yet your entire post is red herrings and strawmen.

Applying some actual comprehension to what the posters here are saying (and DTG in particular) would help you immensely.

Patriot7 · 04-20-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortuna

Let me ask you this. In the synoptic gospels, just after Jesus and Co. have their passover meal, they go to the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus walks away from his followers and begins to pray. The narrator tells us of his prayer, of his sweating blood, but also tells us that he was away from his followers and that they had all fallen asleep. IOW, the narrator tells us that Jesus was alone and his followers were asleep.

Tell me Patriot7, if Jesus was away from his followers, and if they had all fallen asleep as the narrator says, then who was there to record this as actual history ?

Answer that question please !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke Chap 22

39Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." 41He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." 43An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

45When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46"Why are you sleeping?" he asked them. "Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation."

The only verses I see that are prima fascia problematic given your naturalistic interpretation would be 42-44. Luke mentions in verse 39 that it was usual for Christ to pray at this location. As evidenced by the blood and lack of open wounds on his head, I think the eyewitnesses could have safely assumed the hematohidrosis when He returned to rebuke them for their slumber.

Regarding verses 42-44....how long do you think it would take to witness that prayer? Is it possible that His disciples witnessed what happened in those verses before they fell asleep? We're talking about (18) words here. Matthew and Mark agree that one of the disciples was Peter, but makes no mention of the angel's appearance. So what are we to make of that? Did Matthew and Mark simply miss that detail? Clearly not a contradiction, but an interesting detail. As I don't understand how this would turn the cart-over on some major doctorine of the Christian faith, I must be honest and admit this doesn't create a problem for me! Did Christ pray at Gethsemane? I think that's obvious. Is it reasonable to assume he prayed for the Father's will in light of the upcoming events? I think so.

Your thoughts?

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

04-20-2006, 11:48 AM	#95
Odemus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Easy Street Posts: 736	I am really confounded that people are so willing to believe the spectacular claims of ancient texts. The Bible must be true because the people who wrote it tell us it is true and even claim to have witnessed miracles or know others who witnessed them, therefore it must all be true.:huh:

04-20-2006, 11:55 AM	#97
Patriot7 Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Southern California Posts: 887	I am really confounded that people are so willing to believe the spectacular claims of CNN movie reviewers, biblical scholars cited without reference, and opinions of internet discussion board posters with regards to reliable historical documents, that have been critiqued for hundreds of years. The Bible can't be true because the people who wrote it tell us about miracles and supernatural events, which are clearly works of Greek fiction. Therefore, all I have to do is entrench myself with a few key words and phrases like "consensus of scholars", twist the clear meaning of the texts and poof it all makes sense. :huh:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.