Freethought & Rationalism Archive

IamJoseph · 08-06-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

No, he only condemns the Pharisees, the scribes, and the teachers of the law. He has one run in with the group that the gospel writers take the time out to designate as "Sadducees" and the entire pericope ends with the Sadducees saying "Hey you're right!" and we never hear from them again.

If the gospel writers knew their history, they would know that the caricature of the Pharisees in their gospels more closely resembles the Sadducees - not the Pharisees. I think it's one line of evidence that the gospels were written when the Pharisees were emerging as the dominant political group of Jews - after the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

Alexander Jannaeus, who was a supporter of the Sadducees and antagonist of the Pharisees, upon taking power had 800 Pharisee Jews crucified and had their wives and children's throats slit right in front of their faces while they were hanging on their crosses. Jesus picked the wrong group of Jews to save his condemnation for.

Either way, Jesus condemns every single Pharisee but never condemns every single Sadducee - while the Sadducees were the more brutal and legalistic of the two.

The Sadducees followed the written Torah given by Moses to the letter. The Pharisees believed in the same written law of Moses, but also had a tradition of an "Oral Torah" that was handed down to lessen the restrictions on the bare written law (e.g. an eye for an eye is not to be taken literally). The Sadducees rejected this oral Torah; this oral Torah eventually was compiled in the Talmud.

The Sanhedrin consisted of both Sadducees and Pharisees and his conflict with religious leaders was ultimately with this body of 71. I would expect Sadducees to have little interest in Jesus (outside of political self-persrvation). They did not beleive in resurrection, demons, angels and basically held to a syncretism between Judaism and Greek thought. They held to the greek idea that death was permanent (according to Josephus). The Pharisees were more popular (being layman from among the people) and much more interested in putting a stop to Jesus' rise in popularity.

Sadducees were likely a minority and this also lends itself to less conflict. They were often at odds with Pharisees and this would be a good reason to leave jesus alone at times because of his conflicts with Pharisees. However, they were more numerous at higher levels of government and were likely the majority of the Sanhedrin. The more generic term 'experts in the law' is mentioned 59 times in the gospels and is just as likely to include Sadducees as anyone else. In fact, it is defintely not referring to Pharisees because they are both referenced in Matt 5:20 - 'experts in the law' AND 'the Pharisees'. it is probably a mistkae ot think of these groups as that monolithic. I expert the lines were blurry and each represented schools of thought.

Regardless, the contact that is recorded included plenty of condemnation. the gospels condemned them specifically by name in Matt 3 (as a brood of vipers), 16 (yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees), and 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20. there is no reason to attempt to back fill storyline into the degree of conflicts.

The applicable issue here is, what if the Gospels is totally false - including its reports of a trial and all the listed apostles. This is not a hypothetical question - it is disputed by Jews, muslims, history and there is not a shred of evidence of anything in the Gospels. Also, Jews have no history of revelling in the death of another Jew, whether they liked him or not, and if the Gospel report is true, one cannot disagree the Jews did a terrible thing. The entire issue of a sacrifice by jesus, its main claim, makes no sense at all - not when there is a decree of heresy hovering over all Jews in Judea.

That the Gospels does not even mention the sacrifice of a million Jews, clearly makes it a terrible lie-by-omission. One must imagine their entire nation being wiped out and it is not even mentioned in a supposed book dealing with God and belief. You think!

J-D · 08-06-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

#1 is very much contested and based on the archeological interpretation of a brilliant but discredited archeologist. #2, #3, and #4 are just downright hilarious.

The above picks are eronously dealt with. E.g. the lady archeologist who made claims about Jericho has been overturned.

Which archaeologist was that and how was she overturned? (And how is it relevant whether she was a lady?)

But if you don't like that example, I can easily give you another: Daniel 5:31. Never happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Now one may raise discrepensies with the numerous translations via hebrew to greek, latin, english, where millions of numbers are encumbent in the hebrew books. One such error is highlighted concerning the wheels in chariots! The basic historicity here is not effected, and remains the most dependable writings in existence - in direct contrast of the NT and Quran.

I take it you are now conceding that there are false statements in the Hebrew Bible. And you have given no grounds for the assertion that they are the most dependable writings in existence.

IamJoseph · 08-06-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The above picks are eronously dealt with. E.g. the lady archeologist who made claims about Jericho has been overturned.

Which archaeologist was that and how was she overturned? (And how is it relevant whether she was a lady?)

I don't remeber her name, accept she was a female archeologist. The reports about Jericho are simply nonesense. There are 100's of surrounding factors which allign with the texts, and the datings issue is too small a margin to be considered applicable. C14 is no good for small time margins.

Quote:

I take it you are now conceding that there are false statements in the Hebrew Bible. And you have given no grounds for the assertion that they are the most dependable writings in existence.

No one 'knows' about biblical pasts - all we can do is estimate the validity of a writings. IMHO, there is no equavalence with the Hebrew bible's veracty and that of the NT. One has over 70% vindicated, the other has zero.

Aside from this, the import of the texts in the NT has no validity - it has no laws for humanity, is racist, having introduced antisemitisim based on antithetically false charges, describing other belief systems as non-believers and thus subject to negation, and the mass murder of millions. Of course, the Hebrew is the most credible writings humanity possesses, by period of time, volume of works, and vindication. What else is there which can compare?

J-D · 08-06-2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Which archaeologist was that and how was she overturned? (And how is it relevant whether she was a lady?)

I don't remeber her name, accept she was a female archeologist.

Her name is not the most important question. You didn't answer my other questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The reports about Jericho are simply nonesense.

Despite what you say, the consensus view of archaeologists continues to accept them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

There are 100's of surrounding factors which allign with the texts,

Hundreds, eh? I defy you to list six.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

and the datings issue is too small a margin to be considered applicable. C14 is no good for small time margins.

Quote:

I take it you are now conceding that there are false statements in the Hebrew Bible. And you have given no grounds for the assertion that they are the most dependable writings in existence.

No one 'knows' about biblical pasts - all we can do is estimate the validity of a writings.

And I have shown you that there are a number of statements in the Hebrew Bible which are best estimated as false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

IMHO, there is no equavalence with the Hebrew bible's veracty and that of the NT. One has over 70% vindicated, the other has zero.

There is absolutely no basis for your figure of 'over 70%'. You made that up out of thin air. Equally, your estimation of the New Testament is wrong. There are references in the New Testament which are historically accurate. Which of the two has greater historical reliability? I don't see how one could even begin to make a comparison. To begin with, the proportion of the two compilations devoted to material presented as historical accounts is different. It may be, nevertheless, that a proper systematic comparison could be done and it may be that such a comparison would show that the Hebrew Bible is of more value as a historical source. So what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Aside from this, the import of the texts in the NT has no validity - it has no laws for humanity, is racist, having introduced antisemitisim based on antithetically false charges, describing other belief systems as non-believers and thus subject to negation, and the mass murder of millions. Of course, the Hebrew is the most credible writings humanity possesses, by period of time, volume of works, and vindication. What else is there which can compare?

You seem to be confusing two different things: a comparison of the Hebrew Bible with the New Testament, and a comparison of the Hebrew Bible with everything else ever written. On the subject of historicity alone, for example, even if the Hebrew Bible is a more useful historical source than the New Testament, that would not make it a more useful historical source than, say, for the sake of example, Herodotus or Sima Qian. And as for volume, I have already pointed out to you that sheer bulk proves nothing, as in the case of the Mahabharata, which is a far more extensive work than the Hebrew Bible.

IamJoseph · 08-07-2009, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Her name is not the most important question. You didn't answer my other questions.Despite what you say, the consensus view of archaeologists continues to accept them.Hundreds, eh? I defy you to list six.

You should know how archeology works and what constitutes surrounding proof: 90% of all determinations are based on 'NAMES'. Here is a cursory flicking from just two stray chapters of Joshua, of names of people, kings, cities, wars, routes, aerial terrain depictions, weapons and materials used in that time. And no - names cannot be made retrospectively - the reason they constitute a valid archeological determination. A flase name is easily found out - specially when two names appear in the same sentence, and one of those names can be secured elsewhere with contradicting dates. This book lists for the first time, the Jebusites - and in a later book [Kings], David purchases a hilltop from this people and established Jerusalem - is that proven false? Did the kings of the amorites NOT reign with the king of the canaanites? Is Arabah NOT near the salt sea? Are Shihon and Og mythical? These names are first time historical recordings and they are all authentic of their times, and none have been proven false:

Quote:

1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two spies

whose name was Rahab,

it was told the king of Jericho

And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying

and hid them with the stalks of flax

when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites

that were beyond the Jordan, unto Sihon and to Og

the city that is beside Zarethan;

went down toward the sea of the Arabah, even the Salt Sea

And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites

at Gibeath-ha-araloth.

And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal

brought them up unto the valley of Achor

And when the men of Ai looked behind them,

half of them in front of mount Gerizim and half of them

And it came to pass, when all the kings that were beyond the Jordan, in the hill-country, and in the Lowland, and on all the shore of the Great Sea in front of Lebanon, the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, heard thereof, 2 that they gathered themselves together

the two kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon, and to Og king of Bashan, who was at Ashtaroth

Quote:

And I have shown you that there are a number of statements in the Hebrew Bible which are best estimated as false.

You have not.

Quote:

There is absolutely no basis for your figure of 'over 70%'. You made that up out of thin air.

I would say more than 70%. If the non-provable miracles are left out, there are no provable stats which have been disproven.

Quote:

Equally, your estimation of the New Testament is wrong. There are references in the New Testament which are historically accurate. Which of the two has greater historical reliability? I don't see how one could even begin to make a comparison. To begin with, the proportion of the two compilations devoted to material presented as historical accounts is different. It may be, nevertheless, that a proper systematic comparison could be done and it may be that such a comparison would show that the Hebrew Bible is of more value as a historical source. So what?

But that is an anomoly. The NT is relatively recent, and in a period when writings and archiving was commonplace for 300 prior to this time - and not a single apostle verifiable? There are names which may be historical of the period in the NT, but here it is of no merit, because they are names numerously written before the NT emergence, while none of its listed figures can be historically verified. It is a spectacular human calamity that Europe accepted everything in the NT no questions asked. The truth is, today's christian ancesters had no choice here - and they got their belief only via firey preachers who never had a clue about this region. Now the belief has been ingrained just like one absorbes a language they are borne into.

Quote:

You seem to be confusing two different things: a comparison of the Hebrew Bible with the New Testament, and a comparison of the Hebrew Bible with everything else ever written. On the subject of historicity alone, for example, even if the Hebrew Bible is a more useful historical source than the New Testament, that would not make it a more useful historical source than, say, for the sake of example, Herodotus or Sima Qian. And as for volume, I have already pointed out to you that sheer bulk proves nothing, as in the case of the Mahabharata, which is a far more extensive work than the Hebrew Bible.

Yes, I did mean, provocatively, more historical than any other writings in existence. In fact there are more first time listings of history here than anything else. This is not an opinion but a fact. Feel free to pose another candidate with more historicity. :wave:

sschlichter · 08-07-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Also, Jews have no history of revelling in the death of another Jew, whether they liked him or not, and if the Gospel report is true, one cannot disagree the Jews did a terrible thing.

Talmud on the execution of some Jewish guy named Jesus.

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Quote:

That the Gospels does not even mention the sacrifice of a million Jews, clearly makes it a terrible lie-by-omission. One must imagine their entire nation being wiped out and it is not even mentioned in a supposed book dealing with God and belief. You think!

your accusation assumes the gospels were written after AD70. If you read the revelation, I think you will come to the conclusion that the author is pissed off over that as well.

J-D · 08-07-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Her name is not the most important question. You didn't answer my other questions.Despite what you say, the consensus view of archaeologists continues to accept them.Hundreds, eh? I defy you to list six.

You should know how archeology works and what constitutes surrounding proof: 90% of all determinations are based on 'NAMES'. Here is a cursory flicking from just two stray chapters of Joshua, of names of people, kings, cities, wars, routes, aerial terrain depictions, weapons and materials used in that time. And no - names cannot be made retrospectively - the reason they constitute a valid archeological determination. A flase name is easily found out - specially when two names appear in the same sentence, and one of those names can be secured elsewhere with contradicting dates. This book lists for the first time, the Jebusites - and in a later book [Kings], David purchases a hilltop from this people and established Jerusalem - is that proven false? Did the kings of the amorites NOT reign with the king of the canaanites? Is Arabah NOT near the salt sea? Are Shihon and Og mythical? These names are first time historical recordings and they are all authentic of their times, and none have been proven false:

1. Archaeology does not depend on names. Archaeologists frequently investigate societies and cultures for which there are no written records at all.

2. As I have previously pointed out to you, the fact that a text contains a large number of names is no evidence of historical accuracy. The works of Tolkien, for example, are full of names, but they have no historical significance whatsoever.

3. The names you mention--Sihon, Og, and Jebusite--are all uncorroborated by archaeological evidence. They do not appear anywhere independently of the Hebrew Bible.

4. You have failed to meet the challenge of listing details from the text (of the Biblical account of the Exodus) which align with independent evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

You have not.

You have not explained why you think any of the statements I mentioned as examples is not false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I would say more than 70%. If the non-provable miracles are left out, there are no provable stats which have been disproven.

You can say it as often as you like, but you have still shown nothing to back it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

But that is an anomoly. The NT is relatively recent, and in a period when writings and archiving was commonplace for 300 prior to this time - and not a single apostle verifiable? There are names which may be historical of the period in the NT, but here it is of no merit, because they are names numerously written before the NT emergence, while none of its listed figures can be historically verified. It is a spectacular human calamity that Europe accepted everything in the NT no questions asked. The truth is, today's christian ancesters had no choice here - and they got their belief only via firey preachers who never had a clue about this region. Now the belief has been ingrained just like one absorbes a language they are borne into.

Is your point that Christianity is false? Of course it's false. All religions are false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

You seem to be confusing two different things: a comparison of the Hebrew Bible with the New Testament, and a comparison of the Hebrew Bible with everything else ever written. On the subject of historicity alone, for example, even if the Hebrew Bible is a more useful historical source than the New Testament, that would not make it a more useful historical source than, say, for the sake of example, Herodotus or Sima Qian. And as for volume, I have already pointed out to you that sheer bulk proves nothing, as in the case of the Mahabharata, which is a far more extensive work than the Hebrew Bible.

Yes, I did mean, provocatively, more historical than any other writings in existence. In fact there are more first time listings of history here than anything else. This is not an opinion but a fact. Feel free to pose another candidate with more historicity. :wave:

I just did, two of them, but apparently you didn't notice. You don't seem to pay much attention to what I post.

sschlichter · 08-07-2009, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

You should know how archeology works and what constitutes surrounding proof: 90% of all determinations are based on 'NAMES'. Here is a cursory flicking from just two stray chapters of Joshua, of names of people, kings, cities, wars, routes, aerial terrain depictions, weapons and materials used in that time. And no - names cannot be made retrospectively - the reason they constitute a valid archeological determination. A flase name is easily found out - specially when two names appear in the same sentence, and one of those names can be secured elsewhere with contradicting dates. This book lists for the first time, the Jebusites - and in a later book [Kings], David purchases a hilltop from this people and established Jerusalem - is that proven false? Did the kings of the amorites NOT reign with the king of the canaanites? Is Arabah NOT near the salt sea? Are Shihon and Og mythical? These names are first time historical recordings and they are all authentic of their times, and none have been proven false:

1. Archaeology does not depend on names. Archaeologists frequently investigate societies and cultures for which there are no written records at all.

2. As I have previously pointed out to you, the fact that a text contains a large number of names is no evidence of historical accuracy. The works of Tolkien, for example, are full of names, but they have no historical significance whatsoever.

3. The names you mention--Sihon, Og, and Jebusite--are all uncorroborated by archaeological evidence. They do not appear anywhere independently of the Hebrew Bible.

4. You have failed to meet the challenge of listing details from the text (of the Biblical account of the Exodus) which align with independent evidence.You have not explained why you think any of the statements I mentioned as examples is not false.You can say it as often as you like, but you have still shown nothing to back it up.Is your point that Christianity is false? Of course it's false. All religions are false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Yes, I did mean, provocatively, more historical than any other writings in existence. In fact there are more first time listings of history here than anything else. This is not an opinion but a fact. Feel free to pose another candidate with more historicity. :wave:

I just did, two of them, but apparently you didn't notice. You don't seem to pay much attention to what I post.

So then there were guards at the tomb of Jesus.

Lugubert · 08-07-2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Disagree. The Hebrew bible does not say Jews or anyone else are born of the devil [Gospels] or apes [Quran].

The way I read, you say that the Qur'an mentions that some? humans are born by apes. I have tried to find a similar statement, but failed. Please explain what you mean, and from which verse you get that impression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Her name is not the most important question. You didn't answer my other questions.Despite what you say, the consensus view of archaeologists continues to accept them.Hundreds, eh? I defy you to list six.

The Jericho question has been discussed at length. There should be threads around here, but I have no time to search thoroughly enough. The way I remember them, it has all too obviously several times been proved that the OT narrative doesn't fit archaeologists' finds, on Jericho or most any other OT story.

Quote:

I would say more than 70%. If the non-provable miracles are left out, there are no provable stats which have been disproven.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative, and it's up to you, claiming the positive, to provide positive proof. You constantly fail.

Quote:

The NT is relatively recent, and in a period when writings and archiving was commonplace for 300 prior to this time - and not a single apostle verifiable?

Here, of course, I agree with you, The NT is as empty of facts as is the OT.

sschlichter · 08-07-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Disagree. The Hebrew bible does not say Jews or anyone else are born of the devil [Gospels] or apes [Quran].

The way I read, you say that the Qur'an mentions that some? humans are born by apes. I have tried to find a similar statement, but failed. Please explain what you mean, and from which verse you get that impression.

The Jericho question has been discussed at length. There should be threads around here, but I have no time to search thoroughly enough. The way I remember them, it has all too obviously several times been proved that the OT narrative doesn't fit archaeologists' finds, on Jericho or most any other OT story.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative, and it's up to you, claiming the positive, to provide positive proof. You constantly fail.

Quote:

The NT is relatively recent, and in a period when writings and archiving was commonplace for 300 prior to this time - and not a single apostle verifiable?

Here, of course, I agree with you, The NT is as empty of facts as is the OT.

I have noticed an assumption that an issue is resolved if it has been battered around previously on this site. The Jericho issue is very much alive even though you have discussed it before.

Writing and archiving was on papyrus at this time. Find me a document from that time that enjoys more support than the NT.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.